Any Ex-Credeobaptists here?

[Grace_Alone4gives]

I know there has been discussions about peoples views in this matter...but never a discussion concerning this:

I am just wondering if there are any people who used to believe in 'Believers Baptism / Crdeobaptism' but are now in favor of infant/peadeobaptism. Can you let me know what persuaded you?

This is not a debate...I am a paedeobaptist - but would like to know if anyone ever did 'the switch' as far as their baptism belief stands, and why.

I posted this elsewhere - but really wnat to hear from my Reformed famly also.

Victoria

 

[cygnusx1]

I know there has been discussions about peoples views in this matter...but never a discussion concerning this:

I am just wondering if there are any people who used to believe in 'Believers Baptism / Crdeobaptism' but are now in favor of infant/peadeobaptism. Can you let me know what persuaded you?

This is not a debate...I am a paedeobaptist - but would like to know if anyone ever did 'the switch' as far as their baptism belief stands, and why.

I posted this elsewhere - but really wnat to hear from my Reformed famly also.

Victoria

I have a friend who is one , I am still a Baptist although much of Covenant theology appeals...........God loves families .....

 

[bigsierra]

I used to hold to believers baptism only. It was through Calvinist Covenant Theology that I learned differently.

 

[Bulldog]

Ex-Paedobaptist here

Unfortunatly I have not studied the subject as much as I probably should

 

[bigsierra]

Ex-Paedobaptist here

Unfortunatly I have not studied the subject as much as I probably should

RC Sproul has some good material on it, but I guess that could be said about almost any topic

 

[cygnusx1]

RC Sproul has some good material on it, but I guess that could be said about almost any topic

David Kingdon has written an excellent book on the subject.......

 

[cygnusx1]

Perhaps my fav book on this subject is..........

Should Babies Be Baptized, by T. E. Watson. London: Grace Publications, 1995, 125 pp.

Reviewed by Fred A. Malone​

This expanded republication of Baptism Not for Infants (1962), often overlooked, is a welcome addition to any shelf as a useful refutation of infant baptism. Watson's unique method of argument is to take quotations exclusively from paedobaptist authors and allow them to refute each other. The result is a persuasive nonsectarian rejection of every Scripture and argument used by paedobaptists to defend infant baptism. The often heard argument that disagreements between paedobaptists on each Scripture and argument actually strengthens the case for infant baptism from all the Scriptures makes no sense in the light of Watson's presentation.

http://www.founders.org/FJ36/reviews.html

 

[cajunhillbilly]

I used to believe in believers baptism, but then went to Westminster Seminary in Philly and my view was changed over my 3 years there as I came to understand Reformed Theology.

 

[cygnusx1]

You know in England every year they have "the Banner Of Truth Conference " and I am reliably informed that you have Baptists all down one side and Paedobaptists all down the other............


The one subject never discussed is...............................yes , you guessed , Baptism!

 

[cajunhillbilly]

You know in England every year they have "the Banner Of Truth Conference " and I am reliably informed that you have Baptists all down one side and Paedobaptists all down the other............


The one subject never discussed is...............................yes , you guessed , Baptism!

That makes sense. They want to show an united front for Calvinism. Why split over just one issue?

 

[cygnusx1]

That makes sense. They want to show an united front for Calvinism. Why split over just one issue?

Don't get me wrong , I agree , but it just makes me smile , I mean who is more doctrinally minded than Calvinists , yet they cannot speak about this issue collectively.....................perhaps the temptation to chop down wood and light fires is too scary...

 

[Irishcat922]

I was credo until I became reformed it was the toughest thing to understand and let go of. It took me alot of research, before i was convinced. John Murray and Jay Adams books were very helpful for me, most convincing was seeing the scriptures in a covenantal light. God always deals with his people covenantally and seems to place a great importance on families. I don't believe it should ever be used as a test for fellowship though. I have many friends who are thoroughly convicted that credo is the only biblical method of baptism. http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/MyRetraction.htm

 

[Laserman]

Hi,

I was a Reformed Baptist for awhile. I had read Calvin, Hodges and Berkhof on Baptism but still was not 100% conviced. As the Idea of the covenant in scripture became furthur entrenched in my thoughts I soon saw that nothing about the requirements for entrance into the covenant had changed in the new testament for infants, except the form: water baptism instead of of circumcision. It's all in the covenant. To be Baptist, is in a sense to be dispensational although Calvinistic Baptist can't see that. There's nothing in the New Testament about children not being allowed entrance into the Covenant until they believe. It's the same Lord, Same Salvation, same Baptism: They are one. Doctrinal study on the covenant is needed to day more than ever before.

Barry