Open Baptists & Paedobaptism

[Humble_Disciple]

Historically, Open Baptists were Baptist congregations in England that accepted for communion, as well as church membership, those who had been baptized as infants, without requiring them to be baptized again. If baptism is just an outward symbol of repentance, is it necessary for Baptist churches to require that new members be re-baptized?

The editor of the three-volume edition of the Works of John Bunyan in 1854, George Offor, comments on Bunyan’s position:

"Bunyan saw all the difficulties of this question: he was satisfied that baptism is a personal duty, in respect of which every individual must be satisfied, in his own mind, and over which no church had any control; and that the only enquiry as to the fitness of a candidate for church fellowship should be, whether the regenerating powers of the Holy Ghost had baptized the spirit of the proposed member into newness of life. This is the only livery by which a Christian can be known. Bunyan very justly condemns the idea of water baptism being either the Christian’s livery or his marriage to the Saviour."

It is a sad fact that most Baptists have long since denied the theology of the Strict and Particular Baptists and yet have the vestige of an external requirement. Others who hold steadfastly to the theology have not listened to their father in the faith, John Bunyan. Even those whom Bunyan admonished at that time seem to have relented for a time since in the appendix to the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1677) they wrote,

"We would not be misconstrued, as if the discharge of our consciences did any way disoblige or alienate our affections or conversations from any others that fear the Lord: earnestly desiring to approve ourselves to be such as follow after peace with holiness. We continue our practice, not out of obstinacy, but we do therein according to the best of our understandings, in that method which we take to be most agreeable to the Scriptures. The christening of infants, we find by church history, to have been a very ancient practice; still we leave every one to give an account of himself to God. And if in any case debates between Christians are not plainly determinable by the Scriptures, we leave it to the second coming of Christ."

Sadly, this statement was omitted from the 1689 republished edition of the Second London Baptist Confession—the year after Bunyan’s death. We concur with Bunyan, “I own water baptism to be God’s ordinance, but I make no idol of it.”
https://www.wordmp3.com/baptism-and-communion-by-bunyan-edited-by-strawbridge

 

[Hammster]

If we hold that infant baptism isn’t biblical, then they aren’t being re-baptized

 

[JM]

Due to persecution of the non-conformists many had to set aside theological issues to fellowship. A local Presbyterian church allows for Reformed Baptists to join without the fear of church discipline for not baptizing their babies.

I kind of agree with Bunyan. Where I live only two churches are conservative and if one had not been Baptist I would be attending the Presbyterian church as they are the closet to conservative Reformed Baptist beliefs.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[HantsUK]

I do not recognise the term 'Open Baptist', at least, not regarding the history of Baptists in England.

This seems to do with requirements for church membership. Some (most?) Baptist churches require members to have been baptised a believers, usually by full immersion. The important thing is that you knew (to the best of your ability) what you were doing, so this excludes being christened as a baby or toddler. There is often associate membership for those who have not been baptised.

The OP quote seems to suggest that the earliest Particular Baptists did not make baptism a requirement for membership.

Other Baptist churches (today) extend membership to anyone who professes faith in Christ, whether or not they have been baptised. This recognises that while baptism is an act of obedience and public confession, it is not necessary for being saved. My church has open membership, but almost everyone has been baptised. Baptism is required for a Minister, Deacons / Elders (there are also other requirements under UK law, as they are legally considered 'charity trustees').

I find it strange that some American Baptist churches baptise children. This would be the exception in England, with children waiting until being older (depending on their maturity). I would have reservations about anyone under about 15 or 16 being baptised.

Most Baptist churches will recognise baptisms carried out in other dominations, providing that it was 'believers baptism'. The one difficulty is with someone from an Anglican background who was christened as an infant, then confirmed as a (believing) teenager or adult and views that as equivalent to having been baptised.