While discussing this topic with someone last evening, I began to think of the various views on Baptism and the result was some questions I hadn't thought about before.
I to hold to paedo baptism out of my study of the scriptures on covenant theology. I became a paedo baptist for two reasons (very simply put, I know there is more to it):
1. As I see it (of course I may be wrong) sprinkling is the correct "mode" of baptism.
2. Baptising an infant seems to fit in with covenant theology.
In recent months, I have learned that some baptise infants by immersion. Also, I believe that if someone has not been baptised after they have come to the Lord, they should seek baptism. (I say by sprinkling)
I can think of at least four (possibly 5) circumstances under which someone might be baptised:
1. Infant baptism by sprinkling
2. Infant baptism by immersion (Greek orthodox)
3. Baptism after conversion when the person was not baptised as an infant (usually sprinkling)
4. Baptism after conversion only (immersion)
5. Baptism after conversion only (sprinkling) does anyone do this?
We classify those who perform the first 3 categories as paedo baptists and those in the last two (if there are two) as credo baptists. And this makes sense to a point.
Isn't circumstance 3 also credo baptism? I realize I might be splitting hairs here, but the more I think about it, the more I wonder if the difference isn't more about "mode" than it is about baptism after conversion.
Any thoughts?
__________________ J Baldwin
Keowee Presbyterian Church, PCA
Pickens, SC “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” Luke 10:27
FYI: It has also been the Anglican view to baptise infants by immersion hence Wesley got into some bother in our Colonies.
The issue is whether we ought baptise upon a profession of faith only. Credo say "yes" whilst Paedos say "no". The mode is irrelevent.
I agree. Even the early Anabaptists were not concerned with the mode so much. They were concerned with the subject (candidate) of baptism. They still practiced effusion (sprinkling / pouring).
I do however think that in modern times most (if not all) Credo ONLY churches are also Immersion ONLY but they are not necessarily connected.
__________________
Steve Butts - Former SBC-er
Three Forms of Unity - Bradenton CRC - Bradenton, Florida (A conservative member in a conservative congregation)
...
I can think of at least four (possibly 5) circumstances under which someone might be baptised:
1. Infant baptism by sprinkling
2. Infant baptism by immersion (Greek orthodox)
3. Baptism after conversion when the person was not baptised as an infant (usually sprinkling)
4. Baptism after conversion only (immersion)
5. Baptism after conversion only (sprinkling) does anyone do this?
...
Any thoughts?
Suppose a credo becomes convinced of paedo and moves his family to a church that practices paedo. His children are grammar-school age and not ready to profess faith. They were not baptized as infants because the parents were credo at the time.
The Session encourages the father to consider having baptism administered to the children and he agrees. Is that a 1 or 2 or would you consider that another circumstance?
...
I can think of at least four (possibly 5) circumstances under which someone might be baptised:
1. Infant baptism by sprinkling
2. Infant baptism by immersion (Greek orthodox)
3. Baptism after conversion when the person was not baptised as an infant (usually sprinkling)
4. Baptism after conversion only (immersion)
5. Baptism after conversion only (sprinkling) does anyone do this?
...
Any thoughts?
Suppose a credo becomes convinced of paedo and moves his family to a church that practices paedo. His children are grammar-school age and not ready to profess faith. They were not baptized as infants because the parents were credo at the time.
The Session encourages the father to consider having baptism administered to the children and he agrees. Is that a 1 or 2 or would you consider that another circumstance?
I think since the father is making the decision it would fall into 1 or 2, as I see 3 as being baptism as a confession of faith.
__________________ J Baldwin
Keowee Presbyterian Church, PCA
Pickens, SC “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” Luke 10:27
FYI: It has also been the Anglican view to baptise infants by immersion hence Wesley got into some bother in our Colonies.
The issue is whether we ought baptise upon a profession of faith only. Credo say "yes" whilst Paedos say "no". The mode is irrelevent.
I agree. Even the early Anabaptists were not concerned with the mode so much. They were concerned with the subject (candidate) of baptism. They still practiced effusion (sprinkling / pouring).
