A couple of days ago, I posted the following on the paedo forum. A fellow credo brother requested that it be pasted here so that he could respond. Gladly. Help me Obi Wan Kenobi, you're my only hope.

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.

__________________
Dennis E. McFadden, Ex Mainline Baptist (in Remission)
Atherton Baptist Homes, CEO
First Baptist Church of Alhambra, Member, Transformation Ministries (CA)

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

hey Dennis,

I have spent some time looking at the paedo-baptism position as well. I completely understand where they are coming from, but I don't believe that their position is accurate.

Let me point you to a book that I have read that is a really quick read, but it expresses the reformed Baptist position very well, think you would find it quite compelling in regards to the covenant of grace and where our children reside.

Reformed Baptist Academic Press

Blessings,

Toby

__________________
Rev. Toby Holland
Director of Evangelism
Wiltsie Community Church (CCCC)
LBC - 1689

Yes, we all do create strawmen.


The paedo position is perfectly logical givien a few different presuppositions. The White Shisko debate on baptism is a very good debate that seems to get to most of those presuppositions.

Presbies do want to honor God not merely save on the water bill.


But remember, in the one covenant of grace there IS discontinuity despite the general continuity that we see.

William Paul Jewitt's book on baptism (I forget the name, can anyone help me) is a good credo-baptist book from a covenantal perspective.

__________________
Pergamum


"If a commission by an earthly king is considered a honor, how can a commission by a Heavenly King be considered a sacrifice?"
-- David Livingstone

Here you Go!

Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace: An Appraisal of the Argument That As Infants Were Once Circumcised, So They Shoud Now Be Baptized - Paul Jewitt

__________________
Rev. Toby Holland
Director of Evangelism
Wiltsie Community Church (CCCC)
LBC - 1689

any credo reviews on this book? Does it stand up or make errors in argument?

__________________
Pergamum


"If a commission by an earthly king is considered a honor, how can a commission by a Heavenly King be considered a sacrifice?"
-- David Livingstone

I agree with Pergamum. Shift a few presuppositions about the covenant and you could argue for paedobaptism.

A few books that I found helpful were :

Believers Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ by Schreiner/Wright
Baptism in the Early Church by [paedos] Stander/Louw

The first book was very helpful as much of it deals with Reformed paedobaptists arguments.

Peace.

j

__________________
J. M. - Baptist - Ontario, Canada - Feileadh Mor

I have never read it but I knew the one you were talking about. The book
Covenant Children today by Alan Conner is the linked I posted before. I have read it and found it to be quite good in regards to the credo-baptism position. It gives a very good explanation as to how Covenant theology coincides with credo-baptism.

