Credo or Paedo?

[Clare73]

The Latin word translation at the time of Jerome was indeed the closest to the Greek meaning at that time.

Having a hard time seeing how sacramentum (God acts through means) can mean "secret, newly revealed," which meaning of musterion having been always clearly presented in the NT (Ro 16:25; 1 Co 2:7, 1 Co 4:1, Col 1:26-27).

Today's translation would theoretically not need to use either word if there was a word closer to the original meaning. The mistake made by some others around that time was in transliterating rather than translating.

Transliteration to "God works through means" (sacramentum) is in no way related to "secret, newly revealed" (musterion),
keeping in mind that the meaning of musterion was always in the NT (Ro 16:25; 1 Co 2:7, 1 Co 4:1, Col 1:26-27).

No, the mistake made at that time was not using the meaning presented in the NT at that time.

 

[Valletta]

Having a hard time seeing how sacramentum (God acts through means) can mean "secret, newly revealed," this meaning of musterion having been always clearly presented in the NT (Ro 16:25; 1 Co 2:7, 1 Co 4:1, Col 1:26-27).

Transliteration to "God works through means" (sacramentum) is in no way related to "secret, newly revealed" (musterion),
keeping in mind that the meaning of musterion was always in the NT (Ro 16:25; 1 Co 2:7, 1 Co 4:1, Col 1:26-27).

No, the mistake made at that time was not using the meaning presented in the NT at that time.

No, it was not meant to refer to pagan rituals.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No. Words translated may have the same meaning or not. In this case the Latin "mysterium" referred to pagan practices while "sacramentum" did not.

Yes, I understood that. My questions is not whether you think Jerome mistranslated, but whether you think those who used the Latin to translate to English should not have instead used the Greek, without considering how the Latin reads modern day. And so, is there cause to use a different translation there, or even to upgrade the Latin translation?

 

[Clare73]

No, it was not meant to refer to pagan rituals.

We have the same situation in the English meaning of mystery as "incomprehensible,"
as in Jerome's time of the Latin meaning of mysterium as "service, rite."

In light of the Greek meaning of musterion being presented in the NT (Ro 16:25; 1 Co 2:7, 1 Co 4:1, Col 1:26-27),
as well as all the examples stated in the NT (see post #111),
there really is no justification for ever presenting it as meaning "God acts through means."

 

[Mark Quayle]

Here are three more differences that are worth noting:

(1) Baptism for those who are strictly credobaptists is individual-oriented, whereas for those who are paedobaptists it is family-oriented (biological family and covenant family). An important difference in focus.

(2) Important: Both sides affirm believers baptism. The difference is that one side rejects the baptizing of children (who aren't old enough to make a credible profession of faith) while the other side does not.

(3) There are two kinds of paedobaptist: (a) those for whom the sacrament cleanses us from our sin (e.g., Roman Catholic) and (b) those for whom it is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace by which a person is solemnly admitted into the covenant community (e.g., Reformed).

It's also worth noting that paedobaptists are alone in viewing baptism as a sacrament.

---

Edited: Changed the wording to take into consideration @BobRyan's fair criticism.

Not having studied the subject to any great length, I tend to disagree, only slightly with your point #1. When I was baptized as a young teen, it was indeed my choice and desire, but I fully intended it as a statement that not only was I identifying with Christ, but that I was identified within the whole body of Christ AS MY FAMILY. I tend to be baptistic in my preference to credobaptism, but there is something about paedobaptism that I dearly love, that has to do with the authority of the father over his family. And in the absence of a father, the Church is responsible. To me it is very much like the exhortation that my own father always used when marrying a couple, that the church was not only a witness of the covenant being made, but that the church was responsible to see it upheld and strengthened. —As you may imagine, he was very picky over whose wedding he was willing to officiate.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Where does Ro 6 (dead to sin and alive in Christ) fit in with infant baptism of paedobaptists?

My question would be, why don't we do both? Paedobaptists, for the most part, I think, don't consider it to be the same thing.

I understand why Credobaptists disparage Paedobaptism, but I'm not sure why Paedobaptists reject credobaptism also. I really like it when the person themself public affirms they are members of the body of Christ. I really like Paedobaptism, from the POV of the father of a family, but if I had to pick one as opposed to the other, I'd go for Credobaptism, and not because that's how I was brought up.

One thing I would like emphasized for both, is the responsibility of the church to see the matter not only witnessed but supported, maintained, upheld. It is not meant to be mere ritual.

 

[Clare73]

My question would be, why don't we do both? Paedobaptists, for the most part, I think, don't consider it to be the same thing.

I understand why Credobaptists disparage Paedobaptism, but I'm not sure why Paedobaptists reject credobaptism also. I really like it when the person themself public affirms they are members of the body of Christ. I really like Paedobaptism, from the POV of the father of a family, but if I had to pick one as opposed to the other, I'd go for Credobaptism, and not because that's how I was brought up.