I do however think that in modern times most (if not all) Credo ONLY churches are also Immersion ONLY but they are not necessarily connected.
I was not aware that the anabaptists sprinkled/poured. I was always led to believe that they were strict immersionists. When I was a baptist, the Anabaptists were always used as an example of why we shouldn't sprinkle/pour. Hmmm.
__________________ J Baldwin
Keowee Presbyterian Church, PCA
Pickens, SC “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” Luke 10:27
I was not aware that the anabaptists sprinkled/poured. I was always led to believe that they were strict immersionists. When I was a baptist, the Anabaptists were always used as an example of why we shouldn't sprinkle/pour. Hmmm.
Immersion was a second generation Baptist practice. The original concern was for the proper candidates, mode was clearly secondary. Today, most Baptist pastors with little knowledge of history confuse the two so that it is almost as if they are merged.
__________________
Dennis E. McFadden, Ex Mainline Baptist (in Remission)
Atherton Baptist Homes, CEO
First Baptist Church of Alhambra, Member, Transformation Ministries (CA)
Before Immersion was the norm among the English Baptist they all Sprinkled... All the Mainland European Baptist Sprinkle except the Dunkers... Those baptistic groups that sprinkle on Main Europe would include Mennonites, Amish, Brethren, German Baptist, Hutterites and other Anabaptist groups.......
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBaldwin
5. Baptism after conversion only (sprinkling) does anyone do this?
__________________
Michael Daniels
Reformed, RPCNA
Denton, Maryland
[i][b]As For Me And My House, We Will Serve The Lord[/i][/b]
[SIZE="1"][I][FONT="Century Gothic"]Unum Deum in Trinitate: Pater, Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus [RIGHT]Sola scriptura - Sola gratia - Sola fide - Solus Christus - Soli Deo gloria - Solum psalterium - Lex talionis[/RIGHT][/FONT][/I][/SIZE]
...
I can think of at least four (possibly 5) circumstances under which someone might be baptised:
1. Infant baptism by sprinkling
2. Infant baptism by immersion (Greek orthodox)
3. Baptism after conversion when the person was not baptised as an infant (usually sprinkling)
4. Baptism after conversion only (immersion)
5. Baptism after conversion only (sprinkling) does anyone do this?
...
Any thoughts?
Suppose a credo becomes convinced of paedo and moves his family to a church that practices paedo. His children are grammar-school age and not ready to profess faith. They were not baptized as infants because the parents were credo at the time.
The Session encourages the father to consider having baptism administered to the children and he agrees. Is that a 1 or 2 or would you consider that another circumstance?
I think since the father is making the decision it would fall into 1 or 2, as I see 3 as being baptism as a confession of faith.
I just went through almost exactly this scenario. I've moved from credo to paedo in the past year and recently had my four-year-old baptized because of my convictions.
I think at this age and older it becomes a slightly different circumstance than those listed above.
Not only must the parent(s) have saving faith but the child must have not rejected Christ. It's not exactly credo for the child, but they can't be "anti-credo" for lack of a better word.
Don't we baptize our children because we presume they will come to saving faith in our Lord? That they are set apart from the world? If a grammar-aged child is adamant about not being part of it I don't see that you could proceed with the baptism. imho.
__________________
Steve Butts - Former SBC-er
Three Forms of Unity - Bradenton CRC - Bradenton, Florida (A conservative member in a conservative congregation)
Suppose a credo becomes convinced of paedo and moves his family to a church that practices paedo. His children are grammar-school age and not ready to profess faith. They were not baptized as infants because the parents were credo at the time.
The Session encourages the father to consider having baptism administered to the children and he agrees. Is that a 1 or 2 or would you consider that another circumstance?
I think since the father is making the decision it would fall into 1 or 2, as I see 3 as being baptism as a confession of faith.
I just when through almost exactly this scenario. I've move from credo to paedo in the past year and recently had my four-year-old baptized because of my convictions.
I think at this age and older it becomes a slightly different circumstance than those listed above.
Not only must the parent(s) have saving faith but the child must have not rejected Christ. It's not exactly credo for the child, but they can't be "anti-credo" for lack of a better word.
