The authors of this statement are calling on Christians and churches to overcome the either–or mentality, and to embrace a view that promotes unity in diversity.
Paedobaptists have a service of infant baptism, followed by a process of Christian nurture, culminating (hopefully) in the child professing faith (e.g. in confirmation) at an appropriate age (whether it be childhood, adolescence, or young adulthood).
This description, it seems to me, leaves out the baptismal regeneration crowd. That’s kind of a big deal.
"I am frank to say for myself, that if it were a matter left to our choice whether we should immerse or sprinkle, while immersion is a beautiful and significant ordinance and sprinkling is a meaningless ceremony, still I would give up immersion rather than divide Christendom on a mere rite:—I say if it were left to our choice. But it has never been left to our choice: And when others say that they will change the ordinance, the question between them and us is, not what is the true baptism but whether there is any right or authority to change it. Baptists do not yield their position about baptism because it is the surface indication of a great underlying principle. Principles are of use to us because of the guidance they afford us in practical life. What honor or consistency is there in avowing a principle and then denying it in our daily conduct. We see how it is then that the peculiarity of Baptists upon immersion results from their fundamental position. They must be peculiar or they must give up the principle that the Word of God is our supreme and all-sufficient rule."
"Take the Baptist peculiarity upon infant baptism, so-called. They refuse to practice it or to recognize it, because the Scriptures afford no warrant whatever for it. Luther’s struggle here was great. He saw that the Bible says nothing in favor of infant baptism. The question with him was: Shall we give it up as our principle requires? In fact infant baptism had gained so great a hold upon the public heart that Luther feared the consequences of his radical and penetrating principle and hence modified his position and said: The Word of God does not forbid it and so I will retain it. Zwingli was hesitating and perplexed and failed at last because he did not have the courage of his convictions. The Baptists said: We will stand by the principle. The Word of God does not authorize the baptism of infants but only of believers. Here the work of separation is still going on and upon the same principle; namely, the supremacy and sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures. The question of the baptism of infants was simply the surface indication of the underlying principle. The opposition of the Baptists to infant baptism was also strengthened by the vicious error that lay under it, viz.: the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Infant baptism had its rise in the mischievous idea that any one dying without the waters of baptism went straight to the flames of torment. This is one of the palpable facts of history Baptists are sometimes charged with making too much of baptism. In the light of history the charge is ludicrous. One of the peculiarities of the Baptists is their opposition to those who, in times past, made so much of baptism as to contend that without it new-born infants could not get to heaven. If you will suffer the remark I will say that the Baptists are the only people who have never made either too much or too little of the ordinance of baptism. They make no more of it and no less of it than the Scriptures require."
Discussion
NewThe authors of this…
The authors of this statement are calling on Christians and churches to overcome the either–or mentality, and to embrace a view that promotes unity in diversity.
NewDescription of infant baptism
This description, it seems to me, leaves out the baptismal regeneration crowd. That’s kind of a big deal.
NewFrom the "Baptist Why And Why Not"
R. M. Dudley wrote:
"I am frank to say for myself, that if it were a matter left to our choice whether we should immerse or sprinkle, while immersion is a beautiful and significant ordinance and sprinkling is a meaningless ceremony, still I would give up immersion rather than divide Christendom on a mere rite:—I say if it were left to our choice. But it has never been left to our choice: And when others say that they will change the ordinance, the question between them and us is, not what is the true baptism but whether there is any right or authority to change it. Baptists do not yield their position about baptism because it is the surface indication of a great underlying principle. Principles are of use to us because of the guidance they afford us in practical life. What honor or consistency is there in avowing a principle and then denying it in our daily conduct. We see how it is then that the peculiarity of Baptists upon immersion results from their fundamental position. They must be peculiar or they must give up the principle that the Word of God is our supreme and all-sufficient rule."
NewMore Baptist Why from R. M. Dudley
"Take the Baptist peculiarity upon infant baptism, so-called. They refuse to practice it or to recognize it, because the Scriptures afford no warrant whatever for it. Luther’s struggle here was great. He saw that the Bible says nothing in favor of infant baptism. The question with him was: Shall we give it up as our principle requires? In fact infant baptism had gained so great a hold upon the public heart that Luther feared the consequences of his radical and penetrating principle and hence modified his position and said: The Word of God does not forbid it and so I will retain it. Zwingli was hesitating and perplexed and failed at last because he did not have the courage of his convictions. The Baptists said: We will stand by the principle. The Word of God does not authorize the baptism of infants but only of believers. Here the work of separation is still going on and upon the same principle; namely, the supremacy and sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures. The question of the baptism of infants was simply the surface indication of the underlying principle. The opposition of the Baptists to infant baptism was also strengthened by the vicious error that lay under it, viz.: the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Infant baptism had its rise in the mischievous idea that any one dying without the waters of baptism went straight to the flames of torment. This is one of the palpable facts of history Baptists are sometimes charged with making too much of baptism. In the light of history the charge is ludicrous. One of the peculiarities of the Baptists is their opposition to those who, in times past, made so much of baptism as to contend that without it new-born infants could not get to heaven. If you will suffer the remark I will say that the Baptists are the only people who have never made either too much or too little of the ordinance of baptism. They make no more of it and no less of it than the Scriptures require."