Brad,

I cannot figure out how to quote you inside that cool box so I'll have to do it the old fashioned way.

"Can you tell me of any part of theology that is not in some way colored by one's view of the sacraments?"

Sure, every bit of our theology colors our view, but it's a matter of degree. I would submit that one's eschatology can do more coloring than the question of baptisim.

"Erroneous theology must be presented as just that... error. No offense, brother, but I firmly believe credo-baptism to be error.

Of course you would think it's in error just as I consider your view to be in error. No offense taken.

"That is why I am a member of a PCA Church. If I held to credo-baptism, it would be because I thought paedo-baptism were error, and I would not be a PCA member, but instead a member of a Reformed Baptist Church (if they do membership, don't know)."

I am a Presbyterian because, among other things, I strongly adhere to both reformed soteriology and in Presbyterian polity. I do understand the distinctives of the polity and consider my Reformed Baptistic brethren to be in error on this point. Not in sin, but in error. Presbyterianism, after all, is a denomination, named not for its Reformed soteriology, but for its polity.

"I consider most reformed credos to be brethren, but they are brethren in error."

Well, I consider most paedos to be to be brethren too. Why, some of my best friends are paedos.


"They are, in my view, theologically iffy. I actually see that term as rather polite, so I am confused by your "pejorative" label of it. Would you prefer that I call them "sacramentally and covenantally twisted"?"

"Theologically iffy", is "polite"?? I'd hate to get you mad! How about, "a brother with a differing view on a nonessential point"? In all things, charity.


"Funny thing, though. I've NEVER seen a Baptist Church of any kind that would accept my family as members, or especially that would allow a paedo-baptist teach children Sunday School. So if that type of exclusion really bothers you, the local Reformed Baptist Church would be a good place to start trying to weed it out, and hey, you might even like the fact that they agree with your sacramental view."

If only it were that simple. I know I'm stating the obvious, but Baptists (named after what they do), cannot recognize one baptized as an infant. Paedos, however, have to recognize one baptized at any age. It's not that the paedos are more tolerant or that the credos are more exclusionary, it's that neither system will allow for any other way. In other words, a credo cannot accept the baptism of an infant and a credo cannot not accept the baptism of a Baptist (or broadly evangelical believer). An adult cannot go back in time and be baptized as an infant any more than a child can go forward and be baptized as an adult. The mode, effusion vs. immersion, we could discuss as exclusionary, but not the timing.