# Can a church practice both paedo/credobaptism?



## PhillipJLee (Mar 31, 2014)

While this question might first seem negligent of both pedobaptism and credobaptism, I am wondering if there is any means by which a church could practice both in good conscious, without contradictions in its covenant theology? Another way to ask the question would be: Is there a "balanced" way of practicing baptism in a nondenominational church that honors both views?

SDG


----------



## Hamalas (Mar 31, 2014)

There are those that try, but frankly I don't see how this could be conistently done.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 31, 2014)

A confessional Presbyterian church? No. According to our Confession the neglect of baptism, including the baptism of infants, is a "great sin". The idea that the church courts should authoritatively sanction the commission of a "great sin" among its members is illogical.


----------



## Hamalas (Mar 31, 2014)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> A confessional Presbyterian church? No. According to our Confession the neglect of baptism, including the baptism of infants, is a "great sin". The idea that the church courts should authoritatively sanction the commission of a "great sin" among its members is illogical.



Very true, but he is asking about a non-denominational church which, presumably, would not subscribe to any confession.


----------



## Jash Comstock (Mar 31, 2014)

It has been tried, but it cheapens both views in my opinion. If truth is truth it isn't subjective. That means there must be a right way, and a wrong way to practice baptism. If a church is to be truly confessional it must be wholly confessional and particularly confessional, not a confessional synergist..


----------



## Scott1 (Mar 31, 2014)

You are on the right track by asking in a nondenominational church. A confessional church, indeed even a nondenominational church with a confessed doctrine could not consistently accommodate both views.

If someone is convicted of believers only baptism and the implications that flow from that for the church, they ought seek such a communion. Not seek accommodation in another.


----------



## JML (Mar 31, 2014)

PhillipJLee said:


> Is there a "balanced" way of practicing baptism in a nondenominational church that honors both views?



I don't see how practicing both can be done in good conscience. However, some churches allow those of the other view to join and/or partake in the Lord's Supper.


----------



## Peairtach (Mar 31, 2014)

It's done in the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, but I don't know if it works well, or how well. I couldn't' agree with it, although I understand the desire for an artificial unity between brethren.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 31, 2014)

I've been going through Calvin's Institutes again and was reminded at how some refuse to preach certain topics (in this case, Calvin was treating the issue of predestination). It caused me to reflect that there are not a small number of congregations who avoid whole parts of the Bible so they never have to deal with the controversy that the topic brings and how impoverished they are for the sake of "unity".

Let me state that I love my Baptist brethren. In fact, I just reached out to a local congregation so we could do some things together in the local community. As much as we had in common, it was because we knew where we stood on the positions of Ecclesiology and the Sacraments that allowed us to cooperate unequivocally in many other areas. We mutually encouraged each other with our passion for the Gospel and it was an extremely edifying time together.

That broader unity is possible because we don't avoid some Biblical topics as being inconvenient for local "unity". There are only two Protestant Sacraments after all and they are intended to placard Christ in their administration. What we _say_ about the Sacraments when we administer them is vitally important. Ministers are supposed to be proclaiming certainty from what they believe the Scriptures teach and not avoiding that certainty for the sake of consensus. If the Lord is speaking in Baptism to me then I want to hear what the Word says it is saying. It doesn't do me any spritual good for God's speech to be abridged any more than it does my Baptist brother to hear what he believes, in his conscience, the Word is saying. To do otherwise is a violation of Liberty of Conscience in my estimation.


----------



## ProtestantBankie (Mar 31, 2014)

The Free Presbyterian Church of North America (and it's Mother church, The Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster) practice both. 

I do not see how it is able to work, but they have been blessed and grown considerably from one congregation in Belfast. Thanks to great preachers like Paisley and fine theologians like Drs Alan Cairns (credo) and Michael Barrett (a paedobaptist).

Members and ministers have their own opinion - if you are a paedobaptist you are entitled to have your children baptized and a Minister must give the sacrament - if the minister is not a paedobaptist, another minister can give the sacrament instead.

