In what manner is my baptism valid?

[masterjadex]

I've been wrestling with this for a few weeks and (hopefully) have learned something profitable from the endeavor.

I was baptized in an Assembly of God (Trinitarian/Pentecostal/Arminian) church at the age of eight upon profession of faith. Essentially, this profession consisted in my affirmation to two questions: "(1.) Do you trust Jesus for the forgiveness of your sins? and (2.) Do you promise to follow Him all the days of your life?" The mode consisted in the Trinitarian formula, a lawfully ordained minister of the AG denomination, and immersion.

In what way could my baptism be valid? Someone may respond by saying that as long as the mode is correct/sufficiently proper, the baptism is valid. But isn't it also necessary that my baptism fall into one or the other categories of infant or credibly professing adult baptism in order to be valid? In which case, my question would remain unanswered.

On the one hand, my baptism could be viewed as a sacramental administration upon credible profession. But was the profession in any way credible? After all, I was never examined by the elders of the church. On the other hand, it could be viewed as a child's baptism. At the time, my parents were professing believers in good standing with the church. But the baptism was administered by the church on account of my confession, not theirs. So, which is it? Or am I missing something?

 

[Joseph Scibbe]

I don't understand how your baptism could be not valid. You were a believer who was dunked in accordance with the pattern of Scripture. Is your problem that you weren't grilled enough? I don't get the question at all.

 

[ericfromcowtown]

I would consider your baptism valid. Forget for a moment that you were 8 when you were baptized. If you had been 18, and insincere or immature, and as a more mature and thoughtful 28-year old wished to be re-baptized, would you expect a reformed pastor to re-baptize you? I suspect that he would point you towards the distinction that many evangelicals fail to appreciate, and that is that baptism is God's declaration to you, rather than your declaration to God. I think that the same would hold true in this case. So long as you were baptized by an ordained minister in the trinitarian formula, then I think it's valid and that it would be inproper to be baptized again.

 

[Notthemama1984]

Your baptism is valid in the sense that its validity is not dependent on the working of man, but rather is dependent solely upon the working of God.

I would say that it is unnecessary to categorize your baptism as paedo or credo. We have one baptism in Christ. Regardless of when we receive this baptism, it is still part of the same baptism.

Therefore the question is not whether you received a paedo or credo baptism, but rather the question is, "Were you baptized?"

The answer is a resounding yes.

Just the thoughts off the top of my head.

 

[raekwon]

Baptism is baptism.

 

[Jack K]

"Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful." (Heb. 10:22-23)

It sounds like you're stuck beause you're focusing on yourself, your parents and your church. But the first and most important reason why your baptism is valid is not because any of them were faithful, but because Christ is faithful. You were baptized into the name of the Triune God. From now on, you look not to yourself or the church but to Him for assurance that you have received the promises.

For what it's worth, I would consider yours an adult baptism. Not that it matters much. But your parents did not speak for you.

The fact that you may not have been examined as thoroughly as we'd like, or that your understanding was still immature, does not make your baptism invalid. If that were the case, we could never be sure of the validity of any baptism. We are all immature and lacking much at the time we are baptized. Baptism is, by design, for new disciples who still have very much to learn. It is not a rite of acheivement, but rather one of entrance into a lifetime of discipleship.

 

[Kevin]

Water.

+

Trinity.

=Baptism.

(everything else is up for debate)

 

[Rom]

WCF Chapter 28, Paragraphs 6 & 7 (MESV):

6. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time when it is administered. Nevertheless, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Spirit to all (whether adults or infants) to whom that grace belongs, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.

7. The sacrament of baptism is to be administered only once to any person.

 

[Pilgrim Standard]

Excellent answer Rom

I would provide an answer, but John Knox covered this quite well here
Answers to Some Questions (1556) by John Knox

 

[masterjadex]

I appreciate all the responses. I think I'm starting to understand.

Nonetheless, in order to be valid, wouldn't a baptism have to be warranted in the first place (that is, upon credible profession of the parent or baptizee)? Or is the determination of credible profession a “churchly” matter with more to do with the propriety or regularity of the baptism than its objective validity? (and thus none of my business!)

 

[Notthemama1984]

In my opinion, the validity of a baptism rests with God. The determination of a credible profession by the church is simply the church attempted to acknowledge what God has or has not done.

 

[jogri17]

In my opinion to say your baptism was invalid would be heresy (thus saith St. Augustine!) given you would be commiting the Donatist heresy quite literaly.

Even Roman Catholics largely will acknowledge that protestant Baptisms can be true ones given certain conditions.