The three views are:
- Believers’ Baptism View: Bruce A. Ware
- Infant Baptism View: Sinclair B. Ferguson
- Dual-Practice Baptism View: Anthony N. S. Lane
In No 1, one is baptised on profession of personal faith by immersion.
I’ve just may have given a hint in the first post that I’m not persuaded by No.2. 🙂
No. 3, building on the diversity of practice in the early church, is an argument for the practice of similiar diversity today – instead of the ‘either / or’ alternatives of the credo-baptist or infant-baptist views. [BTW the seemingly ageless Professor Tony Lane was my theology lecturer at London Bible College [now London School of Theology] – and he’s still there and seems not to have changed a bit].
There is a whole lot to be said – this post is just teeing up the discussion to come. I’ll also be using a special edition of Evangelical Quarterly from 2006 on Baptism.
The introduction by Daniel Reid (standing in for the late David Wright) has a nice quote from Karl Barth, who shifted from a paedobaptist to believer’s baptist position and got a fair bit of flak for his troubles:
An important sign that a defender of infant baptism is certain that his cause has a sound theological basis ought surely to be …. that he is able to present and support it calmly
A laudable goal for whatever view is held … And so, being a paragon of objectivity, I’ll try to give each view a fair hearing!