What made you a Paedobaptist

[Nova Scotian Boy]

This past week I've been trying to come to a better understanding of infant Baptism in the Reformed tradition. I feel i really understand the position much better, and can see how people can hold the position. I personally find the Presbyterian view on Baptism connects well with both the New and Old Testaments. I would not say Im as yet 100% behind the presbyterian doctrine of baptism. My question is for those Paedobaptists here who once held a Credo-baptist view. What evidence or proof finally made you change your view of baptism to Paedo?

 

[AMR]

For me it was the covenantal aspects of Scripture. Here is a good summary:

Paedo-baptism - Clark, WTS

AMR

 

[Nova Scotian Boy]

What really turned many of my opinions on the subject upside down was, RC Sproul defense of Infant Baptism. Case for Infant Baptism: The Historic Paedo-Baptist Position

It really made me come to a full understanding of Covenant Baptism, I have often found it hard to hind resources that can explain it in simple terms and Sproul really came the closest for me.

 

[teejayinau]

Reading this website AMR posted, I found what was a good description of my views.

Baptism is a means of sanctifying grace and a gospel ministry to the people of God. It is a sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace illustrating what Christ has done for his people and sealing salvation to the same. Therefore covenant children of believing parents as well as unbaptized adult converts should be baptized.

 

[kenrapoza]

John Calvin has an interesting section on infant baptism in his Institutes (Book 4, Chapter 16). You can read it online here:

Institutes of the Christian Religion Book 4 Chapter 16

 

[Monseigneur_Gentilhomme]

Like Mark Dever, I thin Calvin's argument is weak. The best and most convincing argument historically are the Reformed-congregationalists like Owen and Edwards as presented by the Late great John Gerstner.

As for myself, the best argument for padeo baptism is a theology of the family and the church and as seeing in the NT as families as being a legitimate means that God plans to continue to use (as he did clearly in the OT) in addition to preaching. Though I freely confess that the NT envisions preaching and new new converts to be the main focus of of the Church as opposed to raising up covenant children.

 

[darkchylde]

while I am a paedo-baptist by default, being raised as a Roman Catholic and then being 'born-again' at 19 and attending reformed & presbyterian churches were infant baptism was practiced, I must say that the baptism of infants is one of the practices that I find the easiest to fall either side of the argument on.

I have a reasonably strong understanding and appreciation of covenant theology, to the extent that I would have to disagree with the statement that "the NT envisions preaching and new new converts to be the main focus of of the Church as opposed to raising up covenant children". With regard to this statement, I think we cannot lose sight that in the NT we have the explosion of the Gospel; where people are being brought into the covenant. Their children are children of promise. Of course the Gospel goes out and this is to be a constant effort and working out on the part of the Church, but the convenant children, they too are a focus of effort and resources - not for conversion necessarily - but for devotion to the Lord and His purposes.

But, if a baptist were to say to me that their children were God's by promise and thus part of His Kingdom, and that when they have made a credible profession of faith, as well as being admitted into adult membership of the local church, that they were baptised also, I don't think I'd have too much problem with that; in fact possibly less issues than I do sometimes have with the baptism of infants; especially given that the baptism of infants is not explicitly articulated to have occurred in the New Testament.

Still an interesting argument, and one that will continue long after we all are gone to Glory.

dc

 

[mannysee]

This week I've been listening to and reading up (R. Scott Clark) on arguments about how Paul often has in mind the covenant with Abraham (and its promises), when he is discussing the New Covenant.
i.e. Paul takes his audience back past the Mosiac covenant, and discusses Abraham's faith and the promises given.

This is one aspect I hadn't really concentrated on in my thoughts about the padeobaptism position. And in my mind, I feel that this is the last nail in the coffin which convinces me of this position.

 

[kenrapoza]

The distinction between the Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic covenant is critical to the Reformed view of the place of covenant children. The Old (i.e., Mosaic) covenant was transitory, not permanent (as Jeremiah and Hebrews makes clear), but as Christians we are children of Abraham - the covenant which Paul refers to as the gospel.

