Paedo - Credo: a confessional unity?

[amanneredfool]

Our brother AW had a thought in the Baptism thread that seemed to be lost in the wake.

........... Also, are there any other alternatives that could be enforced to preserve unity? For example, simplifying the doctrine to the point of agreement. Kind of like the "Apostle's Creed".

Can the language of the Savoy Confession be modified w\o fundamental truths (paedo or credo) being lost?

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Baptists made a simplified confession. It's called the Baptist Faith and Message.

The Baptist Faith & Message

The Savoy is a Paedo confession utterly.

 

[amanneredfool]

Which is fine and dandy. But,the SBC's Faith and Message is not REFORMED. We both know which sections are different between the Westminster and the London Baptist Confessions. Is there a way to unify Reformed thought in confessional form?

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Which is fine and dandy. But,the SBC's Faith and Message is not REFORMED. We both know which sections are different between the Westminster and the London Baptist Confessions. Is there a way to unify Reformed thought in confessional form?

1. The BFM is calvinist friendly. It doesn't rule out anything. A person can be a 5 pointer and fully embrace the BFM with no problems at all.

2. The age old question of how to bring Baptists and Presbyterians under the same roof? The answer is for the Presbyterians to keep reforming until they agree with the Bible. They stopped at a point where they still accept Roman type baptism and still use the Roman terminology to define it...sacrament. So our stance is the same as always, Baptists, while we agree with most things the Presbyterians confess, do not believe they have reformed enough and do believe they have stopped short of shaking all of the Roman dust off their feet.

The reason the Presbyterians got their own forum at CF was so they could discuss their personal issues outside of a forum like Semper Reformada that includes both Presbyterians and Baptists. Because when baptism comes up there is always disagreement. And it's not even close. There is huge disagreement about everything baptism entails.

 

[amanneredfool]

1. The BFM is calvinist friendly. It doesn't rule out anything. A person can be a 5 pointer and fully embrace the BFM with no problems at all.

OK

With the covenantal language used in the Savoy, I wouldn't think a dispensationalist could consider such a thing as unity of thought either.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

OK

With the covenantal language used in the Savoy, I wouldn't think a dispensationalist could consider such a thing as unity of thought either.

Here is a personal disclaimer I left at the end of the baptism thread. This describes my position regarding the two best denominations.

Note and Personal Disclaimer: Even though I helped to demonstrate our differences to prove a point, personally I support both Baptists and Presbyterians for the reason that those two denominations of the Church are currently the best places to hear the gospel (the truth the Church upholds as a pillar and foundation). I can worship in either congregation with a clear conscience but I should only join a Baptist church because they share my views on baptism and the ordinances, so while I believe that no denomination is error free, I believe that in general the Baptist churches are closest to error free. Only the bible, however, is error free here on earth as it is the written word of God himself. People will misinterpret it in one way or another as long as they are fallen even though they may have good intentions because of their regenerated state. We can only go by our conscience and support what we believe is truth. Because we all can agree that God loves truth, so we strive for it through prayer, education, debate, and soul searching.

 

[JM]

Considering Owen's exegeses of Hebrews you would think he was a credo. The Savoy was the basis for the 1689, not the WCF for that and other reasons.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Here is a personal disclaimer I left at the end of the baptism thread. This describes my position regarding the two best denominations.

Note and Personal Disclaimer: Even though I helped to demonstrate our differences to prove a point, personally I support both Baptists and Presbyterians for the reason that those two denominations of the Church are currently the best places to hear the gospel (the truth the Church upholds as a pillar and foundation). I can worship in either congregation with a clear conscience but I should only join a Baptist church because they share my views on baptism and the ordinances, so while I believe that no denomination is error free, I believe that in general the Baptist churches are closest to error free. Only the bible, however, is error free here on earth as it is the written word of God himself. People will misinterpret it in one way or another as long as they are fallen even though they may have good intentions because of their regenerated state. We can only go by our conscience and support what we believe is truth. Because we all can agree that God loves truth, so we strive for it through prayer, education, debate, and soul searching.

Well said brother! Can I ask a question though? Not wanting to derail the thread or ruffle feathers or anything like that, but when you say "Baptist churches" do you mean Calvinistic Baptist churches or any Baptist church? What I am getting at is the primacy of the gospel.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Our brother AW had a thought in the Baptism thread that seemed to be lost in the wake.

Unfortunately, it seems not very many wanted to participate in the thread. Then again, I suspect not so many Reformed brothers and sisters are visiting the site currently.

Can the language of the Savoy Confession be modified w\o fundamental truths (paedo or credo) being lost?

I believe so, and one place where the language would probably need revision would be concerning the mode of baptism...

"Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person."

I agree dipping is not necessary but at the same time pouring or sprinkling is not "right" while dipping is "wrong". Some Baptists are a bit too caught up in the mode of Baptism. Some would insist the Scriptures give preference to mode, I am not so sure. To harmonize it, the statement would need to not give preference to mode of baptism, which happens to fit the theology even of those such as B.B. Warfield.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Well said brother! Can I ask a question though? Not wanting to derail the thread or ruffle feathers or anything like that, but when you say "Baptist churches" do you mean Calvinistic Baptist churches or any Baptist church? What I am getting at is the primacy of the gospel.

