Thread: Paedo vs Credo: Main point of contention?

Hey brothers,

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?

cheers.

First question: the covenant of grace specifically, or the understanding of biblical covenants generally:

Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 74

74. Q. Should infants, too, be baptized?
A. Yes. Infants as well as adults belong to God's covenant and congregation. Through Christ's blood the redemption from sin and the Holy Spirit, who works faith, are promised to them no less than to adults. Therefore, by baptism, as sign of the covenant, they must be grafted into the Christian church and distinguished from the children of unbelievers. This was done in the old covenant by circumcision, in place of which baptism was instituted in the new covenant.

Second question: I will let the Baptists speak for themselves.

Originally Posted by steadfast7

Hey brothers,

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?

cheers.

The main point of contention has to do with the people whom God makes a covenant with today. Does God make a covenant with believers only or not?

Originally Posted by cih1355

Originally Posted by steadfast7

Hey brothers,

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?

cheers.

The main point of contention has to do with the people whom God makes a covenant with today. Does God make a covenant with believers only or not?

see, this makes sense to me. From the paedo view, I just seem to lose the meaning of covenant, that thing which was instituted in the blood of Christ, which makes atonement for the elect.

The main point of contention? Easy: they're wrong, we're right.

Are children of believers in the New Covenant and Church?

Credos tend to look at things from more of an internal perspective. Is so-and-so regenerate? Or at least, do we have good reason to believe so?

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).

That's one of the main differences, though undoubtedly there are others. I am somewhat overgeneralizing to highlight the difference in emphasis that exists.

Originally Posted by steadfast7

Hey brothers,

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?

You are assuming at the beginning that the issue hasn't been resolved. I think most of us (paedos and credos) are so bold as to believe it has been resolved. One need only think of predestination to realize that an issue can be thoroughly resolved, yet not embraced by all.

From what I've read, the main issue are the definitions/degrees of continuity and discontinuity of the covenant(s).

-----Added 11/2/2009 at 07:02:20 EST-----

Originally Posted by austinww

Originally Posted by steadfast7

Hey brothers,

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?

You are assuming at the beginning that the issue hasn't been resolved. I think most of us (paedos and credos) are so bold as to believe it has been resolved.

I don't think anyone's budging : )

One more thing:

Baptism also relates to ceremonial cleansing in the OT, and paedobaptists view our children as being in need of this sign of being ceremonially clean. By virtue of being the children of believers, they have a stake in the forgiveness offered in Christ's blood, if they persevere to the end and prove to be truly his disciples (the same applies to adults).

In the credo camp, the tendency is to emphasize baptism as being a public declaration of faith and repentance that has already taken place and that the person can personally attest to.

Edit: In other words, the two groups stress different purposes of baptism. While Reformed Baptists and Reformed paedobaptists may have the same basic view of its purpose in substance, we still have different emphases. We Reformed paedos tend to emphasize the ceremonial cleansing and the remission of sins aspect of it, while in the Reformed Baptist view, the emphasis is slightly more on the public statement aspect of it.

One will need to distinguish between reformed Anabaptists and unreformed Anabaptists. The point of difference with the unreformed is fundamentally soteriological. Regeneration is produced by faith, and faith is assent to gospel teaching, so there is no Christian life without personal assent to gospel teaching. Obviously there is no place for infant inclusion in this scheme. If infants are saved it is by another means altogether, i.e., either a wideness in God's mercy or a denial of original sin.

It is worthwhile observing that in unreformed paedobaptism the role of personal assent is replaced by sacramental efficacy and sacerdotalism.

In reformed Anabaptism the precedence of regeneration is recognised but the idea of faith as personal assent to gospel doctrine is still retained. Covenant schematics really has nothing to do with it. The covenant schema is devised merely to explain why infants are excluded in the New Testament whereas they were included in the Old Testament. There is no real connection between covenant and baptism in reformed Anabaptist thought. Baptism is a mere sign that accompanies an individual's personal assent to gospel doctrine. It is a picture that the believer has died with Christ, been buried with Christ (immersion thus becomes necessary), and is raised to new life in Christ. One could remove the distinctive new covenant concept and it would not materially alter the reformed Anabaptist view of baptism.