 

[hedrick]

The distinction between the Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic covenant is critical to the Reformed view of the place of covenant children. The Old (i.e., Mosaic) covenant was transitory, not permanent (as Jeremiah and Hebrews makes clear), but as Christians we are children of Abraham - the covenant which Paul refers to as the gospel.

Interestingly, as far as I can tell, Calvin himself believes in only a single covenant, which however differs in its manner of administration at different times. I agree completely that we are children of Abraham. As Paul makes clear in Romans, we are grafted into the one covenant people.

What is transitory is the role of the Law, although not the Law itself (at least not Law in its most general sense -- there are specific parts of it that are directed at the Israelites as a nation).

 

[kenrapoza]

I think that Calvin believes in the single overarching "Covenant of Grace" just like later Reformed theologians articulated more clearly and that the Westminster Standards confess. Both the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants are part of that CoG, but the Mosaic Covenant is a transitory, typological administration of the covenant.

 

[DAW]

I am a Congregationalist. Therefore by definition I am a paedobaptist. See the Savoy Declaration, Chapters 28 and 29.

 

[Nova Scotian Boy]

I just wanted to let you all know that in the time sine I have started this thread that ive been convicted of the paedobaptist position thought scripture and am currently attending a PCA Church with likely intent of becoming a member in a few months.

 

[kenrapoza]

Was it difficult to find a PCA church in Canada?

 

[Nova Scotian Boy]

Actually a few months ago I moved to San Diego. My wife is originally from San Diego so we moved closer to her family as job prospect in Nova Scotia were bleak to none. There are PCA churches slowly being planted in Eastern Canada by Mission to North America.

 

[Paulintexas]

Hello I have been both to Nova Scotia (Loved it) and San Diego. I also switch from being a Southern Baptist to a Presbyterian (PCA). I must confess that I never was a zealot about adult Baptism, it just was the form used by the Church I joined when I came to faith. Now the place where I made the switch was more dramatic. I had just completed my Master's of Divinity Degree at a Baptist Seminary and was preparing to enter a Doctoral Program in New Testament Studies. (I really got into the Greek back then) Throughout seminary I grew uncomfortable with several Baptist beliefs and Practices and grew more and more reformed in my theology. I came to the conclusion that I was essentially a Presbyterian. I did have some qualms about pedeo baptism, but the more I looked at the covenental aspect of it the more and more I grew to embrace it.

 

[Nova Scotian Boy]

Paulintexas your experience is very similar to my own. I even when i considered myself a baptist very zealous it was more of a default position.

Before that i had been in a liberal denomination that practiced paedobaptism. For a long time i held that but a now know that i really did not understand the position at all and as I said my default position became credo. Over time i found myself very disenchanted with many beliefs and practices found in the baptist church. And started looking into Presbyterian beliefs and found that I had never really understood the reasons behind Paedobaptism to begin with.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

This past week I've been trying to come to a better understanding of infant Baptism in the Reformed tradition. I feel i really understand the position much better, and can see how people can hold the position. I personally find the Presbyterian view on Baptism connects well with both the New and Old Testaments. I would not say Im as yet 100% behind the presbyterian doctrine of baptism. My question is for those Paedobaptists here who once held a Credo-baptist view. What evidence or proof finally made you change your view of baptism to Paedo?

I'm probably what some might call a 'soft' Paedo, and for a time you might say I accepted it by faith alone, but as I looked more and more into Covenant Theology, and the relationship between the Old and New Covenants, and the practice of physical circumcision (works) in the Old Testament, baptism of infants as a sign of spiritual circumcision (grace) based on New Testament teachings does make sense, being that the Covenant of Redemption is one continual progressive Covenant.

 

[alton3]

Zwingli's disputations with the Anabaptists of Zurich may be of some use. From what I can tell, Zwingli was open to instituting Believer's Baptism but the Cantons still loyal to Rome threatened to stop shipping grain if they did and, since the issue was more or less evenly split, the Reformed church sided with tradition (and bread).