In the past few years I have noticed what appears to be a sea change among Baptist theologians (Southern Baptists, at least) regarding the practice of Baptism. Just today I came across this comment by David Alan Black of Southeastern Baptist Seminary:
Black went on to write:However, in many parts of the world, including Ethiopia, new converts are first tested and instructed (sometimes for many months) before they are baptized. “Is he a genuine convert?” is the question posed. “Time will tell,” says the church. But Jesus says plainly that we are to baptize new converts and then teach them. Notice that carefully! Beware of supplanting the language of Jesus with the logic of man. A Christian makes an explicit pledge of commitment to Jesus Christ through the waters of baptism. That, ultimately, is what baptism is all about. It was not in the raising of a hand or the walking of an aisle that the early church saw the public profession of faith. It was in the public act of water baptism. So then, an unbaptized believer is a contradiction in terms. It is as infamous an oxymoron as jumbo shrimp.
I have a book published not long ago by Southern Baptists, "Believer's Baptism", edited by Thomas Schreiner, which has an article regarding Alexander Campbell's view on baptism. in the article it is acknowledged that the mature views of Campbell on baptism, and Campbell himself, have been treated unfairly over the many years, and indicated a basic agreement with Campbell. Black's view sounds much the same as that espoused by Campbell.So I plead: let’s return to the biblical pattern and the example set for us by the early church.
Black's plea would seem to indicate that he was in the minority when he wrote it.
I know your expressed views seem to align with Black's position. Have you noticed an evolving position among the Baptists? The baptisms I have attended at Baptist churches always seem to involve a talk downplaying baptism into nothing more than a testimony of sorts.