The real state of the question, therefore, has nothing to do with the continuity of the covenants per se, but with the nature of saving faith and the covenant salvation of infants.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

One will need to distinguish between reformed Anabaptists and unreformed Anabaptists.

"Reformed Anabaptists"?
You learn something new everyday.

I think you mean "Reformed Baptists".

There's a difference between baptists and Anabaptists, mainly on the subject of separation from the world and pacifism.

Originally Posted by Skyler

I think you mean "Reformed Baptists".

There's a difference between baptists and Anabaptists, mainly on the subject of separation from the world and pacifism.

Oh, what a lovely signature you have there!

Edit: Note that I wrote that before you added the second line.

Originally Posted by Skyler

I think you mean "Reformed Baptists".

There's a difference between baptists and Anabaptists, mainly on the subject of separation from the world and pacifism.

If he does he's got it wrong - i think he means "Reformed Anabaptists" : )

Originally Posted by Skyler

I think you mean "Reformed Baptists".

No, I mean Reformed Anabaptists. The Reformed are true baptisers. "Baptists" rebaptise people who were truly baptised as infants. That makes them Anabaptists.

Please see sticky as to what views may be advocated in this forum.

Originally Posted by steadfast7

also, one more question:

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

cheers.

If you mean in the same sense as WCF and the Three Forms of Unity, then for the Convental Baptists, Yes. I would commend to you the tabular comparison of the Westminster, Savoy, and Baptist Confessions of Faith.
Tabular Comparison of 1646 WCF, 1658 Savoy Declaration, the 1677/1689 LBCF, and the 1742 PCF

For the Dispensational Baptists No.
For Reformed Anabaptists - i can't answer. I wasn't even aware there was such an animal until a few minutes ago.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by Skyler

I think you mean "Reformed Baptists".

No, I mean Reformed Anabaptists. The Reformed are true baptisers. "Baptists" rebaptise people who were truly baptised as infants. That makes them Anabaptists.

??? Fair enough, I suppose, as long as we allow the Baptists to say:

"The Baptists are true baptizers. 'Reformed' baptize people who are biblically ineligible for baptism. That makes them nonbaptizers (or maybe Quakers?)."



Actually, as long as the "rules" of the PB permit the WCF AND the LBCF, it probably does not help dialog to invoke either kind of rhetoric. Yes, we know that the paedo and credo folks think that they are right and the other side is wrong. However, most of the Baptists on this board want to be associated with "Anabaptists" about as much as the credo folk here want to be associated with the Federal Vision, Robert Schuller, or Harold Camping. In this context, it takes on more of the character of a slander or "fighting words" than carefully chosen argument for a position.

Originally Posted by eqdj

For the Convental Baptists Yes. I would commend to you the tabular comparison of the Westminster, Savoy, and Baptist Confessions of Faith.
Tabular Comparison of 1646 WCF, 1658 Savoy Declaration, the 1677/1689 LBCF, and the 1742 PCF

Actually, no. The Church is spiritual Israel in new covenantal reformed Anabaptist thought.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

??? Fair enough, I suppose, as long as we allow the Baptists to say:

"The Baptists are true baptizers. 'Reformed' baptize people who are biblically ineligible for baptism. That makes them nonbaptizers (or maybe Quakers?)."

Thankyou for your honesty, Dennis. Where I come from, honesty furthers discussion; it doesn't hinder it; and flattery only serves to puff up.

Please be aware that when you call yourself "Baptists," you are assuming a name the Reformed cannot grant you without conceding the issue.

Main point of contention?

There isn't a scripture that says "baptize them chillens" nor one that says "don't you dare baptize them chillens!"

Originally Posted by SemperEruditio

Main point of contention?

There isn't a scripture that says "baptize them chillens" nor one that says "don't you dare baptize them chillens!"

I don't know about that...have you misplaced your copy of the Cotton Patch translation?

Moderator Note

I recommend that a thread be made in the general baptism area. Too Many Baptists are Playing in a Paedo playbox. That should have been stomped on right away.

I prefer "oikobaptists" and "antipaedobaptists."

Originally Posted by steadfast7

Originally Posted by KMK

Originally Posted by Joshua

Pastor Klein, when did you become a Reformed Paedobaptist?

