*Weird name I know*

As I study and believe in Covenant Theology (Grew up Dispy) I sort of understand why Pedao (SP?) is done, but at the same time I could still argue for cradeo (SP?)

I guess I really don't have a set question but I would like to understand more of these two views and why you can't be covenant in theology if you hold to believers baptism.
(Or that is what I heard somewhere)

I can tell you with out an a doubt, I do hold to the belief in covenant theology from what I know of it.

Thanks for the help.

Reformed paedobaptists do not deny the biblical-ness of "believer's baptism." All Reformed paedobaptist believe in "believer's baptism."

So correct me here my friend in my lack of doctrinal understanding.
As I understand Padeo it is a sign unto the God that ,"Child" is under God's salvation? Which I feel is wrong on my understanding.
Baptism is a sign unto God saying we are under your covenant of grace once it is official by our lips. However infant baptism is a sign of what? Or is infant baptism the same as meaning the, "Child" is now saved under the covenant in which I the ,"Father" am under.

Are all offspring of the elect saved?

Thanks, Josh and others for helping me to understand more of the reformed view regarding baptism.

"Credobaptist-ism, etc." is really a poor choice of name to identify oneself with the Baptist doctrine. Antipaedobaptist is much more accurate. Reformed folk believe in baptizing their children not because it does anything to the recipient of the baptism, but as a recognition and a sign that said child has been born into covenant with God. God made a promise to Abraham that he'd be God to him and to his children after him and that through Abraham many nations would be blessed. As Reformed paedobaptists, we deny that there is any abrogation in applying the covenant sign (respective to its current administration under the New Testament) to first generation believers and their children:

As for your particular questions in the last post, no, the child's baptism is not a sign that said child has been saved. It's a sign that he is in covenant with God. If the child never comes to faith, then he is a covenant-breaker. Hence, all the warnings, cautions, etc. that we see applied to God's people (in the generic sense). There is the visible church (all those who profess faith and their children), then there is the invisible church (the elect, whom we do not know are elect, etc.). Are all offspring of the elect saved, you ask. How can I know such a thing? I have no idea. First, I don't know who's elect and who isn't. I'm not privy to that. Furthermore, since I don't know who's elect, I can't know if their children are either.

Reformed paedobaptists do not believe that baptism saves a child. That's nonsense.

I will listen to the sermon and get back to this thread. Thank you sir for your help.

Josh, the sermon has about two speakers over speaking one another. Is there a sermon text I could read?

Very interested in this discussion as well. While previously being under the umbrella of "infant baptism is weird", I took a class and now understand the solid arguments behind both paedo and credo. Without kids yet, my current stance is to submit to the view held by the elders at our church - which right now (though Reformed in much of their theology) is credo. With my current understanding (admittedly little) of the arguments for both, if we were to move and join a paedobaptist church I would submit to that view as well.

Originally Posted by Sonny

I will listen to the sermon and get back to this thread. Thank you sir for your help.

Josh, the sermon has about two speakers over speaking one another. Is there a sermon text I could read?

Yikes. Try this one:

http://www.christcovenantrpc.org/SiteContent/66/documents/Audio/052310S-A.mp3 - link malfunction

That link's messed up too. It worked a few days ago. Apologies.

Originally Posted by Joshua

That link's messed up too. It worked a few days ago. Apologies.

Josh,

If you find that an operable link becomes available, please pass it along.

Mr. Soncek,

It should be resolved soon, DV.

---- Edit ----

Sorry, looks like the damage may be irreversible.

Originally Posted by Sonny

... why you can't be covenant in theology if you hold to believers baptism.

Exellent question.

Josh

Reformed paedobaptists do not believe that baptism saves a child. That's nonsense.

This is the case as Josh says. And we don't believe that water baptism saves the adult who is baptised in a Reformed Baptist church or in a paedo (Covenantal) Baptist church.

We believe that the regeneration which is the reality signified and sealed by the sacrament of baptism saves. That regeneration may happen before or after water baptism, in the case of both children and adults who are water baptised. Circumcision of heart didn't necessarily occur at the mpment a baby boy or adult man was circumcised either.

