Christian baptism holds a place of clear importance in the New Testament, as evidenced by Christ’s Great Commission (Matt. 28:19), the connection between faith and baptism (Mark 16:16), and the apostolic exhortation to be baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Across all branches of the Christian church, baptism has been universally acknowledged as a divine ordinance—a visible sign of inclusion in the covenant community, marking the Church of Christ. On this point, the Free Presbyterian Church is in full agreement with the broader Christian tradition.
A History of Divided Opinion
However, despite widespread agreement on the importance of baptism, the mode and subjects of baptism have long been debated—even among Protestants who hold Scripture as the infallible and inspired rule of faith and practice. For example, while rejecting the Roman Catholic doctrine of baptismal regeneration, evangelicals have differed significantly over the practice of baptism.
Historically, the Reformed churches—along with Lutheran, Episcopal, Congregational, and Methodist traditions—have accepted various modes of baptism, such as sprinkling, pouring, and immersion. These traditions also agree that baptism is a sign and seal of God’s covenant with His people, extended to all within the covenant. Thus, they argue that the children of believers, being covenant members, should receive the sign of baptism.
On the other hand, Baptists and Anabaptists argue for believer’s baptism, insisting that baptism must follow an individual’s personal profession of faith. They contend that since the New Testament provides no direct command or example of infant baptism, it should be reserved for those who have consciously responded to the gospel. In their view, baptism is an outward declaration of personal faith and thus cannot be rightly applied to infants who have not yet exercised faith.
When it comes to the mode of baptism, many Baptists insist that immersion is the only proper method, arguing that the Greek verb baptizo means “to dip” and that Romans 6:3-4’s symbolism of death, burial, and resurrection necessitates immersion. However, it is worth noting that even early Anabaptists often practiced baptism by pouring.
Centuries of Debate
The long-standing debate surrounding baptism has not ceased after centuries of theological discourse. Both sides of the argument continue to engage in vigorous debate, with each point being countered and defended. The complexity of the discussion is highlighted by the fact that some of the strongest defenses of each position come from individuals who once held the opposing view. For instance, an ex-Presbyterian has presented one of the most compelling cases for the Baptist view, while a former Baptist pastor, after studying the subject in-depth, became an advocate for infant baptism.
Unity Amidst Differences
Recognizing the intensity of this debate, the Free Presbyterian Church acknowledges that good and faithful Christians have differed—and continue to differ—on this issue. But should these differences divide the body of Christ? Must believers separate over the issue of baptism, or can they maintain fellowship despite holding differing views?
We believe unity can and should prevail. Our Additional Statement on the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 28.3-4, reflects this conviction:
“We admit into our fellowship those who believe that covenant infants should receive baptism, the sign and seal of God’s covenant with His people—defining an infant as a person who has not matured to the point of being able to respond to the obligations of the gospel call in repentance and faith. We equally admit into our fellowship those who believe that the sacrament of baptism, no less than the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, should be administered only to those who have come to a credible profession of personal faith in Christ… In dealing with this subject that has long caused bitter divisions among God’s people, we pledge ourselves to hold our views with a loving toleration and respect for differing brethren, all of us being united in repudiating the error of baptismal regeneration.”
While we do not undervalue baptism, we reject needless division. Our aim is not to be so rigidly Presbyterian that we would exclude someone like C.H. Spurgeon for holding to believer’s baptism. Nor do we desire to be so exclusively Baptist that we would reject the ministry of someone like Robert Murray McCheyne, simply because he upheld infant baptism. Both men, despite their differing views, were passionate defenders of the gospel and zealous servants of Christ.
Points of Practical Emphasis
In contrast to some efforts within the broader ecumenical movement—such as the World Council of Churches—where compromise often leads to the dilution of essential gospel truths, the Free Presbyterian Church is committed to upholding the fundamentals of the faith without yielding to error. It is grievous, however, that Baptists and paedo-Baptists who agree on the core doctrines of the gospel often struggle to stand together in love and unity.
Thankfully, in our own history, we have seen the fruitful cooperation of both credo-Baptists and paedo-Baptists, standing together in defense of the gospel and working in harmony for the cause of Christ. We believe that this spirit of unity—grounded in a shared commitment to the fundamentals of the Christian faith—should continue to characterize our fellowship as we strive together for the glory of God and the advancement of His kingdom.
In this, the Free Presbyterian Church seeks to uphold a balanced and charitable position, allowing for diversity in the practice of baptism while maintaining doctrinal faithfulness.
If you would like to be baptized, or would like your infant to be baptized, please contact us.