Sorry, but there are two threads with the same title in two different forums. Is that really necessary?

No it's not necessary I guess, but I wanted to get both perspectives without causing conflict on the same thread. I know some people are sensitive about keeping it separate. Feel free to move/delete as you see fit.

thanks.

-----Added 11/2/2009 at 06:00:51 EST-----

Originally Posted by cih1355

Originally Posted by steadfast7

Hey brothers,

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?

cheers.

The main point of contention has to do with the people whom God makes a covenant with today. Does God make a covenant with believers only or not?

see, this makes sense to me. From the paedo view, I just seem to lose the meaning of covenant, that thing which was instituted in the blood of Christ, which makes atonement for the elect.

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Moderator Note

I recommend that a thread be made in the general baptism area. Too Many Baptists are Playing in a Paedo playbox. That should have been stomped on right away.

Sorry - i thought this was the one condensed thread - moving along : )

Originally Posted by steadfast7

Hey brothers,

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?

cheers.

The church under age was the Israel. God promised to be the God of those that believe and of their children. Those that hold to covenant baptism (which I prefer over paedo, as there are no groups that only baptize infants, but they also baptize those new believers who have not previously been baptized) consider the church to be just as much a covenant organization as what we consider Israel. While the credo baptist states they only baptize those that are of faith, the covenant baptist knows that is not so (knowing that even though they only baptize those who profess faith, some of those will not have faith, and so even in a credo baptist church, there is a mixture of the regenerate with unregenerate). The covenant baptist sees a continuation of the sign of the covenant between the OT and NT, but even more broadly applied (even women are baptized).

There are many implications that arise from that single issue. What is it that makes a baptism effective? It is the work of God in the heart of the person baptized, not the faith of the person being baptized. When does a person become a member of the church? The usual way is through baptism (because one is born to believing parents). Ask a covenant baptist what God's ordinary means of growing the church ought to be, and he may likely as not say "through birth" meaning that the children of believing parents are commanded by those parents "Believe!"

I know our credo brethren are brothers in Christ (as I used to be credo baptist, and have no doubt of my own faith during that time). Yet they would withhold the table of the Lord to one such as my eldest daughter unless she is re-baptized. Those are sticky points.

Originally Posted by Skyler

Originally Posted by austinww

Originally Posted by Skyler

I think you mean "Reformed Baptists".

There's a difference between baptists and Anabaptists, mainly on the subject of separation from the world and pacifism.

Oh, what a lovely signature you have there!

Edit: Note that I wrote that before you added the second line.

Yes, I have a bad habit of posting first, editing later, as many have observed to their chagrin (myself included).

Well, I would complain to the management if I didn't do the same thing.

Originally Posted by Poimen

First question: the covenant of grace specifically, or the understanding of biblical covenants generally:

Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 74

74. Q. Should infants, too, be baptized?
A. Yes. Infants as well as adults belong to God's covenant and congregation. Through Christ's blood the redemption from sin and the Holy Spirit, who works faith, are promised to them no less than to adults. Therefore, by baptism, as sign of the covenant, they must be grafted into the Christian church and distinguished from the children of unbelievers. This was done in the old covenant by circumcision, in place of which baptism was instituted in the new covenant.

Second question: I will let the Baptists speak for themselves.

I agree with Rev. Kok. I would add that of the Baptists I've spoken with (somewhat limited-mostly the independent fundamental type), they imply a false dichotomy in that they believe Reformed folks think infant baptism is regenerational as the papists do.

This is not an issue I get dogmatic about.

Originally Posted by Skyler

That may be the technical meaning of the term "Anabaptist",

I didn't intend it in anything other than a technical sense, so there is no cause for complaint.

austinww:

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.

Originally Posted by steadfast7

austinww:

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.

It isn't really the point whether there were children or how young. The point is that the Scripture just assumes when a head converts, his household converts with him. This is both an OT and NT principle (cf. Gen. 17:7 and Acts 2:39 , which echo the same basic household language that is present throughout Scripture). There are other threads discussing this question where people who know the arguments better than I have addressed the issue. Perhaps some of the paedos who have been on here longer can point you to a helpful thread or so on the household baptisms.

