Credo vs Paedo baptism

[Proeliator]

With a new child on the way, I have decided to revisit this issue. The reason that I believe in Credo is because if you look back, the examples in the Bible are believers, not children.

 

[GrinningDwarf]

Howdy, shadrach_!

I have followed credobaptism since becoming a Christian in 1982...but I find my objections to paedobaptism eroding the more I learn about what really is at the heart of the Reformed tradition. It's not the Five Points of TULIP, but covenant theology. I don't have much time to post here this morning, but I would recommend reading Michael Horton's God of Promise to learn more about what covenant theology is and what it means before making a decision one way or the other. It will make you see communion in a new light, as well.

 

[calmcoolandelected]

With a new child on the way, I have decided to revisit this issue. The reason that I believe in Credo is because if you look back, the examples in the Bible are believers, not children.

I would disagree in that there are examples where someone is told to go and baptise the whole household. One example would be Acts 16, where Lydia and her household were baptized. Later in same chapter, the jailer. Paul baptised the household of Stephanas (I Cor. 1).

I have two little booklets on baptism: _What Christian Parents Should Know About Infant Baptism_ by John P. Sartelle (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing) and _Baptism_ by Francis A. Schaeffer (Trimark Publishing).

CC&E

 

[Jon_]

With a new child on the way, I have decided to revisit this issue. The reason that I believe in Credo is because if you look back, the examples in the Bible are believers, not children.

P1) All believers should be baptised.
P2) Children are not believers.
C) Therefore, they should not be baptised.

This is a classic example of "affirming the consequent." The argument is totally invalid. This is the same as saying:

P1) All dogs have four legs.
P2) Fluffy is not a dog.
C) Therefore, Fluffy does not have four legs.

In fact Fluffy is a cat and does indeed have four legs. You can see from this example why the argument is invalid.

What you really need to study is Covenant Theology. A right understanding of the covenants is critical to understanding paedobaptism.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Erinwilcox]

Before my days here in SR, I was completely, utterly, and undeniably credobaptist to the core. Then I began reading some posts and began thinking--some of the people who I respected most here were paedo, many of the great Reformed "heros" were paedo, and I began to wonder if perhaps the case wasn't so clear cut after all. So, I asked some people on here to help me and to answer my questions. Now, I'm not hard core credo anymore, but I haven't fully swallowed the whole infant baptism issue. There are definitely elements of covenant theology that I am quite willing to accept, though.

 

[heymikey80]

With a new child on the way, I have decided to revisit this issue. The reason that I believe in Credo is because if you look back, the examples in the Bible are believers, not children.

Hm. That's a fairly slick slope you're walking onto, isn't it? I mean, aren't there perfectly reasonable examples in the Bible of children -- who are indeed believers?

Is Isaac a great example as a mature believer, or as a child?

How about Samuel? How did Samuel do as a mature believer? His kids weren't exactly flattering. But what about his childhood? I envy the guy his childhood.

And David? Slaying Goliath. Saul has slain his thousands -- and David his ten thousands.

If all our heroes are full-grown, then I think the value we place on redemption through growth will be the less as well. What about the child Jesus brought before the disciples? The child with fish & loaves? What about the infants Jesus was indignant with the disciples over?

I guess they're more heroes to me than the adults elsewhere.

How about Eph 6:1 -- "Children obey your parents ..." Paul addresses children as part of the body of believers.

God institutes sacraments, right? It's not for us to determine their appropriateness for a certain age, but it is admittedly God Who decides. And since God was pretty silent about the use of baptism, there's really no constraint He's imposed. But then, what does God say about applying a sign of faith to an infant? There are other signs of faith God has instituted, one being circumcision (Rom 4:11) -- does God have some opposition to applying the sign of faith to an infant?

According to Genesis 17, the opposite is true. God actually commanded circumcision on infants. And so when Paul says of Abraham God intended "and to make him the father of the circumcised" (Rom 4:12), pointedly Abraham is the father of those circumcised in infancy as God commanded, who also indeed do walk in the footsteps of Abraham's faith. It's a very different image than we're used to. But it's the Biblical image Paul calls attention to.