Don't we baptize our children because we presume they will come to saving faith in our Lord? That they are set apart from the world? If a grammar-aged child is adamant about not being part of it I don't see that you could proceed with the baptism. imho.
Though it might seem inconsistent on my part, I think I could agree with yout on this issue. In this similar circumstance, my husband and I would most likely not ask our child to be baptised is she was rejecting the gospel. Both my children were baptised as infants, though, because I came to this position before I had children.
__________________ J Baldwin
Keowee Presbyterian Church, PCA
Pickens, SC “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” Luke 10:27
While discussing this topic with someone last evening, I began to think of the various views on Baptism and the result was some questions I hadn't thought about before.
I to hold to paedo baptism out of my study of the scriptures on covenant theology. I became a paedo baptist for two reasons (very simply put, I know there is more to it):
1. As I see it (of course I may be wrong) sprinkling is the correct "mode" of baptism.
2. Baptising an infant seems to fit in with covenant theology.
In recent months, I have learned that some baptise infants by immersion. Also, I believe that if someone has not been baptised after they have come to the Lord, they should seek baptism. (I say by sprinkling)
I can think of at least four (possibly 5) circumstances under which someone might be baptised:
1. Infant baptism by sprinkling
2. Infant baptism by immersion (Greek orthodox)
3. Baptism after conversion when the person was not baptised as an infant (usually sprinkling)
4. Baptism after conversion only (immersion)
5. Baptism after conversion only (sprinkling) does anyone do this?
I believe #5 was the practice of D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, who for most of his career pastored a congregational church, Westminster Chapel. In the authorised biography, Iain Murray says the Doctor early on abandoned the practice of infant baptism. But being convinced by the arguments by Charles Hodge and B.B. Warfield for sprinkling, did not become a baptist (immersionist) either. I don't have this book anymore but from what I recall he dedicated infants and would baptize those making a profession of faith. As far as I know he only spoke out once on the issue, and it can be found in Great Doctrines of the Bible.
__________________
Chris Poe
Mandeville, LA
"There are the foolish fanatics always to be found in such a movement and always discrediting it--the lunatic fringe in all reform movements." Theodore Roosevelt
I'd be happy to join in this discussion but I see too many land mines to step over.
Come on in Brother
__________________
Steve Butts - Former SBC-er
Three Forms of Unity - Bradenton CRC - Bradenton, Florida (A conservative member in a conservative congregation)
When I was ordained as a Reformed Baptist I made my exception to the confession known that I did not believe that mode was essential to baptism. This did not pose much of an issue for the church because, since I had no problem with immersion, I agreed that I would baptize using this mode since that was the baptistic position.
Now I'm a paedobaptist, it is all moot. I still maintain that sprinkling, pouring and immersion are all valid modes of baptism. It is the element that is important, not the mode.
I think at this age and older it becomes a slightly different circumstance than those listed above.
Don't we baptize our children because we presume they will come to saving faith in our Lord?
If we presume our children will come to saving faith based on the promise of God found in His Word, why would our faith in that promise be shaken if our child denies the faith?
From another perspective, let's say that's not the reason we baptize our children. Rather, we baptize them because as a family we are incorporated into the visible Church. A child of 13 yrs of age may not want to be part of the Church...they may not want to clean their room either...tough. It is the parent's responsibility to train up the child in the fear of the Lord...even at that age.
As baptism is equated with circumcision regarding the entrance into the visible covenant community, we should remember that even adults who were under the authority of the believer were to be admitted into the covenant community by the sacrament...
__________________
Larry Bray
Training for Elder - Reformed Presbyterian Church of Boothwyn, PCA
Boothwyn, PA - http://www.rpcb.org/
I think at this age and older it becomes a slightly different circumstance than those listed above.
Don't we baptize our children because we presume they will come to saving faith in our Lord?
If we presume our children will come to saving faith based on the promise of God found in His Word, why would our faith in that promise be shaken if our child denies the faith?
