Dr Paul Allen

I’m a baptist but you don’t need to capitalize the b for me. First and foremost, I’m a Christian, identifying primarily with Christ, and only secondarily with my dear Baptist brothers and sisters. We baptists sometimes encounter a tension created by our baptistic convictions: How do we, as baptists, orient to those whose baptismal belief and practice differ from ours? In particular, how do we relate to paedobaptist individuals and churches? Paedobaptism (from the Greek root paedo for “child”) is the practice of baptizing the children of believers in infancy, in anticipation of their profession of faith in Christ. Rather than baptizing after someone professes faith, as credobaptists do (credo for “faith”), paedobaptists regard baptism as the New Testament counterpart to Old Testament circumcision. Therefore, they administer the visible, public sign of the covenant to the children of Christians. Now, we baptists believe that paedobaptists err in their baptismal theology and practice. We

Baptizing the infant children of believers (sometimes called “paedobaptism”), in the belief that this accords with God’s revealed will, has been the historic practice of most churches. However, the worldwide Baptist community, which includes distinguished Reformed thinkers, disputes this practice. Baptists insist that membership in local congregations is only for those who have publicly professed a personal faith. The argument often includes the claim that Christ instituted baptism primarily as a public profession of faith, and that this profession is part of the definition of baptism, with the result that infant baptism is not really baptism at all. On this ground, Baptist churches rebaptize persons baptized in infancy who have come to faith—from the Baptist standpoint they have never been baptized. Historic Reformed theology contests the view that only adult, believer’s baptism is true baptism, and it rejects the exclusion of believers’ children from the visible community of

Though infant baptism has been the majority practice of historic Christianity, its propriety has been solemnly challenged by godly Christians of various denominations. The question surrounding infant baptism rests upon several concerns.  The New Testament neither explicitly commands infants to be baptized nor explicitly prohibits them from being baptized. The debate centers on questions surrounding the meaning of baptism and the degree of continuity between the Old Covenant and New Covenant.  The most crucial objection from those who oppose infant baptism is that the sacrament of baptism belongs to members of the church and the church is a company of believers. Since infants are incapable of exercising faith, they ought not to be baptized.  It is also stressed that of the baptisms recorded in the New Testament there are no specific references to infants. A further objection is that the Old Covenant, though not conveying salvation via biological blood lines, neverthel

English: From:The Baptist encyclopaedia : a dictionary ... of the general history of the Baptist denomination in all lands; with numerous biographical sketches of distinguished American and foreign Baptists, and a supplement; Cathcart, William; 1881; Philadelphia : Everts Category:Churches in Southwark (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Calvinists once dominated Baptist church life in America. In a 1793 survey, early Baptist historian John Asplund estimated that there were 1032 Baptist churches in America. Out of those, 956 were Calvinist congregations. These were “Particular Baptists,” for they believed in a definite atonement (or “particular redemption”), that Christ had died to save the elect decisively. “General Baptists,” who believed that Christ had died indefinitely for the sins of anyone who would choose him, accounted for a tiny fraction of the whole. Even some of those, Asplund noted, believed in certain Calvinist tenets such as “perseverance in grace.” How did this prepondera

Holy Ghost (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Early, then, on the second Lord’s day after the Ascension, is the entire company met, with one heart, to renew their oft-repeated prayer. We cannot go to the house where was that upper room; nor to the site where it stood. These points are left unnoticed, after the mode of Christianity, which is in nothing a religion of circumstances, in everything a religion of principles.  We know not how long they had that morning urged their prayer, nor whose voice was then crying to Him who had promised, nor what word of the Master he was pleading, nor what feelings of closer expectation and more vivid faith were warming the breasts of the disciples. But “suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind.” Not, mark you, a wind; no gale sweeping over the city struck the sides of the house and rustled round it. But “from heaven,” directly downward, fell “a sound,” without shape, or step, or movement to account for it—a sound as if a

Baptism of Christ. Jesus is baptized in the Jordan River by John. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) What should I do if I become convinced that I might have been born again  after  my baptism? That can be a tricky question (for baptists, at least). There are a lot of people who end up being baptized two, three or four times. The Gospel Coalition recently shared two answers to the question, one from a  credobaptist  (a person who holds that baptism should follow conversion) and one from a  paedobaptist  (who holds that infants should be baptized). Have you read J.D. Greear’s book  Stop Asking Jesus Into Your Heart  and found his answer to the question very helpful? What do you do about baptism if you think that you might have been “born again” after  your first one? There are several answers to this question, depending on your particular situation. If your baptism occurred as an infant, I think the answer is clear: you should be baptized again. Your infant baptism was more a symb