Blessings,

__________________
Rev. Toby Holland
Director of Evangelism
Wiltsie Community Church (CCCC)
LBC - 1689

Hello Dennis,
Just want to respond to some of your thoughts. You said;
Dennis, it might be that the credo understanding comes from just reading the book of Acts, along with the promises of Jn 14-17 and the teaching of Jesus to believe and be baptized.
The next issue that comes up is;
[quote] I now think I can see why paedos believe that their children should be baptized. Now it makes sense to me!
It is interesting that they did not see this as what the apostle Paul was teaching as late in the book of Acts in Acts 21
This seems to indicate a change in the administration of the covenant- "saying that they ought not to circumcise their children". in the verses that follow,it is almost a repeat of the teaching of Acts 15. It does not say, well baptism has now replaced circumcision as the sign of the covenant. If it said that in Acts 15 when the question of circumcision was being addressed the issue would be settled.
The teaching of who constitutes the church is central. In Eph.5 I do not see where the non elect are said to be the body of Christ. Both agree that what is called the Invisible Church will be assembled on the Last Day.
Unbeliever's who assemble among the sheep are an issue both sides have to deal with. I struggle with this issue,and am constantly going over it.
The padeo scheme has a logic to it,and by stressing the [external administration] of the COG they speak to this issue by applying all the Nt warnings in Hebrews and Rev 2-3 to false professors, or apostates.
This view has an answer for these verses that is logical , and deserves to be considered.
Reformed Baptists also have to speak to these issues. Looking at the indicitives in Romans 6 , and the reality of the condition and position of these Justified believer's is not trying to fit or force a view on the scripture,but rather speaks to the reality of those who are baptized [Spiritually] into Christ.
As to how we view our children, we know that we are responsible to train them from the scripture. We know that if they are going to be saved,God must do the saving. We know that if they repent and believe by God's grace they also will take part in the resurrection life of Christ,having been translated into the kingdom.
Our children are holy in that they have the blessing of living with believing parents.This is no different than living in a padeo home, in that padeo children do not participate in the Lord's supper until they are older, if they profess that they believe and want to be "members".
When we baptize a child they can take the Lord's supper also.
You also said this;
Dennis, if the children or anyone else has not the Spirit they will perish.
Romans 8:9. If they are not born again they will perish. If they do not have the Spirit, they are natural men in Adam as far as we can tell.
If they are those included in the Covenant of Redemption they will savingly believe and openly confess Christ Jesus as Lord, by believer's baptism.[ Those in the covenant of redemption, believe In Time, visibly and openly]
We are thankful that God works in households.We are thankful he works through means . We cannot presume anything.We must daily seek Him for grace and mercy for our family. "Covenant children" if they do not have the Spirit cannot rightly understand spiritual truth anymore than anyone else.
We look for evidence of the grace of God in our children. It is not as if we try to keep them from any truth.

__________________
Anthony D'Arienzo
Sunday School Teacher
Hope Reformed Baptist Church:
Medford, N.Y.

Jewett was one of my profs at Fuller. He had just announced that Paul was wrong on women when I arrived and he was later to declare his support for homosexual relationships. This did not stop me from buying his book, but it did keep me from reading it.

__________________
Dennis E. McFadden, Ex Mainline Baptist (in Remission)
Atherton Baptist Homes, CEO
First Baptist Church of Alhambra, Member, Transformation Ministries (CA)

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Hey, that used to be my title here on the PB, instead of "freshman" or whatever. It got whacked during an update a little while after Scott Bushey left the board.

Anthony's comments are well stated. Here are a couple more observations.
I'm not stuck Dennis. I'm submissive to the clear teaching of Scripture. I gladly and joyfully embrace it. There is a difference. Even the paedos agree with believer's baptism. That's not even the argument, really. The argument is on the validity of baptizing infants into the covenant (as you touch on in your closing statements). This is where it must be understand that the NC is a spiritual fulfillment of many OC promises, and therefore only fitting for those who are spiritually circumcised. The OC could be observed externally, but true obedience was based on a spiritual reality. One could be an Israelite, but not an "Israelite indeed," if you will. Nobody is in the NC unless they are regenerate. That is the condition presented in Scripture.

It is because of this that your following statement seems strange to me.Personally, I find this baffling brother. "Credo baptism was adopted" as a reaction against unsaved membership? That's what I gather from your statement. It seems to me that you are imposing goals or motives where they don't exist. Baptism is an act of obedience and identification. One doesn't need to be baptized into the covenant any more than they need to be circumcised. But, as an act of obedience and in a desire to identify with Christ believers are baptized. To do any less is to be disobedient to Christ, which signals unbelief. The relationship is identical to the reality that faith brings forth works, but works can never establish faith (though works definitely help strengthen existing faith).

Bringing Arminianism into it confuses the issue as well. Again, it makes credobaptism reactionary; focused on the trends of the day or fending off errant theology, rather than following a direct commandment of our Lord Jesus. These statements also imply that infant baptism was the norm before believer's baptism existed. Even many paedos, though they believe in the validity of infant baptism, would agree that the early church did not baptize infants. They see it clearly as a covenantal relationship based on their theological grid (which Anthony addressed well).