From another perspective, let's say that's not the reason we baptize our children. Rather, we baptize them because as a family we are incorporated into the visible Church. A child of 13 yrs of age may not want to be part of the Church...they may not want to clean their room either...tough. It is the parent's responsibility to train up the child in the fear of the Lord...even at that age.
As baptism is equated with circumcision regarding the entrance into the visible covenant community, we should remember that even adults who were under the authority of the believer were to be admitted into the covenant community by the sacrament...
I hadn't thought of it from that perspective.
Still, as a parent it would be a tough thing for me to do if my child was fighting it. But I agree, the right thing would be to go ahead and if it's a boy, remind him that 2000+ years ago it would have been a lot worse.
__________________
Steve Butts - Former SBC-er
Three Forms of Unity - Bradenton CRC - Bradenton, Florida (A conservative member in a conservative congregation)
I'd be happy to join in this discussion but I see too many land mines to step over.
Come on in, Bill. I really wasn't setting land mines, just voicing some thoughts.
__________________ J Baldwin
Keowee Presbyterian Church, PCA
Pickens, SC “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” Luke 10:27
I think at this age and older it becomes a slightly different circumstance than those listed above.
Don't we baptize our children because we presume they will come to saving faith in our Lord?
If we presume our children will come to saving faith based on the promise of God found in His Word, why would our faith in that promise be shaken if our child denies the faith?
From another perspective, let's say that's not the reason we baptize our children. Rather, we baptize them because as a family we are incorporated into the visible Church. A child of 13 yrs of age may not want to be part of the Church...they may not want to clean their room either...tough. It is the parent's responsibility to train up the child in the fear of the Lord...even at that age.
As baptism is equated with circumcision regarding the entrance into the visible covenant community, we should remember that even adults who were under the authority of the believer were to be admitted into the covenant community by the sacrament...
This is a good point, and it clearly shows the inconsistency of my earlier comments about not baptizing a child who has openly denied the faith. Now you have me thinking
__________________ J Baldwin
Keowee Presbyterian Church, PCA
Pickens, SC “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” Luke 10:27
I'd be happy to join in this discussion but I see too many land mines to step over.
Come on in, Bill. I really wasn't setting land mines, just voicing some thoughts.
Sister, I didn't think for one moment that you were setting land mines. Trip wires maybe, but certainly not land mines.
Seriously, I always proceed with caution in baptism threads. Never know where they're gonna go.
Quote:
I can think of at least four (possibly 5) circumstances under which someone might be baptised:
1. Infant baptism by sprinkling
2. Infant baptism by immersion (Greek orthodox)
3. Baptism after conversion when the person was not baptised as an infant (usually sprinkling)
4. Baptism after conversion only (immersion)
5. Baptism after conversion only (sprinkling) does anyone do this?
We classify those who perform the first 3 categories as paedo baptists and those in the last two (if there are two) as credo baptists. And this makes sense to a point.
Isn't circumstance 3 also credo baptism? I realize I might be splitting hairs here, but the more I think about it, the more I wonder if the difference isn't more about "mode" than it is about baptism after conversion.
Any thoughts?
I won't comment on the paedo position. It's well known and I don't believe the intent of your OP was to engage in a paedo vs. credo debate.
Believers baptism by sprinkling is a distinct minority among Baptists. To be sure, there are Baptist churches that practice sprinkling but they are few and far between. I believe in immersion for professing believers only. For this Baptist it is more than just mode. I would not recognize sprinkling as a valid credo baptism. I know, I know. This is where my paedo brethren would accuse me of advocating re-baptizing. That is a fair accusation coming from their theological position. I flirted with Piper's position a few months back. He proposed to his elders that paedo baptists who join Bethlehem Baptist Church would not have to be baptized by immersion. Upon careful thought and study I have rejected Piper's premise. It's either a valid baptism or it's not. Within the credo camp it is baptism by immersion as the only valid mode imho. I would require someone who was sprinkled, even as a credo, to submit to the biblical model of baptism - immersion.
There, I just jumped right on a big ole bouncing Betty.
__________________
Bill Brown
Elder
Grace Baptist Church
Anne Arundel County, Maryland
Come on in Brother 