I have the greatest of respect for them, and appreciate the idea of inter-denominational Protestant unity as a strong force against Liberalism and Romanism - however, in my opinion children of believing parents are to be baptized, and a "difference of opinion" will not ease my conscience any.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 31, 2014)

Hamalas said:


> Very true, but he is asking about a non-denominational church which, presumably, would not subscribe to any confession.



Is there actually any such thing as a "non-denominational" church, or, are such churches not their own denominations?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 31, 2014)

ProtestantBankie said:


> The Free Presbyterian Church of North America (and it's Mother church, The Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster) practice both.
> 
> I do not see how it is able to work, but they have been blessed and grown considerably from one congregation in Belfast. Thanks to great preachers like Paisley and fine theologians like Drs Alan Cairns (credo) and Michael Barrett (a paedobaptist).



As a former member of that denomination, I can assure you that it does not "work". While a few ministers maintain a paedo-baptist position, the vast majority are Baptists. Their sacramentology, coupled with their revivalist fundamentalism, fatally undermines confessional Presbyterian piety and identity. Just as a point of information, both Alan Cairns and Michael Barrett are paedobaptists (see Dr Cairns's _Dictionary of Theological Terms_). Moreover, their first congregation was not Ian Paisley's church on the Ravenhill Road in east Belfast, but another congregation at Crossgar in County Down (where I used to be a member). I would also suggest that their main period of growth during the 1970s had less to do with the "great" preaching of Ian Paisley than it had to do with the climate of fear created by the darkest period of the recent Northern Ireland "Troubles".


----------



## timmopussycat (Mar 31, 2014)

It could happen but would be difficult to sustain over time. 

It apparently worked in Bunyan's church in Bedford for about 200 years.


----------



## py3ak (Mar 31, 2014)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Just as a point of information, both Alan Cairns and Michael Barrett are paedobaptists (see Dr Cairns's Dictionary of Theological Terms).



Daniel, on this point it seems you have been misled. Dr. Cairns has always been a credo-baptist. No doubt the _Dictionary_ made an attempt to be fair to paedo-baptists, so I can see where you would have gotten that impression. But his own position is quite different. Consider this:



> Now let me make it very clear. I believe in covenant theology. I think it is the key to understanding the Bible. Let me make it clear also that I rejoice in God’s promise to his people regarding their children and I believe that is a promise that they should take before the Lord constantly upon their knees. And as Moses held up the rod of God, they should hold up the promise of God and get God’s fulfillment of it.
> 
> But having said all that, despite my best efforts, I cannot accept what I have called the deceptively simple argument of paedobaptists and especially as they relate it to Romans four. And I am going to try and show why in the moments that follow.
> ...
> ...



From http://media.sermonaudio.com/mediapdf/3210418427.pdf


----------



## Andres (Mar 31, 2014)

> A confessional church would practice both, when necessary. Credobaptism for new disciples never before in the church, and covenant baptism for the children of those coming into or already in covenant. What should _never_ happen is professing Christian parents refusing to submit their little ones for baptism.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 1, 2014)

py3ak said:


> Reformed Covenanter said:
> 
> 
> > Just as a point of information, both Alan Cairns and Michael Barrett are paedobaptists (see Dr Cairns's Dictionary of Theological Terms).
> ...



Thanks for that reference, Ruben. It has been 12 years since I read the _Dictionary_, but his argument for paedobaptism must have been so convincing that I could not conceive how a Baptist could have written it. From what I remember, nearly all paedobaptists in the Free Ps would cite Dr Cairns as one of their own. It appears, however, that we were all mistaken.


----------



## Leslie (Apr 1, 2014)

It was done, so I understand, at the evangelical church in Addis. There were both paedobaptist and credobaptist pastors. If parents wanted their children baptised the paedobaptist pastor would run the service that time. Some of the pastors had problems with their supporting denominations giving them grief.


----------



## Cymro (Apr 1, 2014)

Over the years here in Wales,there has been the progressive exodus from the mainstream denominations
because of their defection from their original standards. I left 45yrs ago because of the deterioration that
was then taking place. As a result over these years there has been the establishing of independent evangelical
churches, which is foreign to our history, and as a convinced Presbyterian foreign to the biblical pattern.
My observation is that when this happens that you have a mixed congregation comprising of Baptists and
Presbyterians. There is then a tacit agreement that Baptism is a no go area. Consequently the Pastor has to 
walk a tightrope and there is very little teaching on the matter. But what does happen is that one opinion gets
a majority, then a division ensues. Because paedobaptism has not been taught over that period, Wales which was
mainly Paedobaptist has now become mainly Baptist. Now I state this not to denigrate the Baptists, but to show
that practically it does not work, and has become costly.


