This post will look at the third and last position discussed in Baptism: Three Views. First, Dr. Bruce Ware used a (truncated) systematic theological approach to defend believers’ baptism. Then Dr. Sinclair Ferguson used a biblical theological approach to defend infant baptism. Now Dr. Anthony Lane will use a historical theology approach to defend what he called the dual practice approach.
Here is not what he means- most Reformed paedobaptist churches do not bind the consciences of credobaptist members. They do not exercise church discipline for not practicing the doctrine of the church. Most often such members are not eligible for office, however. Some baptist churches also recognize the infant baptism of members, refusing to bind their consciences. Those members often are not permitted to hold office due to their divergent views. This is not “dual practice” per se, but extending grace to those who differ on a non-essential.
Dual Practice occurs in denominations, or congregations, that have no official practice but allow freedom to parents on the issue of whether or not to baptize or dedicate their children. When I was between pastoral calls, I was open to considering the Evangelical Free Church since they were considering removing pre-milennialism from their statement of faith. But they eventually decided to keep that, ruling me out. Congregations there are free to practice each according to the theology of the pastor & lay leaders. In the Evangelical Covenant, mentioned by Ware, they officially practice both based on the desire/convictions of the parents. Ware was opposed to this, seeing it as binding his conscience. As a good Southern Baptist, he has no problem binding the conscience of others forcing them to be baptized if they want to become members. My mother-in-law was forced to do this to join an independent Baptist church. So his comments come across to me as hypocritical.
Back to Lane’s views. He states that Marcel’s defense of infant baptism (which was very helpful to me) led him into believers’ baptism. And then Beasley-Murray’s book led him into dual practice despite the author’s intention. He sounds to me to be a contrarian. The NT texts, he says, teach a converts’ baptism. Baptism, in his view, is part of the conversion process and that there is not true conversion without it. He believes the NT is silent on the issue of infants, and believes that this could be part of a biblical practice of converts’ baptism. He thinks that some household baptisms involved infants, but this is not conclusive.
My journey on the doctrine of baptism was long and at times arduous. I think it may be pertinent as I review this book about baptism. I was raised Roman Catholic, and was “baptized” as an infant (I say “baptized” since my parents are nominally Catholic and I question whether I had a right to baptism). As a new convert, I unknowingly fell into a campus cult that taught you needed to be baptized to be saved. I knew I was already saved by grace thru faith, but believed I should be baptized so I was. Soon I was engaging my “discipler” on the issue, driven to better understand Scripture and leave that “ministry”. I found a Conservative Baptist church in my hometown and enjoyed my new life as a Christian there until I left for Seminary 5 years later. At seminary I was a credobaptist among paedobaptists, and I was thankful for Dr. Nicole as I also read Kingdon & Jewette to defend my credobaptism from a covenantal perspective.
Cavman Considers 