paedo vs credo: main point of contention

steadfast7 · #1 (**permalink**) 11-02-2009, 06:50 PM

Hey brothers,

I'll post this here too to get your answers:

when it comes to Paedo vs Credo baptism, what would you say is the main point of contention that creates the impasse we see? In other words, what's the ONE issue, that if resolved, would end the debate once for all and put everyone on the same side?

also, one more question:

is it possible for a Baptist to believe that the Church is Israel? why/not?

**KMK** · #2 (**permalink**) 11-02-2009, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steadfast7

is it possible for a Baptist to believe that the Church is Israel? why/not?

cheers.

That depends on what you mean by 'church' and 'Israel'.

Here is what the LBC says...

Quote:

8:6 Although the price of redemption was not actually paid by Christ until after His incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefit thereof were communicated to the elect in all ages, successively from the beginning of the world, in and by those promises, types, and sacrifices wherein He was revealed, and signified to be the seed which should bruise the serpent's head;34 and the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world,35 being the same yesterday, and today and for ever.36
34 1 Cor. 4:10; Heb. 4:2; 1 Pet. 1:10, 11
35 Rev. 13:8
36 Heb. 13:8

11:6 The justification of believers under the Old Testament was, in all these respects, one and the same with the justification of believers under the New Testament.18
18 Gal. 3:9; Rom. 4:22-24

26:1. The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that fills all in all.1
1 Heb. 12:23; Col. 1:18; Eph. 1:10,22,23, 5:23,27,32

**PuritanCovenanter** · #3 (**permalink**) 11-02-2009, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steadfast7

austinww:

Quote:

We paedos tend to emphasize external aspects somewhat more. God makes a covenant with professing believers and their households under their rule. Both adults and children in the covenant can apostatize, but the children, like their parents, are expected to keep the covenant they are raised in. Who is and is not truly regenerate is not something we can see (although there are fruits).

Can it be said that the major difference is hermeneutics: paedos tend to depend heavily on covenant theology; credos seek to follow the explicit statements in scripture, for which there is no explicit command to paedobaptize.

Of course, there's the oikos argument, but doesn't this fall short, given that besides being baptized, households also: 1) receive the Spirit (Acts 11:14-15) and 2) believe (16:34)? The argument that oikos necessarily includes children fails on this point, IMO.

Actually, I think you can say that both of our understandings come from our views on Covenant Theology. Where I believe the New Covenant is purely that of the Covenant of Grace and is made up only of the Elect the Paedo's do not believe that. Now concerning who is and who is not in the local body of believers that is one thing. I don't think it is logical to claim that everyone in a local congregation is regenerate. I do hold that Confession leads to salvation and a confessor is more likely to be regenerate than not.

BTW, there are a few discussions that I can link you to that will set you up with understanding the differing views and why they are different. We have had some really good discussions on this issue in the past.

Michael Doyle · #4 (**permalink**) 11-02-2009, 11:36 PM

I know this is the credo side but just wanted to say how grateful I am of your peaceable spirit Randy, it needs mentioning and I for one am blessed through it. I`m outta here

timmopussycat · #5 (**permalink**) 11-03-2009, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steadfast7

Hey brothers,

I'll post this here too to get your answers:

when it comes to Paedo vs Credo baptism, what would you say is the main point of contention that creates the impasse we see? In other words, what's the ONE issue, that if resolved, would end the debate once for all and put everyone on the same side?

The main point of contention is that paedos believe they can establish that the baptism of infants is required by GNC deductions from Scripture. Credos recognize that all attempts to prove infant baptism so required fail because the deductions so far adduced, while perhaps logically "good", are not in fact necessary consequences of the Scriptures cited. Since a consequence must be both "good" and "necessary," consequences that are merely good do not lead to the certainty of faith and cannot not be claimed to be Scripturally required.

steadfast7 · #6 (**permalink**) 11-16-2009, 03:12 PM

So, after that whopper of a thread under the same name in the general baptism forum, I'm coming to understand more concretely the main issue: continuity or discontinuity in the covenant?

As Ron stated succinctly in one of the last posts:

Quote:

Both sides argue from silence. Now in order to determine whether an argument from silence is fallacious or not, a burden of proof must first be established. With respect to establishing the burden of proof, first we must acknowledge that whenever possible, under the older economy children of professing parents were to receive the covenant mark of inclusion. You believe that this OT principle has been abrogated. I do not. However, it would be a hermeneutical nightmare if we were to arbitrarily presuppose discontinuity without being able to show good and necessary inference for an alleged abrogation of precept. Accordingly, the burden of proof is obviously upon the Baptist to show by good and necessary inference that God changed the status of covenant children.

So how do credos argue for discontinuity or change in the covenant? Off the cuff, I would probably argue that the meaning of baptism is much deeper and much more closely tied to Christ himself and his atoning work, as opposed to being more nationalistic and prefigurative as is the case with circumcision. Thus, while there may not be any explicit abrogation, this suffices in concluding a fundamental change in the covenantal administration.

It's obvious to paedos that this argument is insufficient, so does this mean it's not a strong argument?

Any other ways of arguing for the change?

thanks.