----------



## PhillipJLee (Apr 1, 2014)

I cannot even begin to express how grateful I am for the wisdom shared here -- there is so much to think about and too many follow up questions but I want to sincerely thank each of you for taking the time to share your thoughts. Similarly, I really appreciate the shared empathy in the motive behind the original question: I do wish there was a way Baptists and Presbyterians can worship together weekly under one church and not just at a conference -- as this forum continuously reminds and teaches me, there is so much sharpening that happens in our theology when both study, strive, and serve together.

Please feel free to continue the discussion as I am greatly enjoying the variety of responses on various levels.


----------



## py3ak (Apr 1, 2014)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Thanks for that reference, Ruben. It has been 12 years since I read the _Dictionary_, but his argument for paedobaptism must have been so convincing that I could not conceive how a Baptist could have written it. From what I remember, nearly all paedobaptists in the Free Ps would cite Dr Cairns as one of their own. It appears, however, that we were all mistaken.



No problem, Daniel. The American churches had far more opportunity for a long time to hear of Dr Cairns' views.


----------



## Scottish Lass (Apr 1, 2014)

There's a church in northern MS that holds to a version of the Bunyan model---it recognizes infant baptisms, does not require rebaptism, but practices credobaptism. Appeared to be a biblically healthy and growing church.


----------



## JML (Apr 1, 2014)

Scottish Lass said:


> There's a church in northern MS that holds to a version of the Bunyan model---it recognizes infant baptisms, does not require rebaptism, but practices credobaptism. Appeared to be a biblically healthy and growing church.



What is the name of the church?


----------



## ProtestantBankie (Apr 25, 2014)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> ProtestantBankie said:
> 
> 
> > The Free Presbyterian Church of North America (and it's Mother church, The Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster) practice both.
> ...



I think you have assumed far more ignorance on my part than was neccesary brother. Fair enough I am an ignorant and some would even say "stupid" person, however, it is noy my ignorance that is disputed but the assumption of it. 

I didn't say that the Ravenhill Road was their first congregation. (My comments on Alan Cairns have also been shown to be correct)

I believe Paisley has been a blessed Preacher who sadly wasted his best years in parliament instead of the pulpit, I've gained a lot from listening to his sermons. So have countless others. 

As I say "I do not see how it is able to work", but I cannot despise what I see as a work of God building up the church. I've found Dr Cairns and Dr Barrett very profitable. As well as Ian Paisley and Thomas Martin. Of late I am listening to Ian Brown's series on Christ's relationships to us and thoroughly enjoying it. I believe however that it is in error on the issue of baptism (as is any church that would allow a covenant child to go unbaptised, that is my view - I am a paedobaptist)

I appreciate you have moved from the FPCU to the RPCI, and I am - naturally - more inclined to the RPCI than I am the FPCU. As I am a Scottish Presbyterian. May the Lord bless you in that.

I do not want to predict "split" or "schism" for the FPCU. You say it does not work, and I would I suppose agree with you. "I do not see how it can work" - it must ultimately see a change in position in the longer term I think.

I'm praying for "reformation" and a growing in the Presbyterian and paedobaptist part of the movement.


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 25, 2014)

John Lanier said:


> Scottish Lass said:
> 
> 
> > There's a church in northern MS that holds to a version of the Bunyan model---it recognizes infant baptisms, does not require rebaptism, but practices credobaptism. Appeared to be a biblically healthy and growing church.
> ...