One thing I would like emphasized for both, is the responsibility of the church to see the matter not only witnessed but supported, maintained, upheld. It is not meant to be mere ritual.

The Catholic church basically has both, in baptism and in confirmation, which operates like a waterless credobaptism.

Anybody know what a "vote" is?

 

[Clare73]

No, it was not meant to refer to pagan rituals.

Agreed. . .but seems Jerome thought the faithful might be confused by the Latin mysterium, and so
took the liberty to "transliterate" the Greek musterion as the Latin "sacramentum," which transliteration resulted in
the NT church ordinances becoming "sacraments;" i.e.,
confession, instead of to each other (Jas 5:16), becoming to a minister and
the addition of confirmation, nowhere presented in the NT, and operating as a waterless credobaptism.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

I really like it when the person themself public affirms they are members of the body of Christ.

This statement is why paedo's FLAT OUT reject credobaptistic presuppositions. No where in Scripture is baptism affirmed as a "public affirmation or proclamation" of a person's faith. It is a modern theological innovation devoid of scriptural mooring. Search the Scriptures and you will not find baptism as defined typically as:

• Baptism is an outward sign of an inward change.
• It is an act of obedience and discipleship.
• Outward symbol of an adult’s conscious decision to trust in Jesus

These definitions are foreign to the NT text.

However, the Lord's Supper is a proclamation of our faith. I Cor 11:26 "For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes." The reason for public proclamation is that in the Lord’s supper you are active and in baptism you are passive. Receiving the Lord’s Supper is the most public act of worship we do on Sunday. We are active in receiving the Lord’s supper as Jesus says, “Take eat” and “Drink.”

In baptism, we are passive. We never baptize ourselves. Someone else baptizes us. We are not active in baptism anymore than being active in open heart surgery.

In Baptism God is doing; we are receiving. Baptism is neither the work of the one being baptized nor of the man baptizing, but rather it is solely the work of God. This work of God is done through human hands.

​

​

 

[Jipsah]

I do admit to feeling confused about Anglicanism and its relationship with Protestantism; at least some Anglicans I talk with do not want to self identify as protestant.

Though raised Baptist, I can't find much to agree with in American Protestantism. I generally tell people I'm an Anglo or English Catholic.

And I am aware that John Calvin and Martin Luther were in deep disagreement with Ulrich Zwingli and his proteges.

As well they should have been.

 

[Jipsah]

This statement is why paedo's FLAT OUT reject credobaptistic presuppositions. No where in Scripture is baptism affirmed as a "public affirmation or proclamation" of a person's faith. It is a modern theological innovation devoid of scriptural mooring. Search the Scriptures and you will not find baptism as defined typically as:

• Baptism is an outward sign of an inward change.
• It is an act of obedience and discipleship.
• Outward symbol of an adult’s conscious decision to trust in Jesus

These definitions are foreign to the NT text.

However, the Lord's Supper is a proclamation of our faith. I Cor 11:26 "For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes." The reason for public proclamation is that in the Lord’s supper you are active and in baptism you are passive. Receiving the Lord’s Supper is the most public act of worship we do on Sunday. We are active in receiving the Lord’s supper as Jesus says, “Take eat” and “Drink.”

In baptism, we are passive. We never baptize ourselves. Someone else baptizes us. We are not active in baptism anymore than being active in open heart surgery.

In Baptism God is doing; we are receiving. Baptism is neither the work of the one being baptized nor of the man baptizing, but rather it is solely the work of God. This work of God is done through human hands.

QFT ​

​

​

 

[Mark Quayle]

Do you consider Baptism, then, Salvific? Y'know, along the same lines as being regenerated, the work of the Spirit of God?

To you, is Baptism only as necessary for salvation as, say, repentance (which I say is also the work of the Spirit in us)? Or would you say even moreso than repentance— repentance being a result of the Spirit in us, but Baptism producing Salvation, with regeneration as a result, or how do you lay these out?

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

We make the distinction between the winning of forgiveness of sins and the delivery of forgiveness of sins. Christ won forgiveness of sins for us, by his substitutionary atonement. Baptism because it contains the Word of God, delivers that promise to the individual. The prime means of grace is the Word. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ (Romans 10:17). However, the Bibles own definition of baptism is water and the Word as in Eph 5 just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the Word...."
Baptism is God's activity and God's business.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Not having studied the subject to any great length, I tend to disagree, only slightly, with your point #1. When I was baptized as a young teen, it was indeed my choice and desire but I fully intended it as a statement that not only was I identifying with Christ but that I was identified within the whole body of Christ AS MY FAMILY.

