Simple question for my paedo brethren

DMcFadden · #1 (**permalink**) 07-18-2008, 07:42 PM

Call me clueless . . . but it FINALLY hit me after all of these Baptism threads, that the issue that separates paedos from most credos MIGHT have more to do with ecclesiology than sacramentology. Duh! For you on the other side, this may be patent and obvious to you. But, believe me that an intelligent credo would seldom have reason to see it that way. We were hammered to believe that credo baptism is self evident and obvious in the Bible. Anything else partakes of Romanism or liberal Protestantism we were told. Except for the few Reformed Baptists, the CT implications are left unexplored.

Some of you have become quite exercised bringing up the emotional arguments regarding treating covenant children like "vipers in diapers" or "playpen pagans" in the baptism threads, notions that sounded quite foreign to me. While it may be a logical inconsistency in Baptist thinking, most Baptists I know neither frame it that way nor even contemplate such implications regarding their kids.

Today, listening to a MP3 on infant baptism it finally hit me. Paedos see baptism as an outgrowth of the covenant structure to scripture. Of course baptism is viewed as the sign and seal of the New Covenant (just as circumcision was the sign and seal of the Old Covenant). What I was missing, however, was the inner logic of the CT position. Since having the covenant sign did not necessarily make you a member of True Israel neither does baptism necessarily apply only to true believers (there is that promise to "you and to your children"). Ta da!

Most of us crredos, however, are stuck on the idea that the church is ONLY to be a regenerate membership, not a combination of saved and unsaved peoples. Unbelievers in the church may be a reality, but it would never be assumed the way it is when using the comparison to the OT covenant. The old Baptist saw is "a regenerate membership safeguarded by believer's baptism."

My guess is that credo baptism was adopted as a way of applying "regenerate membership" ecclesiology rather than coming from an inductive study of the Bible and who should be baptized (it certainly did not grow out of a deep understanding of covenant). The deeper goal was not to restrict who you baptized, but to insure that the composition of the visible church comes as close to being coextensive with the number of the elect as possible. Then, when Arminianism swamped the Baptist boat in the 19th and 20th centuries, the democratic emphasis upon volunterism and "choosing" to become a Christian took center stage. Here, believer's baptism made even more sense. If becoming a Christian was simply a matter of choosing, then baptism for "choosers" (aka believers) should be obvious. (This does not, however, explain why Methodists practice infant baptism!)

Maybe my bow tie is on too tight this afternoon and my theological acumen has gone out the window. However, here is my question: do you paedo brethren think that the deeper problem with the credo position is the tendency in most Baptist circles to operate out of a flawed notion of the proper composition of the visible church with the sacramentological implications following? In other words, where is the "real" rub, with the proper candidates for baptism or with the ecclesiological understanding of the church as made up only of regenerate persons?

I now think I can see why paedos believe that their children should be baptized. Now it makes sense to me! And, it makes even more sense why some of you get so ticked off at the credo position, believing that it implies terrible things about our (and your) children and their spiritual state.

Does this line of thought seem to fairly represent what is at stake? If so, my efforts at understanding this subject will require me to dig deeply into the nature of the church and its proper biblical composition rather than merely the arguments for and against infant baptism.

Kevin · #2 (**permalink**) 07-18-2008, 07:59 PM

WooHooo!!

Paridigm shift ahead.

Archlute · #3 (**permalink**) 07-18-2008, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin

WooHooo!!

Paridigm shift ahead.

Ditto.

And, Dennis, I think that you have put out a very accurate summary analysis regarding that issue. Ecclesiology is the root of the argument indeed. Enjoy your reading

CaseyBessette · #4 (**permalink**) 07-18-2008, 10:00 PM

Great post, thanks.

Interesting point how Arminianism and "decision-ism" further validated the credo position for Baptists as a historical development.

Yes, the doctrine of the invisible/visible church along with the continuity of the one covenant of grace (from the Old into the New Testament) is at the center of the issue, it seems to me. Different language for the same thing: Ecclesiology and continuity.

skellam · #5 (**permalink**) 07-18-2008, 10:02 PM

I think you're summary is accurate as well and reflects how I came to my position several years ago. I think I really became convinced on paedobaptism when I started to really think about the implications of covenantal theology on baptism. When I realized that God was working with his people through covenants and considered how those covenants are applied to the visible church in the new testament era, it came together for me.

