After discussing both Credobaptism and Paedobaptism, Michael Bird proposes Dual Baptism:
Although I started out as a credobaptist and progressed on to becoming a paedobaptist, it is this dual-baptism view that I admittedly gravitate to because I think it allows us to hold together two competing theologies on a non-essential matter of the faith. A dual-baptism position enables us to make sure that baptism, a symbol of the gospel, becomes a means of gospel unity, rather than an occasion for division in the already all too much divided churches. (emphasis mined)
According to Bird, this Dual Baptism is a “third position is for churches to permit both views of baptism, credo and paedo, to be practiced side by side.” Bird continues,
This policy of dual baptism is held by the Nazarene Church, American Evangelical Covenant Church, Evangelical Free Church, French Reformed Church, and Presbyterian Church (USA). John Bunyan, the Baptist Puritan and author of Pilgrim’s Progress, accepted paedobaptists into fellowship. As far as I know, most paedobaptist
churches do not force congregants to baptize their children, but only refuse to
re-baptize adults, so they are technically open to believer’s baptism.
Bird then proposes six reasons why Dual Baptism “a defensible and even desirable theological stance” to take. Among these reasons, relying on the author of Hebrews, Bird classifies baptism as “a second tier of elementary Christian beliefs.”
It is this classification that got my attention in light of:
“A dual-baptism position enables us to make sure that baptism, a symbol of the gospel, becomes a means of gospel unity, rather than an occasion for division in the already all too much divided churches.” (emphasis mine)
This Dual Baptism is quite “desirable.”
In fact, since relocating to St. Louis, I’ve found myself in the company of not a few Presbyterian brothers and sisters.
October 31, 2011 at 6:03 pm
(1) Citation?
(2) I’m over in St Charles, MO – we should connect in person sometime.
October 31, 2011 at 6:08 pm
There’s just a few problems with Bird’s statements above…
1. The PCUSA does NOT affirm any dual baptism technically. I was a stated supply in the PCUSA and when they care at all, they practice infant baptism of children and, of course, baptism of adult converts. Now congregations may get away with doing whatever they want, they are Presbyterian in this regard (if in few other regards!)
2. In the 80′s Paul Engle who has authored many books on Worship for Baker and who is a Westminster grad went to the EVFree’s. Though technically he knew he “could” practice both, it’s my understanding from one of his students in that era that in practice it’s all immersion. And at that time – technically – baptism was not required for church membership.
3. Depending on the Reformed congregation, a parent who withholds baptism from a covenant child could technically be excommunicated because many Continental Reformed membership vows require not only allegiance to the Creed by members but the CONFESSION. Presbyterians usually only require elders to affirm the confessions but many Dutch reformed churches require members to affirm them.
4. In practice the Nazarenes I’ve known disparage infant baptism …
In my experience the “dual view” kills off infant baptism. The ECC may be an exception…we’ll have to see.
Just sayin – glad to see you back online!
October 31, 2011 at 7:24 pm
Is the whole point here advocating re-baptism?
United Methodists baptize babies but baptize adults as well. Parents who do not baptize children are not cast out into outer darkness, although I would want to talk about why a person would choose not to do that if I was the pastor.
November 1, 2011 at 3:33 am
My church effectively follows this policy, and I think this is becoming increasingly common, at least among evangelicals, in the Church of England to which it belongs. Basically each couple in the church decides whether to have their baby christened or dedicated, and I don’t think the vicar pressures them either way. Outsiders’ babies are christened only if a parent makes some kind of profession of faith. Believers who have not been christened can be baptised on a personal confession of faith, by immersion if they wish, in a hired portable baptistry. Those who have been baptised in either way are presented for confirmation if they wish, but are admitted to communion without it. Formal church membership is only for those who have been baptised in some way.
But a difficulty arises when someone who has been christened as an infant, although often not brought up as a Christian at all, professes faith and wants to be baptised as a believer. The vicar is not permitted to re-baptise them. But he is permitted to offer them a service of renewal of baptismal vows, which is essentially identical to believer’s baptism, and can be with immersion and alongside those being baptised for the first time. Alternatively, and this happened before renewal of baptismal vows was permitted, the vicar makes no objection when his members choose to be baptised at another church which practices believer’s baptism, or in an informal setting. Indeed this is what I did, when a member of a different Anglican church with a different vicar. Fortunately the days of Zwingli and others, including some in the Church of England, persecuting Anabaptists are behind us.
November 1, 2011 at 11:25 am
Is there a place in the scriptures that indicates the baptism of the 12 disciples? Or is it just understood that it happened? I never really thought about that before. Were they perhaps baptized by John?
November 1, 2011 at 7:09 pm
@WTM, I was in St. Charles a month ago. I went ahead and put in the links, citations; if you will.
@Chuck, thanks for filling in some blanks.
@John, I don’t think Bird is advocating rebaptism here. Give it a reread.
@Peter, someone who has been christened but not in a Christian home would not fit the covenant language.
@Nancy, it’s not clear whether they were all baptized by John or someone else. Chances are some were not. At any rate, the baptism of the Holy Spirit suffices.
November 2, 2011 at 1:06 am
As a minister in the PCA for the last 12 years I know it is a fairly common practice for us to allow “dissenting” parents to withhold their children from covenant baptism/infant baptism. The children may be brought forward later for baptism, but it is still a covenant baptism, with the emphasis being on what God does in salvation and not what the one baptized has done. So, the parents conscience on the issue is maintained, but the theology behind it is not validated. Win-win!:-)
@ TC – Uh, no. I would say that there is a 0% chance that some of the apostles weren’t baptized (Matt 28:18-20, right?). They were not quite as cavalier or reductionistic about God’s ordinances as maybe we are. And the Holy Spirit is not a wedge between God’s tangible gifts like the Lord’s Supper, Baptism, or the Word. Baptism is part of what we should think “suffices.”
November 2, 2011 at 11:22 am
Pgroach, I see then that I still have much to learn about PCA’s approach to infant baptism.
Ah, I quite agree. I was not suggesting such a wedge, which is the case in some of our sects.
November 2, 2011 at 12:07 pm
The Unity of Spirit allows for flexibility and not robotic “sameness”; the Unity of the Faith is a whole ‘nother thing. I wouldn’t advocate dual baptism, but “tolerance” (in the Pauline sense) for variety in practice. Variety in practice does not have to be the mark of “division”.
November 2, 2011 at 4:55 pm
@TC – I’ve read your comments and reflections in the past and know you are stout of heart and mind. I didn’t mean to suggest you were cavalier about the sacraments, or at least no more so than the rest of us.:-)
November 3, 2011 at 8:39 am
@Sean, per your argument then, dual baptism goes against unity of faith?
@pgroach, I didn’t get the impression that you were suggesting I was cavalier about the sacraments.