Westminster Confession

CHAPTER XXVII.
Of the Sacraments

II. There is in every sacrament a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified; whence it comes to pass that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.

III. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments, rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it, but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.

CHAPTER XXVIII.
Of Baptism.


VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.

VII. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered to any person.

(Because a person can't be regenerated twice or more times).

We "paedo"baptists are believer's in both adult and child baptism. Maybe we should more properly be called "Covenantal Baptist Churches" as we draw out the natural implications of the Covenant God made with Abraham, which is still in operation under its New Covenant administration.

We believe that "the Baptists" are administering the Covenant of Grace and Visible Church too narrowly. Obviously there is more to this administration than baptism (e.g. How the Lord's Supper is administered, church discipline and sanctions, church attendance, family worship, Christian education of various kinds, etc.), but baptism is an important aspect.

God's grace extends in a peculiar way - not always easily understood - to those who profess the Christian religion and their children. They have special promises, priovileges and responsiblities.

In a properly ordered church, those who profess the Christian religion must have a credible profession of faith, or be debarred from the Visible Church and the Visible Covenant of Grace by being denied access to the Lord's Table.

Quote from Josh

then there is the visible church (the elect, whom we do not know are elect, etc.).

Typo, should be " invisible church"

This seems to be poorly understood by the Baptists, as they are known. A Kirk Session has to operate according to a credible profession of faith (Baptism) and/or an accredited profession of faith (Lord's Table).

Even the Apostles did not know who the elect were in some infallible manner. Also it is not even possible to tell who the regenerate are in an infallible manner.

We can however, thankfully, infallibly know that we ourselves are regenerate and elect. See II Peter 1:10.

When I call to mind "the washing away of the filth of the flesh" (I Peter 3:21) that was involved in my baptism as a child, that signifies and seals unto me the regeneration, which I believe may have happened about thirteen years later.

Larger Catechism

Question 167: How is our Baptism to be improved by us?

Answer: The needful but much neglected duty of improving our Baptism, is to be performed by us all our life long, especially in the time of temptation, and when we are present at the administration of it to others; by serious and thankful consideration of the nature of it, and of the ends for which Christ instituted it, the privileges and benefits conferred and sealed thereby, and our solemn vow made therein; by being humbled for our sinful defilement, our falling short of, and walking contrary to, the grace of baptism, and our engagements; by growing up to assurance of pardon of sin, and of all other blessings sealed to us in that sacrament; by drawing strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are baptized, for the mortifying of sin, and quickening of grace; and by endeavoring to live by faith, to have our conversation in holiness and righteousness, as those that have therein given up their names to Christ; and to walk in brotherly love, as being baptized by the same Spirit into one body.

Credobaptist-ism, etc." is really a poor choice of name to identify oneself with the Baptist doctrine. Antipaedobaptist is much more accurate.

Baptism, if performed scripturally and upon a scriptural subject, is at once
an act of obedience, identification and submission. It is first an act of
obedience, the first outward testimony of the new believer corresponding to our Lord’s word: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that
believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:16). This statement reveals that one who is truly converted will desire to be outwardly identified with and
obedient to the word of his Lord and Savior (Acts 2:36–42; 8:36–38; 9:17–
19).
Believer's baptism [credo baptism] is taught in scripture.it is a fine name to use. it is a positive obedience to Jesus teaching.

Antipaedobaptist is much more accurate

Most baptists obeyed the clear command of scripture, without being anti-anything. I have never hear someone say I am being baptized as an antipadeo baptist They usually say that God has worked inside them by His Spirit, convicting them of sin,granting salvation to them.
They are glad to identify with the people of God. They are happy to obey Jesus command and teaching.

Dearest Anthony,

The belief in "Credobaptism" can be accurately applied to a Reformed Paedobaptist as well as a Baptist. Ergo, "Credobaptist" is not a good technical term to describe one who believes in only believer's baptism. Baptists are antipaedobaptist in that they deny the inclusion in application of the sign of the covenant. That is all I mean to say and am not sure why it would be taken as anything else.