 

[edie19]

I'm not going to beat up on a paedobaptists - they have as sound an argument for their viewpoint as I do for mine. But as one who is a credobaptist and holds with covenant theology I have to say - the two are not mutually exclusive. Credobaptism is in line with covenant theology (and I think all the reformed baptists I know agree with that statement).

Now this is just my humble opinion - but I'm a lot less concerned about whether or not someone was sprinkled vs. immersed or credo vs paedo than I am about someone who thinks "I'm a good person so I'm going to heaven." There's so much poor theology out there and in comparison the different views of baptism seem pretty minor.

edie

P.S. - Mike Horton has never written a bad book

 

[JM]

Credobaptists do not willing create covenant breakers by baptizing the reprobate.

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

Credobaptists do not willing create covenant breakers by baptizing the reprobate.

I see. So I'll never see a Baptist who turns out to be reprobate?

 

[JM]

I see. So I'll never see a Baptist who turns out to be reprobate?

Credobaptists do not willing create covenant breakers by baptizing the reprobate. We do not baptize without discrimination. Profession of faith is needed.

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

Credobaptists do not willing create covenant breakers by baptizing the reprobate. We do not baptize without discrimination. Profession of faith is needed.

Again, I ask the same question. Because if you're looking only to baptize the non-reprobate, then either profession of faith is an infallible guarantor of regeneration and no one baptized upon profession of faith is reprobate, or you've messed up. If "we didn't know" isn't an excuse for us, it isn't for you.

Do you really believe paedobaptists are out to make covenant-breakers? Then I guess the church of the OT was stuck in this same error by circumcising their infants?

 

[JM]

Again, I ask the same question. Because if you're looking only to baptize the non-reprobate, then either profession of faith is an infallible guarantor of regeneration and no one baptized upon profession of faith is reprobate, or you've messed up. If "we didn't know" isn't an excuse for us, it isn't for you.

Credobaptists, as you know, baptize based on profession, infant baptism is based on the profession of their parents. Infant baptism begs the question by assuming something not stated in the NT.

Do you really believe paedobaptists are out to make covenant-breakers? Then I guess the church of the OT was stuck in this same error by circumcising their infants?

This is a can of worms, it's a different covenant with different requirements that are explicitly stated. We don't baptize our maids or servants based on our profession either.



This has been hashed and rehased so many times to the point of ad nauseum. [for me]

jm

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

This is a can of worms, it's a different covenant with different requirements that are explicitly stated. We don't baptize our maids or servants based on our profession either.

I'm not speaking of a specific covenant. We're talking about making covenant-breakers. Unless it's somehow okay to make covenant-breakers for the old people and not for the new, I fail to see how the argument does not apply.

This has been hashed and rehased so many times to the point of ad nauseum. [for me]

And for me. Which is why I'm not going to address the rest of it. You know what I'm going to say.

 

[AndOne]

Shadrach - Congratulations Brother!

I just went through this issue myself about 20 months ago when my daughter was born.

All-in-all I went from Credo to Padeo and now I'm somewhere in between.

You can dig through past posts of mine to see how I came out in favor of Padeo Baptism - but I would like to give you one piece of advice now. Take this directly to your pastor and discuss the issue with him. It is one thing I did not do in my own search and later greatly regretted that. A Baptist Pastor will most assuredly try to convince you padeo-baptism is not the way to go - but if you go to a Baptist Church you should submit to the authority of your pastor and bring your search to him while you are in this process. Good luck brother - and again - CONGRATTS!!

 

[GrinningDwarf]

Shadrach - Congratulations Brother!

I just went through this issue myself about 20 months ago when my daughter was born.

All-in-all I went from Credo to Padeo and now I'm somewhere in between.

You can dig through past posts of mine to see how I came out in favor of Padeo Baptism - but I would like to give you one piece of advice now. Take this directly to your pastor and discuss the issue with him. It is one thing I did not do in my own search and later greatly regretted that. A Baptist Pastor will most assuredly try to convince you padeo-baptism is not the way to go - but if you go to a Baptist Church you should submit to the authority of your pastor and bring your search to him while you are in this process. Good luck brother - and again - CONGRATTS!!

Great advice, dude!

 

[cygnusx1]

Again, I ask the same question. Because if you're looking only to baptize the non-reprobate, then either profession of faith is an infallible guarantor of regeneration and no one baptized upon profession of faith is reprobate, or you've messed up. If "we didn't know" isn't an excuse for us, it isn't for you.

