I find it illogical that Baptists conflate their position on credobaptism with a position on the mode of baptism. The arguments and consequences of those arguments for each position are very different but they are presented as an inevitible logical package.

As has been pointed out the insistence (rather than the strong preference) on mode is very hard to defend, either theologically or historically.

The rather counterintuitive conclusion that arises is also that Baptists have a rather low (in a theological rather than a moral sense) view of baptism.

A Presbyterian would not accept anyone who has not been baptised as a member of the Church, baptism is so important it is not optional. A Baptist does not accept that a presbyterian has been baptised but still accepts that person as a member of the Church.

For a Baptist the administration of baptism is subjective (was it a real profession of faith, did the baptised really feel repentant, was the water deep enough?) wheras for a presbyterian it is an objective fact.

I do not think that paedobaptists such as myself should get too worked up on this subject as we have no problem with believers baptism as being valid and the mode of baptism is of limited importance, there is also historical acceptance of their position. It is much more a problem for Baptists and how they are able to have fellowship with those they see as unbaptised. However it is an important point and it is unsatisfactory to just repeat what a confession says.

__________________
Mike
London City Presbyterian Church
London
England

"Surely, we wish to be orthodox, but we must first learn what real orthodoxy is. Surely, we wish to be progressive, but we must first have a basis to progress from."