Scott1 · #6 (**permalink**) 07-18-2008, 10:10 PM

The continuity of "covenant community" from the Old Testament to the New Testament is parallel because not all circumcisized were truly saved. God dealt specially within the covenant community (not guaranteeing every member salvation) but by offering the ordinary means of grace there.

Also, remember that nonbelievers (gentiles) were baptized to get into "Israel" in the Old Testament. The continuity of this throughout all of Scripture, one continuous plan of God has helped me understand infant baptism in context better.

Further, remember that churches that baptize infants also baptize adults by profession of faith. The "signs and seal" ordinance of baptism has more than one aspect, sealing promises to "you and your children" (Acts 2:39).

Presbyterian Deacon · #7 (**permalink**) 07-18-2008, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archlute

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin

WooHooo!!

Paridigm shift ahead.

Ditto.

And, Dennis, I think that you have put out a very accurate summary analysis regarding that issue. Ecclesiology is the root of the argument indeed. Enjoy your reading

Yes! Ecclessiology and the nature of the covenant. Who is in the covenant? And how does one become part of the covenant?

Certainly the Old Testament pattern of "circumcision and indentification with the covenant body" seen in Israel is more than a type and shadow of the New Covenant. In the new covenant, circumcision is replace by baptism and the infants of believers are included in the covenant body-- as were the infants of Israel of old.

There is one church. One people of God in all ages! The church extends from the beginning to the end of time.

Charles Hodge said:

Quote:

This is really the turning point of the controversy concerning infant church membership. If the church is one under both dispensations: if infants were members of the church under the theocracy, then they are members of the church now, unless the contrary can be proved.

(Hodge, Systematic Theology, III:555).

mangum · #8 (**permalink**) 07-18-2008, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

[...]

Does this line of thought seem to fairly represent what is at stake? If so, my efforts at understanding this subject will require me to dig deeply into the nature of the church and its proper biblical composition rather than merely the arguments for and against infant baptism.

Bingo!

the paradigm shift post above.

The threats of God we find in the NT directed at BELIEVERS, namely in Hebrews, is a huge indication of the biblical composition of the church.

Joshua · #9 (**permalink**) 07-18-2008, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by refbaptdude

Dennis,

The ultimate issue concerning this topic is COVENANT. Paedo's and Credo's divide over their understanding of covenant. The early Baptists were covenantal see the LBC 1689.

Pastor, this forum is for Paedobaptists only to respond to thead poster's questions.

refbaptdude · #10 (**permalink**) 07-18-2008, 11:09 PM

I apologize Josh (and brothers) I did not notice the heading.

Joshua · #11 (**permalink**) 07-18-2008, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by refbaptdude

I apologize Josh (and brothers) I did not notice the heading.

No problem, Sir.

Seb · #12 (**permalink**) 07-19-2008, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

What I was missing, however, was the inner logic of the CT position. Since having the covenant sign did not necessarily make you a member of True Israel neither does baptism necessarily apply only to true believers
[...]
Paedos see baptism as an outgrowth of the covenant structure to scripture.

Dennis,

When I saw this for the first time on my way from credo to paedo I wanted to tear out the page in my Bible that said "New Testament", because I finally began to see Scripture as God's continual story of redemption, and it was unfolding from beginning to end, and not taking some drastic unrevealed change about two-thirds of the way through.

For me, a lot of Scripture that I had viewed as disconnected began to interlock, fall into place, and make more sense.

rmdmphilosopher · #13 (**permalink**) 07-19-2008, 01:45 AM

Quote:

When I saw this for the first time on my way from credo to paedo I wanted to tear out the page in my Bible that said "New Testament", because I finally began to see Scripture as God's continual story of redemption, and it was unfolding from beginning to end, and not taking some drastic unrevealed change about two-thirds of the way through.

Yes! This is how I felt as well. I just recently (within the last three months) became of the paedo persuasion, mainly through my encounter with Biblical Theology and all the thoughts that came crowding into my head about the marvelous continuity in the tight-weave of Scripture.