Christ Church in New Albany, Mississippi

Christ Church of New Albany, MS -


----------



## whirlingmerc (Apr 25, 2014)

I think many PCA churches will be willing to re-baptize a person baptized as a baby ( if it was done with an infant regeneration view )


----------



## Hemustincrease (Apr 25, 2014)

No doubt it is possible to practice both, but it is certainly not permissible. If one holds to the Biblical doctrine of baptism (credo) then to baptize babies (or be part of supporting that) would be sin.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard (Apr 25, 2014)

PhillipJLee said:


> While this question might first seem negligent of both pedobaptism and credobaptism, I am wondering if there is any means by which a church could practice both in good conscious, without contradictions in its covenant theology? Another way to ask the question would be: Is there a "balanced" way of practicing baptism in a nondenominational church that honors both views?



This can't be done in a healthy manner. In this situation:
1) A Credo family "must" accept the children of a paedo family as valid non-communicant members of the visible church while their own are not. 
2) The Credo Family must recognize the baptism of paedo children as valid in the eyes of the church even though they don't "believe" it is.
3) The Paedo Family must allow that members in the church are withholding the blessing of the sign and seal of the covenant of grace from their children and are not living in a state of sin.
3) There is no such thing as proper mediation between conflicts of baptismal beliefs under a system such as this.
4) Any teaching on the subject to a mixed congregation must be very subjective, or one side will be saying the other is wrong. (Note: there is a reason we have split forums for paedo/credo questions on the pb.)
5) Much confusion on the subject will occur in a mixed congregation if the subject is even allowed to be taught.
6) In a baptismal service for a child of a covenant family, the Baptists in the congregation won't be participating in the same way as the Paedo congregants.
7) One side will begin to dominate the other side without proper mediation when question of the validity of a subject is brought up.
8) Members will eventually change position, which can cause large ripple effects, and is not healthy for members still holding to the position that was left.
9) A minister cannot hold to both consistently unless they take the so-called "dual view" which is not healthy at all, and amounts to the attempt of riding two horses at the same time going different directions.
10) A portion of the congregation will be totally left out when any teaching of "improving upon ones own baptism" is taught.
11) The children will recognize the difference of thier friends being baptized or not being baptized, which can cause issues and confusion with them and their understanding of the importance of baptism.
12) Finally, in my opinion, the overall importance of baptism is cheapened by this attempted merger of irreconcilability.

I say this as one who was formerly a member of a church that tries to implement this view. It does not work.


----------



## Edward (Apr 25, 2014)

whirlingmerc said:


> I think many PCA churches will be willing to re-baptize a person baptized as a baby ( if it was done with an infant regeneration view )



"The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person"

There should never be a re-baptism. If the original act was not a real baptism, then a later baptism might be proper. Thus if the prior act was not trinitarian, a baptism would be appropriate.

"The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto." 

See the position paper and the dissent as to validity of Catholic baptism. That should give some guidance as to whether there was a prior baptism or not.


----------



## a mere housewife (Apr 25, 2014)

Ben I really loved being able to worship with you all (and the other dear saints) at that church . I appreciated the way I was taught to look on people with differences in this area as part of the same visible church, and sharing the same gospel. Of course it has problems but it was still beautiful to set aside those differences in worshipping God and I will always be grateful for that perspective as a foundational experience.


----------



## Kevin (Apr 26, 2014)

Well in our church plant I have baptised 9 people in the last 2 years. 1 infant, 4 young children ( under 5, 1 with her mom) and 4 adults upon profession of faith. 

That seems like a healthy combination of credo and peado baptisms.


----------



## Scott1 (Apr 26, 2014)

To be clear,
baptizing both infant children of believers by profession of faith of at least one parent
AND
baptizing an adult by profession of faith

is done at most Reformed Churches.

But teaching "believers only" baptism (credobaptism) is inconsistent theologically with infant (paedobaptism).

Inconsistent not only as to the point of who properly is to receive baptism, but with the broader theology of covenant.


----------



## DeniseM (Apr 26, 2014)

I think one major problem that arises from an allowance of both views of baptism being accepted in one denomination is lack of teaching. We are currently in a confessional Presbyterian church and if a new convert off of the street came into the church they would be taught what our confession states regarding baptism. In a confessional Baptist church a new convert would also be taught what its' confession states regarding baptism. But, what does a church that holds to both views teach? As someone else pointed out, it does seem as though the pastor is walking a tight rope regarding the subject and conversation on the topic is usually strained.


----------