Josh,
I really believe that baptists are really trying to obey what Jesus taught in a positive light. This idea of anti-padeo is not the primary thought of most baptists that I am familiar with.
They will reject the idea of baptismal regeneration as practiced by ROME. You do also. I am not anti -Josh, I think I am for you as a brother in Christ.
We have a different understanding of what baptism is{to some extent}
and to who are the proper subjects of that baptism,yes.
We do agree it is important.
The term antipadeobaptist sounds very negative to me. If the RB view is the biblical view, then I would be for you in that I would be offering reasons for you to reconsider what you believe and come to the biblical position. You no doubt believe you have the biblical position and are offering that up for the baptists, or those who are new to this study.
Most baptists do not know what the padeo position is, or they have misconceptions about it...I know I had some myself. Some parts of it still surprise me from time to time. That's just some feedback on the term.

"Antipaedobaptist" is just an historical term and, IMHO, more helpful in articulating the baptist position. If one takes it as being offense, it is due to a misunderstanding of its use. The term "Credobaptism" which connotes "believer's baptism" when applied to baptists as over and against Reformed folk gives the impression that said Reformed folk deny "believer's baptism," when nothing could be further from the truth. It's helpful to have meaningful and accurate terms when discussing these things, lest a position be poorly represented or misrepresented altogether.

Originally Posted by Joshua

"Antipaedobaptist" is just an historical term and, IMHO, more helpful in articulating the baptist position. If one takes it as being offense, it is due to a misunderstanding of its use. The term "Credobaptism" which connotes "believer's baptism" when applied to baptists as over and against Reformed folk gives the impression that said Reformed folk deny "believer's baptism," when nothing could be further from the truth. It's helpful to have meaningful and accurate terms when discussing these things, lest a position be poorly represented or misrepresented altogether.

You may believe it more helpful in articulating the baptist position, but the fact is you are not a Baptist and the usage is unnecessarily inflammatory to your Baptist Brethren as well as derailing the thread. It would be good for us to not quibble with semantics and simply use the common nomenclature, "Credobaptist" as a courtesy.

The fact is, "paedobaptist" is equally misleading because it gives the impression that you all only baptize infants: which is equally ludicrous. So, if your going to change our name than we should probably change yours as well.

Originally Posted by C. M. Sheffield

You may believe it more helpful in articulating the baptist position, but the fact is you are not a Baptist and the usage is unnecessarily inflammatory to your Baptist Brethren as well as derailing the thread. It would be good for us to not quibble with semantics and simply use the common nomenclature, "Credobaptist" as a courtesy.

Dear Pastor,

I am not a baptist now, but I have been in the past. Ergo, I don't think it's outside of my purview to be able to speak to such a thing. As for it being "unnecessarily inflammatory," can you please show me how it can be inflammatory as a statement of fact rather than arising from an ignorance or misunderstanding of its meaning on the part of the one who decries its use? Shall we disregard the word niggardly because it's perceived by those who are ignorant of its meaning to be a racist remark? I would hope not. If so, then we've a whole lot to do in the scaling back of the English language. I wonder how many Baptists have been put off by Dr. Mike Renihan, an antipaedobaptist, for titling his book concerning John Tombes Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes? I really think it's too much to take offense at a perfectly accurate term.

As for "derailing the thread," I've just been dealing with a common misconception that was asserted in the first post: namely, that Reformed Paedobaptists don't believe in "believer's baptism."

The fact is, "paedobaptist" is equally misleading because it gives the impression that you all only baptize infants: which is equally ludicrous.

No it doesn't. It just means that we do baptize infants. This is why I reject that we should call Baptists "Credobaptist," because it does not mean that they baptize only believers, only that they do believe in "believer's baptism." But so do Reformed Paedobaptists! So to reserve the term "Credobaptist" for the primary identification of those who believe in "believer's baptism" only, is to imply that Reformed Paedobaptists do not believe in such.

So, if your going to change our name than we should probably change yours as well.

I didn't change your name. Baptist works just fine.