I prize and cherish my paedo convictions these days--a dangerous thing among my predominantly RB friends--as the badge of a firm belief in and a growing understanding of the main thrust of Scripture.

Congratulations, Dennis, on penetrating to the heart of the matter!

DMcFadden · #14 (**permalink**) 07-19-2008, 03:16 AM

Don't congratulate me too much yet. I'm a Baptist of more than a half century vintage. Don't bet the farm on a "paradigm shift" before its time. Unfortunately, we all tend to assume many of our childhood beliefs and protect them with cartoonish caricatures of our opponents positions. Listening to the program Steve Kellam recommended was an epiphany for me. Finally (31 years after seminary graduation), I got the logic of the paedo position.

Several issues are nibbling at the corners of my brain . . .

1. The paedo interpretation makes sense of Jesus' baptism (to fulfill all righteousness), the warnings in Heb 6, 10, and meaning of parables (e.g., the Dragnet) better than I had thought possible.

Steve Butts captures the sense when he writes:

Quote:

For me, a lot of Scripture that I had viewed as disconnected began to interlock, fall into place, and make more sense.

2. As a Calvinist you have only two viable alternatives: Dispensationalism (e.g., MacArthur) or Amillennialism/Postmillennialism. Once you see a blurring of the distinction between Israel and the Church in the NT and begin to interpret the OT in light of the NT, Amillennialism (or Postmillennialism) becomes almost inevitable. And, if you begin to look at the Bible in terms of continuities rather than discontinuities, infant baptism would seem to be the most logical conclusion.

3. New insights into theology may be correct, however, the burden falls upon the one with the novel view not the one holding the traditional postion. The church followed infant bapism for nearly 1,600 years before those of us Baptists "discovered" credo baptism and regenerate membership. Shouldn't we bear the burden of explaining why our view is more biblical?

Scott1 · #15 (**permalink**) 07-19-2008, 07:30 AM

Quote:

2. As a Calvinist you have only two viable alternatives: Dispensationalism (e.g., MacArthur) or Amillennialism/Postmillennialism. Once you see a blurring of the distinction between Israel and the Church in the NT and begin to interpret the OT in light of the NT, Amillennialism (or Postmillennialism) becomes almost inevitable.

While not trying to make a case for or against it, or its strengths or weakeness compared to other views, my understanding is you could also have an historical premillennial view within the "doctrines of grace." A few of the Westminster Divines held what we might call an historic premillenial view.

kceaster · #16 (**permalink**) 07-19-2008, 08:34 AM

I came to the Reformed faith only about 7 years ago and the paedobaptism domino fell very early and without much pushing. To me, it does no harm to include infants just as they were included in the OT, and just as Jesus seemed to include them during His ministry. Either Jesus did a very "Arminian" thing by loving the sinner, but hating their sin, or He counted them as part of the church by virtue of their believing parents bringing them to Him. He didn't give the same latitude with others, that's for sure.

Now, to some opposed, paedobaptism seems to run contrary to other tenets like the regulative principal. This is the reason that the link between the OT and NT is crucial. If we see God give a positive command to include children in the OT, and we do not see that abrogated in the NT, then there is no reason to conclude that infant baptism is forbidden.

The other indicator is that there is no sanction against the eldership for baptizing anyone who is an unbeliever.

That, and household baptisms swung the gate around for me. But then, I did not have to decide the matter while having infants to be baptized.

In the end, it wasn't a struggle for me. I guess I'd rather defer to centuries of Christian practice and the good and necessary consequence of inference by my forebears.

In Christ,

KC

DMcFadden · #17 (**permalink**) 07-19-2008, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott1

Quote:

2. As a Calvinist you have only two viable alternatives: Dispensationalism (e.g., MacArthur) or Amillennialism/Postmillennialism. Once you see a blurring of the distinction between Israel and the Church in the NT and begin to interpret the OT in light of the NT, Amillennialism (or Postmillennialism) becomes almost inevitable.

While not trying to make a case for or against it, or its strengths or weakeness compared to other views, my understanding is you could also have an historical premillennial view within the "doctrines of grace." A few of the Westminster Divines held what we might call an historic premillenial view.

