Baptism: Infant and Believer

Greg Strand

July 22, 2015

How is it that the EFCA allows both infant (paedo) and believer baptism (credo)?

Regarding the ordinance of baptism, we affirm this is a biblical/theological essential. The Lord Jesus mandated that the church celebrate the ordinances. It is not that this is a matter of indifference (adiaphora), since it is a clear command given by the Lord Jesus for the church to celebrate (Matt. 28:19-20). But the timing (paedo and credo) and the mode (sprinkling and immersion) we have placed in a category of silence, i.e. we will not divide over this issue.

The EFCA is primarily believer baptism by immersion in both belief and practice. But there are also some churches who practice infant baptism, though not considered for salvation. We are baptist with a small "b" in that what is critical for membership in a local church is true salvation. The fact that both credo and paedo baptism are allowed is a "significance of silence" issue, i.e. we will debate it but not divide over it.

With this position we do not want to portray that the Scriptures are unclear or baptism does not matter. Instead, we want to state there are some significant differences, which we neither deny nor conceal, but godly evangelicals with a strong commitment to the inerrancy of Scripture can affirm these positions, and we “allow” either/both. (This is a similar rationale for the discussion/debate between Arminians and Calvinists).

The key centers not on the command to be baptized but on the time and mode of baptism. It is on that matter that we grant a charitable parameter. Here is what we have stated in a footnote as we have spelled out how it is we can “allow” both infant (paedo) and believer (credo) baptism in the EFCA (Evangelical Convictions: A Theological Exposition of the Statement of Faith of the Evangelical Free Church of America, p. 170, n. 40).

We recognize that the interpretations of Scripture on the relevant points regarding the two positions on baptism differ with one another and are in some ways incompatible. We allow different interpretations, not because we think Scripture is intrinsically ambiguous on the matter, nor because we think Scripture provides so little information that it is unwise to hold any opinion, but because some of us think the credobaptist position is in line with Scripture and that the paedobaptist position is mistaken, and some think the paedobaptist position is in line with Scripture and that the exclusively credobaptist position is mistaken. In other words, both sides hold that Scripture speaks to the matter, but each side holds a view that excludes the other. However, we do not believe that our differing views on this matter (among others) should prevent our unity in the gospel in full local church fellowship. It is in this sense, and only in this sense, that the Statement of Faith "allows” both views.

John Hawley

November 12, 2023

The Bible gives not one single example of an infant being baptized. In the majority of cases where baptism is discussed, there is a confession of faith preceding a baptism. In the book of Revelation 3:14-16 when God speaks of the lukewarmness of the Church of the Laodiceans, I think the non-position of the EFCA comes close to espousing a "lukewarm" attitude to this compromise. I do not believe that your position on infant baptism excludes you as my brothers and sisters in Christ, but this position has removed 2 churches that I was seriously considering for my home church. Any thoughts on the EFCA's acceptance of the Paedo position would truly be appreciated as my only concern is to follow the teachings of my Lord and Savior!

Greg Strand

November 12, 2023

In the EFCA, we deny that “either baptism in water or participating in the Lord’s Supper is the instrumental cause of regeneration.” Likewise, there is a right concern that the ordinances function in an ex opera operato manner, that is, “the grace of God is automatically and effectually conveyed through the administration of the ordinances themselves,” which is also denied.

Neither do we mandate/require a specific time and mode, articulating what is meant by our Statement of Faith, that it “does not prescribe the “time” or “mode” of baptism (allowing for both credo- and paedobaptist practices).” In addition, we explicitly affirm “The Ordinances Are Not the Means of Salvation” and “When Celebrated by the Church in Genuine Faith, the Ordinances Confirm and Nourish the Believer.”

This is spelled out succinctly in Evangelical Convictions, 2nd ed. (2022), 157-158:

C. A Summary of the Ordinances

To summarize our understanding of the ordinances, our Statement affirms:

1. Christ has given his church two ordinances, baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and the practice of these ordinances is an essential distinguishing mark of a church;

2. these ordinances are signs, that is, visible and tangible expressions, of the gospel, and as such they serve to strengthen our faith— “confirming and nourishing the believer”;

3. the signs (water in baptism, the bread and grape juice or wine in the Lord’s Supper) must be distinguished from what they signify (God’s saving work in the gospel and Christ’s presence with us); [n. 79: Thus we deny baptismal regeneration and the doctrine of transubstantiation.]

4. the practice of these ordinances does not save us, and we receive spiritual benefit from them only when they are celebrated in “genuine faith” in Christ.

5. the ordinances serve to separate the believer from the world and to give a visible designation of those who belong to the body of Christ.

Our Statement denies that:

1. either baptism in water or participating in the Lord’s Supper is the instrumental cause of regeneration;

2. the grace of God is automatically and effectually conveyed through the administration of the ordinances themselves.

In addition, our Statement does not prescribe the “time” or “mode” of baptism (allowing for both credo- and paedobaptist practices) nor does it define the precise manner in which Christ is present in the Lord’s Supper (allowing for a variety of historic Evangelical views).

There is one additional and important matter to consider as we ponder the EFCA's view on the ordinances in general and baptism in particular. This addresses the Scriptures and our understanding/interpretation of them, which comes from Evangelical Convictions, 2nd ed. (2022), 145, n. 320: "We recognize that the interpretations of Scripture on the relevant points regarding the two positions on baptism differ with one another and are in some ways incompatible. We allow different interpretations, not because we think Scripture is intrinsically ambiguous on the matter, nor because we think Scripture provides so little information that it is unwise to hold any opinion, but because some of us think the credobaptist position is in line with Scripture and that the paedobaptist position is mistaken, and some think the paedobaptist position is in line with Scripture and that the exclusively credobaptist position is mistaken. In other words, both sides hold that Scripture speaks to the matter, but each side holds a view that excludes the other. However, we do not believe that our differing views on this matter (among others) should prevent our unity in the gospel in full local church fellowship. It is in this sense, and only in this sense, that the Statement of Faith "allows” both views."

Baptism: Infant and Believer

Send a Response

Responses