The fact that the statement was about you and how you’re identifying just goes to further support what I said in point 1 (assuming it is uncontroversial to regard you as an individual).

I tend to be baptistic in my preference to credobaptism, but there is something about paedobaptism that I dearly love, that has to do with the authority of the father over his family. And in the absence of a father, the Church is responsible. To me it is very much like the exhortation that my own father always used when marrying a couple, that the church was not only a witness of the covenant being made, but that the church was responsible to see it upheld and strengthened. —As you may imagine, he was very picky over whose wedding he was willing to officiate.

I can’t say anything else than amen.

 

[LW97Nils]

What would be the correct one? Father, son and Holy Spirit or only Jesus? I feel like I may have to be rebaptized? Yes, the baptism into the Holy Spirit would be in Jesus' name, but keep in mind everyone who had received that baptism had received the baptism of repentance before (Acts 1:5 and as well as Acts 9). Allow me to be confused.

 

[ViaCrucis]

What would be the correct one? Father, son and Holy Spirit or only Jesus? I feel like I may have to be rebaptized? Yes, the baptism into the Holy Spirit would be in Jesus' name, but keep in mind everyone who had received that baptism had received the baptism of repentance before (Acts 1:5 and as well as Acts 9). Allow me to be confused.

Christian Baptism is "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" as per Christ's command in Matthew 28:19.

When we see "baptized in the name of Jesus" or similar language in the Acts of the Apostles, it may be helpful to understand this as "by the authority of Jesus", it marks a distinction between Christian Baptism which Christ instituted for His Church and other "baptisms", such as John's baptism of repentance, or the "baptisms" associated with Jewish ritual purification.

Historically and traditionally the method of Baptism is less important than the form. Method meaning, for example, whether one is immersed three times (the most ancient method of Christian Baptism), immersed a single time, or whether it is by diffusion (pouring), or aspersion (sprinkling). All of these methods have been generally accepted as valid throughout the history of Christianity, and the earliest Christian witness to the method(s) of baptism (the Didache, written sometime between 60 and 120 AD) mentions that immersion in running water is preferable, but still water is acceptable, and if there just isn't enough water to immerse, pouring is fine. The method is not what matters, but rather the form.

And the form of baptism is that there is the application of water in which one is baptized "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit". Not because the words are somehow magic, but rather to properly communicate what is happening. The general reason why Christians have rejected "Jesus name only" formulas is because these are associated most often with sectarian groups whose baptisms are illicit and invalid because they are intentionally contrary to the Christiant intent and meaning of baptism. So, for example, in modern times "Jesus' name" baptism is most commonly associated with "Oneness Pentecostals", who flagrantly deny the Trinity, and who baptize not into Christ, but rather baptize into their own sect. And thus their baptisms are considered invalid. In the same way, Mormon baptisms are considered invalid, even though they do baptize "in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit"--it's not the words themselves, but the meaning and intent.

As such the majority of Christians, from across different traditions and communions, all recognize baptisms as valid regardless of who officiated it, or where it was done, as long as it is a valid Christian baptism. That means, for example, Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Prebyterians, etc, completely acknowledge one another's baptisms, and acknowledge baptisms in Baptist, Pentecostal (Trinitarian), non-denominational, etc churches; even if Baptist, Pnetecostal, non-denominational churches may not recognize Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, etc baptisms as valid.

Because the historic understanding is that baptism is not about joining a congregation, or making a public confession of faith, but is instead a means of grace through which God Himself works, to create, give, and strengthen faith. So as long as one is baptized as a Christian, it is a Christian Baptism.

In the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, for here God stakes His own Name in His Sacrament, sealing us with His word and promise which He gives us in Christ, and so here the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are found. For we are adopted as children of the Father, united to Christ's death and resurrection, and have the promise of the Holy Spirit--all which are promised and declared in Holy Scripture as true.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[LW97Nils]

Christian Baptism is "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" as per Christ's command in Matthew 28:19.

When we see "baptized in the name of Jesus" or similar language in the Acts of the Apostles, it may be helpful to understand this as "by the authority of Jesus", it marks a distinction between Christian Baptism which Christ instituted for His Church and other "baptisms", such as John's baptism of repentance, or the "baptisms" associated with Jewish ritual purification.

Historically and traditionally the method of Baptism is less important than the form. Method meaning, for example, whether one is immersed three times (the most ancient method of Christian Baptism), immersed a single time, or whether it is by diffusion (pouring), or aspersion (sprinkling). All of these methods have been generally accepted as valid throughout the history of Christianity, and the earliest Christian witness to the method(s) of baptism (the Didache, written sometime between 60 and 120 AD) mentions that immersion in running water is preferable, but still water is acceptable, and if there just isn't enough water to immerse, pouring is fine. The method is not what matters, but rather the form.