As for covenant theology, I'm hesitant to say that is the main difference. I think there are some soteriological implications as well. The Scripture treats the children of believers as believers to be raised in the faith, unless they prove otherwise by falling away. The Baptist view must be read into the text using modern, individualistic assumptions. I think others can address this better than I can, though, to be honest. I recommend you ask some older, wiser credo and paedo members of this board.

-----Added 11/2/2009 at 10:31:37 EST-----

Originally Posted by steadfast7

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.

No more are there commands to give them coming-of-age baptisms at a later time.

Originally Posted by Grillsy

Originally Posted by SemperEruditio

Main point of contention?

There isn't a scripture that says "baptize them chillens" nor one that says "don't you dare baptize them chillens!"

I don't know about that...have you misplaced your copy of the Cotton Patch translation?

Really?! The Cotten Patch translation? Interesting. I'd like to see that because Clarence Jordan was a Southern Baptist...kinda.

The New Covenant is an administration of the Abrahamic Covenant.

The Abrahamic Covenant, long before the Old Covenant phase, included children.

What's the beef with our dear (ana)baptist brethren? Have they got no sense of (redemptive) history?

It's an Olive Tree (or Vine or Fig) we're ingrafted into. Does a tree not have branches, and do some of those branches not have little twigs or twiglets? The Covenant is organic not atomistic or individualistic.

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

The New Covenant is an administration of the Abrahamic Covenant.

The Abrahamic Covenant, long before the Old Covenant phase, included children.

What's the beef with our dear (ana)baptist brethren? Have they got no sense of (redemptive) history?

It's an Olive Tree (or Vine or Fig) we're ingrafted into. Does a tree not have branches, and do some of those branches not have little twigs or twiglets? The Covenant is organic not atomistic or individualistic.

It seem as though it is because of continuity with Abraham that baptism, like circumcision, is applied to infants. I admit, it is elegant to view the covenants as having this observable symmetry, but are there are any New Testament descriptions of baptism occurring apart from faith?

"Moroni's magical glasses of proper interpretation:"

Originally Posted by eqdj

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Moderator Note

I recommend that a thread be made in the general baptism area. Too Many Baptists are Playing in a Paedo playbox. That should have been stomped on right away.

Sorry - i thought this was the one condensed thread - moving along : )

Oops! Me too. Sorry for being inattentive. Also moving along.

Can a moderator help move the thread?

hope I didn't cause any problems, sorry.

One caution....every scholarly Baptist I knew in my old Baptist days believed that children were set apart/sanctified by the faith of the parents. They believed in Covenantal promises.

But that setting apart happens because of the parent's faith for a Baptist, not because of Baptism.

Even though I travel mostly in paedo circles now, it really bothers me when people say Baptists have no place for kids under the Covenant. Sure they do-they believe it is the faith of the parents that scripture says sets children apart.

Originally Posted by steadfast7

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

The New Covenant is an administration of the Abrahamic Covenant.

The Abrahamic Covenant, long before the Old Covenant phase, included children.

What's the beef with our dear (ana)baptist brethren? Have they got no sense of (redemptive) history?

It's an Olive Tree (or Vine or Fig) we're ingrafted into. Does a tree not have branches, and do some of those branches not have little twigs or twiglets? The Covenant is organic not atomistic or individualistic.

It seem as though it is because of continuity with Abraham that baptism, like circumcision, is applied to infants. I admit, it is elegant to view the covenants as having this observable symmetry, but are there are any New Testament descriptions of baptism occurring apart from faith?

Where in Scripture do we see infants being described as "apart from faith"? They are raised in the faith. Obviously their mental faculties are undeveloped to a degree, and obviously they do not understand the gospel communicated through English (or whatever language) right out of the womb, but it seems a stretch to use that as a reason to describe them as being "apart from faith" when the Scripture everywhere includes them as belonging to the people of faith, if they are the offspring of believers.

I'm not speaking of regeneration here. Like I said earlier, we paedos don't like to base it on who is/is not regenerate, since that can't be seen. Either way, you will find that not everyone here shares the underlying assumption common in some Baptist circles that infants cannot be regenerate.

Originally Posted by Ivan

Really?! The Cotten Patch translation? Interesting. I'd like to see that because Clarence Jordan was a Southern Baptist...kinda.

Really? Well, that explains a lot.

J/K!