Credobaptist says infant baptism is valid... after conversion

[Particular Baptist]

I found this article by a minister in the Evangelical Free Church who has an interesting view on baptim. Pastor Bill Kynes says that though he is a small 'b' baptist, he still believes that those baptized as infants have valid baptisms because....

"

the time and mode of baptism is not an essential aspect of the gospel, and so I will not make it a barrier to church fellowship

".

Also, he says that...

Baptism presents a visible and objective declaration of the gospel, and its validity as such is not nullified by the absence of the proper subjective response of faith. In such cases it remains a valid baptism, though not an effective and completed one. This is similar to the preaching of the gospel. Its validity is not nullified by a failure of the hearers to repent and believe. But when they do, that preaching achieves its appointed end. On this ground, I can accept the paedobaptism of someone who has later come to faith as a valid baptism, though only their subsequent response of faith has completed that baptism and made it effective. However, since I am convinced that baptism properly ordered according to God’s design is to embody both the objective promise of God in the gospel and the divinely-inspired subjective response of faith, I will not baptize infants, and I will “re-baptize” those who so request it. I believe the latter is a matter of personal conscience of the believer and is not required.

I found this to be a position which has been developing in my soul recently and I haven't ever been able to put it quite the way that Pastor Kynes does. Do any other credobaptists think this is a consistent position? Do any others hold this position, besides paedobaptists, on this board?

Here's the link to the article http://www.efca.org/files/document/pastoral-care/Ministerial_Forum_9-05.pdf

 

[Scottish Lass]

Isn't this what's called the Bunyan model?

 

[Particular Baptist]

I'm not quite sure if it is the Bunyan model, theoretically, though practically it is very close. It is true that Bunyan didn't think that one's position on baptism should debar them from church membership or the Lord's Supper however, I'm not sure whether or not he thought that paedobaptism became a valid baptism once the subject came to faith in Christ.

 

[Scottish Lass]

I'm not quite sure if it is the Bunyan model, theoretically, though practically it is very close. It is true that Bunyan didn't think that one's position on baptism should debar them from church membership or the Lord's Supper however, I'm not sure whether or not he thought that paedobaptism became a valid baptism once the subject came to faith in Christ.

Thank you for the distinction.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

In my opinion, he's capitulating on a point where the dyed-in-the-wool Baptist has no room for compromise.

He says that he is committed to the Baptist understanding and mode of baptism, which is his own manner of administration. But, he will admit of the validity of a paedobaptism, if the person so baptized confesses Christ. But this is practically admitting the paedobaptist dictum that the efficacy of baptism is not tied to the moment of administration. I think John Piper tried to gain this sort of position for the church he pastors, without success.

While this position does not qualify as conformable to the Westminster or Belgic confessional stance, it decidedly moves away from historic Baptist attitudes regarding the sacrament/ordinance. I believe the EVF as a denomination is "loose" on the baptism issue. A Reformed paedobaptist would argue that even a nonbeliever was validly baptized, even where there is no eternally good effect. Such a baptism is one of judgment.

The EVFer above only recognizes the infant-baptism as valid according to the presumed efficacy--which is something he cannot observe in either the event or the individual; but he judges imperfectly based on fruits.

 

[steadfast7]

I was brought up in a Presbyterian church, but for some reason did not receive infant baptism, so did it on profession of faith, by immersion, as a teenager. I do not consider my infant-baptized believing friends as unbaptized or requiring another baptism, unless they were seeking membership in a baptist church. It comes down to church policy for the large part. Although the LBCF uses the language of "proper" subjects, and "due administration", I don't think it needs to be read as negating or condemning infant baptism, which it deems less than ideal. I'm open to correction on this, however.

 

[KaphLamedh]

I've never heard about Bunyan Model before, although I knew that Bunyan did accept those who were baptized as infants and he didn't require that they should be baptized again.
I think that the writing on the open is good.

 

[Particular Baptist]

I'm not sure that the position is a contradiction. Though the Free Church minister isn't a big 'B' baptist, he is a lowercase baptist. If he was a confessional Baptist, in the proper sense, he wouldn't be able to state that someone baptized as an infant has a valid baptism if he comes to faith later.

I view this situation the same way that a paedobaptist views the obligation to baptize one's children. Paedobaptist believe it is right, and obligatory, to baptize one's children. However, if a person, who grew up under baptistic parents, was not baptized as an infant but later as a confessing adult, then paedobaptists would accept that baptism as valid, though they would have prefered that the subject had been baptized by his believing parents.