I believe in a local church congregational model. I believe one needs to investigate, visit, communicate with members and elders, and pray about a Church before one joins.

Because there are so many churches one needs to be discerning to make sure they are biblical.

That being said, I maintain the best shot one has of hearing the biblical gospel is in Baptist and Presbyterian churches. Note: I am including the credo-nondenominationals (The Macarthurs...Driscolls...etc) in the Baptist group as they are in everything but name anyway.

 

[wandering misfit]

Unfortunately, it seems not very many wanted to participate in the thread. Then again, I suspect not so many Reformed brothers and sisters are visiting the site currently.

Although it was an interest, or at the very least a curiosity, for me, there may not be much interest........... especially as you noted that there isn't a greater number of "Reformers" around. (I put the quotes on to not offend those readers who may be)

I believe so, and one place where the language would probably need revision would be concerning the mode of baptism...

"Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person."

I agree dipping is not necessary but at the same time pouring or sprinkling is not "right" while dipping is "wrong". Some Baptists are a bit too caught up in the mode of Baptism. Some would insist the Scriptures give preference to mode, I am not so sure. To harmonize it, the statement would need to not give preference to mode of baptism, which happens to fit the theology even of those such as B.B. Warfield.

At the very least, both paedo and credo acknowledge water as the mode of baptism. When a newby shows up in a Presbyeterian church, catechized, hear the Gospel preached and come to faith, what would be the implications of having a public profession of faith w/ credo baptism.? Physical Israel had proselytes. I'm not sure of the covenantal issues right this second, just spiffballing.

 

[wandering misfit]

Wow, pondering......... Is there a need to prohibit the 2 groups differing ways of entering the Body of Christ through Sovereign grace? It serves both evangelism and covenant theology, well, that's what I'm pondering....

 

[twin1954]

Unfortunately, it seems not very many wanted to participate in the thread. Then again, I suspect not so many Reformed brothers and sisters are visiting the site currently.



I believe so, and one place where the language would probably need revision would be concerning the mode of baptism...

"Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person."

I agree dipping is not necessary but at the same time pouring or sprinkling is not "right" while dipping is "wrong". Some Baptists are a bit too caught up in the mode of Baptism. Some would insist the Scriptures give preference to mode, I am not so sure. To harmonize it, the statement would need to not give preference to mode of baptism, which happens to fit the theology even of those such as B.B. Warfield.

The problem is that Baptists don't believe there is a "mode" of baptism. Rather than translating the word the KJV translators, peadobaptists, transliterated the Greek word and now it has become an English word by usage. Add the fact that Baptists aren't confessional in the same way that Presbyterians are. You will find that most Baptists quote the Scriptures before they quote the confessions. Not so with the Presby's. Baptists are not bound by their confessions.

 

[student ad x]

Interesting thought process. I'm wondering how much either side would concede their tradition. To me, I'm firmly credo (I wasn't born into the covenant), but I see an appeal from Scripture (esp tord a unity of sorts), maybe a dual role in covenant baptism......... one for an infant of covenant parents as the Lord's seal and the other for those called through Gospel proclamation with a profession of faith/baptism/covenant seal.

Any discussion will deal with a rejection of quite a few terms I'd think. Communion will offer similar challenges

Hopefully, if the Lord is willing, some Presbyterians such as AMR or Mike or Kenrapooza will join up for the conversation, Baptists like Skala & Cygnus perhaps. (Sorry I didn't mention anyone else, these folk were off the top of my head).

Peace

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Basically a joint confession aimed at having paedos and credos under the same roof would have to admit that the framers and confessors do not know the purpose of baptism and how it should be done then they would have to make both methods optional depending on personal preference, all ministers would have to agree to do both.

Basically, it would say - "Baptism, we don't know what to do so do what you want."

 

[student ad x]

Basically, it would say - "Baptism, we don't know what to do so do what you want."

Why would this be the logical outcome? Those evangelized are credo baptized into a covenant people and it's promises.......... and those born into the covenant by believing parents (at least one) are baptized with the sign of the covenant promise. Maybe I've oversimplified too much, but sense water baptism doesn't save, the logic seems okay to me.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Why would this be the logical outcome? Those evangelized are credo baptized into a covenant people and it's promises.......... and those born into the covenant by believing parents (at least one) are baptized with the sign of the covenant promise. Maybe I've oversimplified too much, but sense water baptism doesn't save, the logic seems okay to me.

So...you mean just leave the Presbyterian Church the way it is now....

 

[twin1954]

Why would this be the logical outcome? Those evangelized are credo baptized into a covenant people and it's promises.......... and those born into the covenant by believing parents (at least one) are baptized with the sign of the covenant promise. Maybe I've oversimplified too much, but sense water baptism doesn't save, the logic seems okay to me.

None are born into the covenant except by the new birth. That is where we differ.

 

[student ad x]

And both views know not who is truly regenerate.

 

[twin1954]

And both views know not who is truly regenerate.

True, but we don't baptize on a hope. We baptize on a profession.