Originally Posted by Joshua

Originally Posted by C. M. Sheffield

You may believe it more helpful in articulating the baptist position, but the fact is you are not a Baptist and the usage is unnecessarily inflammatory to your Baptist Brethren as well as derailing the thread. It would be good for us to not quibble with semantics and simply use the common nomenclature, "Credobaptist" as a courtesy.

Dear Pastor,

I am not a baptist now, but I have been in the past. Ergo, I don't think it's outside of my purview to be able to speak to such a thing. As for it being "unnecessarily inflammatory," can you please show me how it can be inflammatory as a statement of fact rather than arising from an ignorance or misunderstanding of its meaning on the part of the one who decries its use? Shall we disregard the word niggardly because it's perceived by those who are ignorant of its meaning to be a racist remark? I would hope not. If so, then we've a whole lot to do in the scaling back of the English language. I wonder how many Baptists have been put off by Dr. Mike Renihan, an antipaedobaptist, for titling his book concerning John Tombes Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes? I really think it's too much to take offense at a perfectly accurate term.

Insisting that one could only object to the term out of ignorance is insulting! Can you not see that? We do not object out of ignorance to the term. We object because because our view is a response to Scripture's teaching that only those repent and believe should receive baptism (ergo: Credo-baptist) It has nothing to do with what infant baptists believe on the topic.

And whether you disagree with my argument for why it is inflammatory or insulting is irrelevant - they are none the less. So I would kindly ask you to stop the right-fighting, and exercise charity to your brethren by using the term Credobaptist (or just plain Baptist).

Originally Posted by Joshua

The fact is, "paedobaptist" is equally misleading because it gives the impression that you all only baptize infants: which is equally ludicrous.

No it doesn't. It just means that we do baptize infants.

I know what the term means. But there is noting in the term stopping someone from concluding that it means that you only baptize babies. I'm proof of this fact! For a long time as a young Christian I was under just that impression!

The term is "Paedobaptist" which means "Infant baptist." That term fails to fully communicate the paedobaptist position because it says nothing about adult believers. If we're going to be precises then a better term would be:

"PAEDO-ET-CREDO BAPTISTS"

What do you think? Accurate, but not as catchy.

Now I will concede that "credobaptist" is also insufficient. Our position is perhaps best summed up in the the words "believer's baptism alone." Now I'm no Latin scholar so bear with me. The term would be something like:

"SOLA-CREDO BAPTIST"

Again, not as catchy.

We can acknowledge the imperfection of the terms "paedo" and "credo" without saying that they insufficiently serve the purpose of our theological discussions. Agreed?

Dear Pastor,

You accuse me of lacking charity over something that shouldn't be taken as offensive if one correctly understands the terms employed, and in doing so are yourself being uncharitable. Regardless of "catchiness" of a term, it's irrelevant if said term is misleading in the context of its misuse (in other words, the term credobaptist is not misleading in itself, it's only misleading when a Baptist uses it to distinguish himself from Reformed Paedobaptists). It's not appropriate to accuse one of lacking charity because of the right distinction of terminology. When I say one is "objecting out of ignorance," that shouldn't be taken as an insult either. I didn't say, "objecting out of stupidity," as there's a large difference between being stupid and being ignorant. Once a person understands the meaning of antipaedobaptist, and how it is not a derogatory term, then their taking offense is no longer valid. At that point, they're no longer ignorant but informed. Ergo, feeling insulted by it is unwarranted and unprovoked.

On the contrary, you imputing a lack of charity on my part with baseless grounds is uncharitable, technically speaking. I don't mind it, though, and simply state it since you've brought it up. While paedobaptist is not an all inclusive identification of the Reformed doctrine of baptism, it does not claim to be exclusive, where as you seem to be arguing that I should just accept credobaptist as meaning baptism of believer's only. So I should accept a definition of a proper term that's not entirely accurate because someone chooses to take offense over it on a baseless foundation? "Paedobaptist" is not intended to be all inclusive and certainly not restrictive. Neither does the term "Credobaptist" lend itself to the inclusion of only believers, just that it identifies one kind of baptism. And that's fine, but that makes those of us who believe in Reformed Paedobaptism just as much Credobaptist as any Baptists out there since we do, in fact, believe and practice, the baptism of professing believers.