Do you really believe paedobaptists are out to make covenant-breakers? Then I guess the church of the OT was stuck in this same error by circumcising their infants?

profession of faith is no guarantee , Simon the magician "believed" and was baptised , he then attempted to buy the Holy Spirits power with cash.....

I agree with edb19 post.

One of the books that confirms my belief in Credo-Baptism is an amazing book ( number 50 in my top 100 Should infants be baptised ?... T E Watson ) written using only quotes by Paedobaptists to bring the subject out into the open.

 

[bradfordl]

Credo-baptism is another form of credo-soteriology, er, I mean arminianism.

Trust God, apply the covenant sign to you new child. Trust God, raise him up in the way he should go. Trust God, and he will not depart from them all the days of his life. God keeps His promises.

Or don't trust God and wring your hands and hope you or your credo-baptist preacher can convince him to "make a decision" some day, and if not, excuse your unregenerate progeny with, "Well, we did our best.", (except trust God) and be done with it.

 

[cygnusx1]

Credo-baptism is another form of credo-soteriology, er, I mean arminianism.

Trust God, apply the covenant sign to you new child. Trust God, raise him up in the way he should go. Trust God, and he will not depart from them all the days of his life. God keeps His promises.

Or don't trust God and wring your hands and hope you or your credo-baptist preacher can convince him to "make a decision" some day, and if not, excuse your unregenerate progeny with, "Well, we did our best.", (except trust God) and be done with it.

yes .......... mmmmmmmmmm , like Paedo Baptism is just another form of fatalism , er , I mean Hyper Calvinism!

(Joke! people)

 

[Adammi]

Is baptism a work of God's grace to man, or a work of man's faith to God?

 

[edie19]

again - all the reformed baptists I know believe that consistent covenantal view results in credo-baptism. We baptize believers only *because* covenant theology demands it!

The following points are from my pastor (I agree with him, but he words it better than I could).

1) Covenant theology states that there was a covenant made first between the Father and the Son. This was a pre-temporal covenant. You may recall that in some of my sermons I have referred to the "Pactum salutis." The Father gave to the Son the elect to save. This He did at the cross.

2) This eternal covenant stands behind the several historical covenants. While there are many covenants, ultimately there is but one promise (Eph 2:12). This was first made with Abraham (really to Adam and Eve in the garden) before he was circumcised (recall the early sermons that I did in Galatians 3) and so the covenant made with the nation of Israel was a temporary and external covenant until the Seed should come.

3) The Old Covenant (OC) anticipates the New at several places. Why? Because the promises were made to Abraham and his Seed, that is Christ and all those and only those that are united to Him by faith alone.

4) When the OC anticipates the NC it speaks of it as a better covenant (Jer 31:31-34; Heb 7:22; 8:6) What makes this covenant better than the first? Here is the Jeremiah passages:

Jer 31:31 "Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD," when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them, declares the LORD. But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

Note:

a. this covenant is *not like* the previous covenant. There is dis-continuity.
b. God writes the law, that is all 10 commandments on the heart of all those in the NC. This is part of regeneration (Eze 11:19-20; 36:25-27).
c. there will be covenant oneness: "I will be their God, and they shall be My people" All those in the NC will have God as their God. Again, recall the elect given by the Father and then promised to Abraham (please see Romans 9:6-16 with John 1:12-13) This covenant oneness entails:
i. there is no need of teachers in the NC. That is, there is no need for those that would instruct others to "know the LORD", because every (from the least to the greatest) NC believer *will* know God (John 17:3).
ii. all NC people have their sins are forgiven.

How does baptism relate. Here is what the WMC (a paedobaptist confession) says of baptism:

Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church; but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through
Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his church until the end of the world.

To this (except the language of sealing) Reformed Baptist say AMEN! Notice that this statement blends perfectly with what is said about the NC. Regeneration (a new heart). Remission of sins. Engrafting into Christ. Newness of life. These are all true of NC believers. Full stop. At this point the WMC and the LBC are in full agreement.

The mark (baptism) of the NC belongs only to those that share in the above realities. So, unless one is willing to say (like Rome) that baptism communicates these graces, baptism is for the elect sons (seed) of Abraham the believer.