I would urge caution while digging "deeply into the nature of the church and its proper biblical composition." Ecclesiology is not that complicated, though much of the modern church has made it so. God's Word in regard to this is rather simple. But much theological wrangling and academic prowess has confused the simplicity of the church and made physical works supersede spiritual realities.

While, as you say, it's understandable in light of the thinking behind the paedo position, that doesn't mean that it's right. Because of this, even though you desire to start with a deep study of ecclesiology, it inevitably will center on "the arguments for and against infant baptism."

May your study be fruitful and edifying.

__________________
For the Glory of our King,
Joe Johnson
Married up in 1988 and blessed with two wonderful sons
TMS graduate
Preacherboy at Cornerstone Community Church, Escanaba, MI
SoundLife.org

Dennis, I am sadly unable to sit and focus on the other thread where you asked this, the replies given (which I'm sure were great, as the replies to my questions were), or the replies here, so my comment may be simply out of place in the discussion, redundant, for which I apologize --and of course I myself am confused working through these things so it may simply be worthless. One thing that clarified for me when I asked my questions is that some paedo baptists have a very different ecclesiology than we baptists do, but they are the ones who believe that the Westminster Confession teaches that 'professing faith' and 'obedience' as a requirement for baptism are not 'personal', but somehow objective in submitting to baptism and a process of discipleship itself. This is indeed a radically different ecclesiology. Yet the common understanding of the Westminster Confession is that only believing parents and their infants should be candidates for baptism. This is because the promises are made by God only to parents who believe, and so only infants of parent(s) with a credible profession of faith in the judgment of the church have a right to baptism in the eyes of men. The ecclesiology is very similar to ours. The visible church is composed of believers: the church still judges who is and who is not a candidate for the visible church based on profession of faith, because the Covenant is with believers: the promises to children are only for the infants of believers. Personally I have the same view of infant inclusion in the promises as most paedos. I simply don't know that this is/was the basis for baptism in the NT (and I believe there is some inconsistency in the way many paedos acknowledge differences in the administration of circumcision and baptism but want to accuse baptist brethren of a faulty hermeneutic for taking those differences one step further than they do). With some paedos I honestly don't believe there is a fundamental or radical difference in ecclesiology: the visible church is still about believers. Whether or not we baptise infants is more of a minor difference on whether a special standing for believers' children is grounds for their inclusion with the 'believers'. There is more fundamental difference in ecclesiology between them and their paedo brethren with whom they would disagree about the interpretation of the Confession (and most of the arguments leveled against baptists by those who argue that the profession should not be personal could be leveled against many in their own tradition, such as John Brown, Thomas Boston, etc). This has actually added rather to my confusion than clarified anything for me. So here's baking soda in your eyes. (I'm currently baptizing my couch with baking soda, purifying it for our covenant use, as it were...)

__________________
Heidi
Indianapolis, Indiana

After two days, he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him.
Let us know; let us press on to know the LORD; his going out is sure as the dawn; he will come to us as the showers, as the spring rains that water the earth.

Dennis,

This is a very helpful paper concerning the topic of paedobaptism

Founders Ministries | A Critical Evaluation of Paedobaptism

enjoy,
Steve

__________________
Steve Clevenger, Pastor
Covenant Reformed Baptist Church
Warrenton, VA
www.covenantword.org
http://reformedbaptistfellowship.wordpress.com

Dennis,

You need to read some of the older Baptist writers concerning the topic of covenant. The heart of the issue is not “sacramentology” or “ecclesiology”, ultimately it is about COVENANT.