Originally Posted by Joshua

Dear Pastor,

You accuse me of lacking charity over something that shouldn't be taken as offensive if one correctly understands the terms employed, and in doing so are yourself being uncharitable. Regardless of "catchiness" of a term, it's irrelevant if said term is misleading in the context of its misuse (in other words, the term credobaptist is not misleading in itself, it's only misleading when a Baptist uses it to distinguish himself from Reformed Paedobaptists). It's not appropriate to accuse one of lacking charity because of the right distinction of terminology. When I say one is "objecting out of ignorance," that shouldn't be taken as an insult either. I didn't say, "objecting out of stupidity," as there's a large difference between being stupid and being ignorant. Once a person understands the meaning of antipaedobaptist, and how it is not a derogatory term, then their taking offense is no longer valid. At that point, they're no longer ignorant but informed. Ergo, feeling insulted by it is unwarranted and unprovoked.

On the contrary, you imputing a lack of charity on my part with baseless grounds is uncharitable, technically speaking. I don't mind it, though, and simply state it since you've brought it up. While paedobaptist is not an all inclusive identification of the Reformed doctrine of baptism, it does not claim to be exclusive, where as you seem to be arguing that I should just accept credobaptist as meaning baptism of believer's only. So I should accept something that's not entirely accurate because someone chooses to take offense over something on baseless foundation? "Paedobaptist" is not intended to be all inclusive and certainly not restrictive. Neither does the term "Credobaptist" lend itself to the inclusion of only believers, just that it identifies one kind of baptism. And that's fine, but that makes those of us who believe in Reformed Paedobaptism just as much Credobaptist as any Baptists out there since we do, in fact, believe and practice, the baptism of professing believers.

I NEVER SAID YOU LACKED CHARITY! I ASKED YOU TO EXERCISE IT!

and WE'RE NOT IGNORANT! WE GET WHAT THE WORD MEANS and simply DISAGREE WITH IT!

STOP INSISTING THAT WE'RE IGNORANT OF THE WORDS MEANING!

IT'S INSULTING BECAUSE IT'S UNTRUE!

Originally Posted by C. M. Sheffield

I NEVER SAID YOU LACKED CHARITY! I ASKED YOU TO EXERCISE IT!

My apologies, Pastor. I guess it was more of an implication that I was not exercising charity up to that point.

and WE'RE NOT IGNORANT! WE GET WHAT THE WORD MEANS and simply DISAGREE WITH IT!

If you disagree with what the word means then why use it?

STOP INSISTING THAT WE'RE IGNORANT OF THE WORDS MEANING! IT'S INSULTING BECAUSE IT'S UNTRUE!

I did not make a blanket statement that all baptists without exception are ignorant of its meaning. I've made a distinction between those who are ignorant of its meaning and those who aren't but persist in taking offense to my objection thereof.

Why are you using all caps?

Originally Posted by Joshua

My apologies, Pastor. I guess it was more of an implication that I was not exercising charity up to that point.

I understand.

Originally Posted by Joshua

If you disagree with what the word means then why use it?

I don't use the word "antipaedobaptist."

Originally Posted by Joshua

I did not make a blanket statement that all baptists without exception are ignorant of its meaning. I've made a distinction between those who are ignorant of its meaning and those who aren't but persist in taking offense to my objection thereof.

You're posts heretofore have drawn no such distinction between "all baptists without exception" and the two Baptists (Iconoclast & myself) with whom you are engaged in this thread. My use of plural pronouns was in reference to the two of us taking issue with the term "antipaedobaptist." I had no reason to assume that the charge of ignorance was not directed toward us.

Originally Posted by Joshua

Why are you using all caps?

Isn't it obvious?

Originally Posted by C. M. Sheffield

Originally Posted by Joshua

If you disagree with what the word means then why use it?

I don't use the word "antipaedobaptist."

A misunderstanding on my part.

Originally Posted by Joshua

I did not make a blanket statement that all baptists without exception are ignorant of its meaning. I've made a distinction between those who are ignorant of its meaning and those who aren't but persist in taking offense to my objection thereof.