And the form of baptism is that there is the application of water in which one is baptized "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit". Not because the words are somehow magic, but rather to properly communicate what is happening. The general reason why Christians have rejected "Jesus name only" formulas is because these are associated most often with sectarian groups whose baptisms are illicit and invalid because they are intentionally contrary to the Christiant intent and meaning of baptism. So, for example, in modern times "Jesus' name" baptism is most commonly associated with "Oneness Pentecostals", who flagrantly deny the Trinity, and who baptize not into Christ, but rather baptize into their own sect. And thus their baptisms are considered invalid. In the same way, Mormon baptisms are considered invalid, even though they do baptize "in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit"--it's not the words themselves, but the meaning and intent.

As such the majority of Christians, from across different traditions and communions, all recognize baptisms as valid regardless of who officiated it, or where it was done, as long as it is a valid Christian baptism. That means, for example, Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Prebyterians, etc, completely acknowledge one another's baptisms, and acknowledge baptisms in Baptist, Pentecostal (Trinitarian), non-denominational, etc churches; even if Baptist, Pnetecostal, non-denominational churches may not recognize Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, etc baptisms as valid.

Because the historic understanding is that baptism is not about joining a congregation, or making a public confession of faith, but is instead a means of grace through which God Himself works, to create, give, and strengthen faith. So as long as one is baptized as a Christian, it is a Christian Baptism.

In the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, for here God stakes His own Name in His Sacrament, sealing us with His word and promise which He gives us in Christ, and so here the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are found. For we are adopted as children of the Father, united to Christ's death and resurrection, and have the promise of the Holy Spirit--all which are promised and declared in Holy Scripture as true.

-CryptoLutheran

I see people getting baptized both ways. I do have the desire to be re-baptized.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I see people getting baptized both ways. I do have the desire to be re-baptized.

If you were baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit in a Trinitarian church, then there's no reason for you to do so. God's promises don't depend on us, but rather on Himself. What He gave you, what He promised you, and has done for you in your baptism is His work, His gift, His grace for you.

Instead, when you think on your baptism (whether you can remember it or not), be encouraged by the words of Scripture: Christ died for you, your sins are forgiven, the Holy Spirit lives in you, you are a new creation in Jesus Christ, you are born again by the grace of God, adopted as God's child and heir, united to Christ's death and resurrection. You have died to the world, and have been made alive with and in Christ, to God, that you might walk in faith and live by carrying your cross as the disciple of Jesus.

We don't get baptized as an outward symbol for the sake of ourselves, for the sake of others in the congregation, for pastors, or parents, or even for God. We are baptized because God has invited us to have life from Him. Consider what Paul writes in Titus 3:5, that it is not by works of righteousness we have done, but rather the washing of regeneration and the renewal of the Holy Spirit, God saves us by His mercy alone.

Thus baptism is God's seal and promise to you of what Christ has done, and what you have in Christ, that you might trust and believe, and be bold in your faith that God has saved you, is saying you, and will save you. That you are freely justified by His grace, apart from your own works, because of what Christ has already done for you, for me, and for every sinner.

To get "re-baptized" is, in a way, saying to God, "What you did for me isn't enough, I need to do something more". I know that isn't your intent, I know you don't mean it to be ill-intended. But it is important to know what baptism is and means, because we aren't baptized for God. Rather God baptizes us out of His love and grace. The human person who conducts the baptismal rite isn't the one baptizing you, it is God who is baptizing you. That is why baptism is God's work, not our own. And because it is God's work, we can be confident in what He has done and told us. Believing in His promises, and resting in His word.

Abide and be comforted in Him, who has given you Himself in your once-and-for-all baptism. For God placed His very Name in that water, to call you His own.

If you want a symbol of faith you can express, profess, there are many ways we can do that, every day of our lives. Through prayer, through singing our hymns, through icons, by reading and believing the Scriptures, by holding firm to what we confess in the Creeds. Every day is filled with opportunity to profess and confess our faith, we don't need to "redo" what God has already done to have that.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

And thus their baptisms are considered invalid. In the same way, Mormon baptisms are considered invalid, even though they do baptize "in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit"--it's not the words themselves, but the meaning and intent.

In Mormonism a different Jesus is presented.....the spirit brother of Lucifer. And also Jesus with the Father and the Spirit are just three gods in a pantheon of gods.

It is not the SOUND of the name F, S, and HS that gives meaning and validity to baptism, but the MEANING of the sound....F, S, and HS that gives validity to baptism.

Futhermore, the public intent and witnesses of mormon baptisms declare the Mormon doctrine of god(s), rather than historic Trinitarianism.

Credos tend to see an invalid baptism with reference to age and mode. I seriously doubt God is pleased with one mode over another. But the one mode of baptism such as immersion is certainly man pleasing to some Christians.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I vote aye and aye for paedo!