Some good resources are:

Covenant Theology From Adam to Christ - Nehemiah Cox and John Owen
SGCB | Reformed Baptist Academic Press

Body of Divinity – John Gill

The Cross and the Covenants – R.B.C. Howell

__________________
Steve Clevenger, Pastor
Covenant Reformed Baptist Church
Warrenton, VA
www.covenantword.org
http://reformedbaptistfellowship.wordpress.com

I am not so sure that this is a reasonable assessment. It might be if you are an Independent Fundamentalist. When you read the Coxe book and the Malone book you will see that it has to do with how one views the Covenant of Grace and who its members are. It also has to do with how one defines the Covenants and how they relate to each other.


Jonathan Edwards said that all of our kids are born Vipers. LOL

I do believe they are born in original sin and need to regenerate.

Having the Covenant sign in the Old Covenant did make you a member the Nation Isreal. If you didn't have the sign you were not permitted to be a member of the household of Abraham. The Covenant of Circumcision included both elect and non elect because the purpose of the Covenant was twofold. It had promises for the descendants of Abraham because of posterity and Promises that were spiritual in nature. These Pomises were not all inclusive to Abraham's household. All of the promises made to Abraham's Prosterity were for all of them. But the Spiritual Promises were not. You can see that in the blessing Abraham sought for Ishmael. "Oh that Ishmael might live before thee.

Read Genesis 17 a little closer and you will see what I am saying. Nehemiah Coxe does a great job with the Abrahamic Covenant and the Covenant of Circumcision. You will get alot out of it.

I am not so sure that your assessment is correct here either. We have always acknowledged the fact that some might creep in unawares. But when they are found out they are to endure Church discipline and cast out if they do not hold to their confession of faith in Christ. Reading Malone, Coxe, and Conner will show you more about what Confessional Baptist see.

You are incorrect here also. Baptism of Confessing Christians is what the early church did. And that is what is recorded in the Scriptures. It is also done because the Children of God are spiritual children as defined in the New Covenant. It is done because the Covenant sign signifies something that is a reality in a persons life. The New Covenant is a better covenant than the one the old was because true members of this covenant can not fall away. It is an unbreakable covenant based upon Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Hebrews 8. It isn't like the Covenant that God made with those who were in the Old as these passages say.

Our Differences have to do with our views of the Covenants and who its members truly are.

__________________

(Norseman Moderator)

R. Martin Snyder
1689er
Harmony Baptist Church (Member)
PuritanCovenanter MSN Blog
PuritanCovenanter's MySpace Page

"Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."
William Symington

Click to get:Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Randy, I already credited you elsewhere for your generosity. I plan to read Coxe, Conner, and already have Malone's revised ed. too. But, after coasting through a seminary where nobody I knew raised any questions about baptism, and having been raised in a Baptist church, you tend to slide through with your Sunday School understanding of the three or four bullets for each view.

But, it is not what the church did for almost 1,600 years and continues to do in large percentages of it even today. My comment was regarding the fact that "all of a sudden" in church history a group decided that what had gone on was unbiblical and that a new practice (or re-newed practice) was the correct one. In my opinion (as you say Randy I could be wrong) the issue Baptists faced was the feeling that the Reformation did not complete the job of reforming the church. As long as membership in the church comes through infant baptism, the church will always have way too many unbelievers mixed in with the saints. "Recovering first century" baptism was, in my judgment, done as an expedient to protect the composition of the church from being a bunch of nominal Christians in "name only." It is interesting that a "regenerate membership" is historically coextensive (I thought) with the innovation of credo baptism. My point was that I'll bet the second look at baptism came after the decision as to what the church should be.

At least in the Baptist polity books, the term for one of the Baptist "distinctives" is "a regenerate membership safeguarded by believers' baptism." If that much-used slogan represents an historical reversal of the actual order of "discovery," then you would be correct and I would be wrong. Does anybody here know Baptist history well enough to venture a definitive judgment?

That is why one of my next books will be Coxe.

__________________
Dennis E. McFadden, Ex Mainline Baptist (in Remission)
Atherton Baptist Homes, CEO
First Baptist Church of Alhambra, Member, Transformation Ministries (CA)

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?