You're posts heretofore have drawn no such distinction between "all baptists without exception" and the two Baptists (Iconoclast & myself) with whom you are engaged in this thread. My use of plural pronouns was in reference to the two of us taking issue with the term "antipaedobaptist." We had no reason to assume that the charge of ignorance was not directed toward us.

Well, I assure you, friend, that the "charge" was not directed to any who understand the meaning of the term antipaedobaptist. It certainly shouldn't warrant inflammation or offense, however, because it's not an offensive term. It means something. If one is a baptist, in fact, it should be worn as a badge of honor.

Originally Posted by Joshua

Why are you using all caps?

Isn't it obvious?

No, Sir. A bit dense, I am.

Dear Josh,

Perhaps this will help. I'm not offended by it so much as it seems a bit ignorantly arrogant from a credo perspective. Please let me explain.

First, it makes paedo the reference point. But, from a credo perspective it's not the reference point at all. Obedience to Christ is. Forcing this reference point upon us comes across as arrogant, as if the paedobaptist has the right to dictate from which point all positions must refer to themselves.
Second, for the credo, paedobaptism is not baptism at all. We, generally speaking, do not acknowledge it as baptism. Though you profess a baptistic background, you seem to miss this point. As you pointed out, this isn't stupidity, but does seem ignorant of the heart of your credo brethren.

In light of this to be called "antipaedopaptist" necessarily imposes a focus, and indeed an acknowledgment, that is nonexistent in the mind of a credo. We baptize those with a credible profession of faith, period. Any other form of baptism, from our perspective, is no baptism at all. And, no, we don't baptize the dead either. :P This would, I suppose, make us antinecrobaptists?

I don't say this uncharitably or looking down my nose. It's simply a clear difference in understanding, regardless of the historic use of the term. And I hope my explanation adds clarity and is not seen as inflammatory. I respect my paedo brethren and know many of them live and walk much close to Christ than I, but give it no biblical credence whatsoever to this aspect of their theology. On the other hand, I do understand when a paedo brother thinks I sin in refusing to baptize babies as covenant children as well. In this we simply must charitably disagree.


Blessings,

Pastor Joe,


Not offended at all. In fact, I appreciate the usage of "seems" in your explanation. To be clear, I'm not forcing my usage of antipaedobaptist on anyone. Feel free to ignore my posts concerning the matter (I'm certain that 99% of the board already has! ). It seems to me that the reservation of Credobaptist for Baptists only might be taken as offensive by the Reformed Paedobaptist who is just as much a Credobaptist as any Baptist.


Humbly and With Utmost Sincerity,

The Perceived Stinker

I failed to notice there were several posts while I was still working on mine. Guess I need to work faster.

Thanks Josh. I appreciate your charitable response.



Blessings,

Terms will always be just that, terms. And reactions to terms will always differ in one way or another. Credobaptist doesn't sound too right to the ears of many a paedobaptists, just as how anti-paedobaptist sounds awful to many Baptist brethren. It's not that dissimilar from the continuationist/cessationist debate. Continuationists hate the term charismatics being applied to them, while cessationist as a term is not always readily accepted by Reformed folks as it also seems to imply that God can't work extraordinarily. A little charity on the usage of these terms and benefit of the doubt given to those who do use these terms often goes a long way.

Paedobaptist isn't always an ideal term either, because we baptise adults, not just children.

Covenantal Baptists (?)

Please name me the book that does this:
I want a book that is a side by side study of both positions.
I hold to Covenant theology and I still don't understand why you can't be covenant and credeo.

Originally Posted by Sonny

Please name me the book that does this:
I want a book that is a side by side study of both positions.

The Book to Read: Baptism: Three Views

Originally Posted by Sonny

I hold to Covenant theology and I still don't understand why you can't be covenant and credeo.

You can be! And I would argue the credobaptist position is the only one that's consistently covenantal.

Rev. Pastor could you please than tell me why those of the infant baptism camp say you can not be covenant?

No, because it isn't the case.

I would encourage you to read Walter Chantry's BAPTISM AND COVENANT THEOLOGY

Thank you sir, I will begin to read now.