Yes, Scott, I have been historic premil and learned it from my prof, George Ladd in seminary. However, once you concede that Israel and the Church are not as sharply delineated as the dispensationalists contend, you also find that the amil arguments make a lot of sense. Rev. 20 becomes a kind of odd intrusion into the picture. People like Ladd and Moo sort of posit a millennium only because of a handful of verses in Revelation without being able to deal with it very well.

But, after I began surrendering to the relentless logic of amil, it made me reconsider the similarly strong tendency of covenant theology to produce paedo baptist understandings.

Dawie · #18 (**permalink**) 07-19-2008, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Call me clueless . . . but it FINALLY hit me after all of these Baptism threads, that the issue that separates paedos from most credos MIGHT have more to do with ecclesiology than sacramentology. Duh! For you on the other side, this may be patent and obvious to you. But, believe me that an intelligent credo would seldom have reason to see it that way. We were hammered to believe that credo baptism is self evident and obvious in the Bible. Anything else partakes of Romanism or liberal Protestantism we were told. Except for the few Reformed Baptists, the CT implications are left unexplored.

Some of you have become quite exercised bringing up the emotional arguments regarding treating covenant children like "vipers in diapers" or "playpen pagans" in the baptism threads, notions that sounded quite foreign to me. While it may be a logical inconsistency in Baptist thinking, most Baptists I know neither frame it that way nor even contemplate such implications regarding their kids.

Today, listening to a MP3 on infant baptism it finally hit me. Paedos see baptism as an outgrowth of the covenant structure to scripture. Of course baptism is viewed as the sign and seal of the New Covenant (just as circumcision was the sign and seal of the Old Covenant). What I was missing, however, was the inner logic of the CT position. Since having the covenant sign did not necessarily make you a member of True Israel neither does baptism necessarily apply only to true believers (there is that promise to "you and to your children"). Ta da!

Most of us crredos, however, are stuck on the idea that the church is ONLY to be a regenerate membership, not a combination of saved and unsaved peoples. Unbelievers in the church may be a reality, but it would never be assumed the way it is when using the comparison to the OT covenant. The old Baptist saw is "a regenerate membership safeguarded by believer's baptism."

My guess is that credo baptism was adopted as a way of applying "regenerate membership" ecclesiology rather than coming from an inductive study of the Bible and who should be baptized (it certainly did not grow out of a deep understanding of covenant). The deeper goal was not to restrict who you baptized, but to insure that the composition of the visible church comes as close to being coextensive with the number of the elect as possible. Then, when Arminianism swamped the Baptist boat in the 19th and 20th centuries, the democratic emphasis upon volunterism and "choosing" to become a Christian took center stage. Here, believer's baptism made even more sense. If becoming a Christian was simply a matter of choosing, then baptism for "choosers" (aka believers) should be obvious. (This does not, however, explain why Methodists practice infant baptism!)

Maybe my bow tie is on too tight this afternoon and my theological acumen has gone out the window. However, here is my question: do you paedo brethren think that the deeper problem with the credo position is the tendency in most Baptist circles to operate out of a flawed notion of the proper composition of the visible church with the sacramentological implications following? In other words, where is the "real" rub, with the proper candidates for baptism or with the ecclesiological understanding of the church as made up only of regenerate persons?

I now think I can see why paedos believe that their children should be baptized. Now it makes sense to me! And, it makes even more sense why some of you get so ticked off at the credo position, believing that it implies terrible things about our (and your) children and their spiritual state.

Does this line of thought seem to fairly represent what is at stake? If so, my efforts at understanding this subject will require me to dig deeply into the nature of the church and its proper biblical composition rather than merely the arguments for and against infant baptism.

In the OT Israel was the type of the elect in eternity.

In the NT it's the church.

The type for regeneration in the OT and NT are different (circumcision and baptism), but refer to the same work of God. (The types also express different aspects of that work).

This is what the Jews don't understand - they were merely a type of God's true people. They took it as the real thing though.

That type is now exercised by the Church - which many churchmembers likewise don't get - it's still the same problem.

As there were many circumcised but unsaved Jews, so church members. They only carry the type on them, but not the work in them.