Paedo-Baptism Answers "...you and your household."

Good Evening Bretheren,

I am a Reformed Baptist and have been intrigued by the idea of household baptism. I understand the basic arguments on both the creedo-baptism and the paedo-baptism side, but I would like to know your perspective on what baptists may or may not lack in the debate...quite frankly I feel like we are lacking in this area:

What do we (baptists) do with our children in relation to the covenant? And do you feel like we have a major problem explaining the promises given to children in the OT and the NT?

I am not as learned as you guys are, so bear with me [emoji846][emoji1690][emoji1690]

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Welcome!

I believe that Baptists treat their children as covenant children they just don't realize it. The fact of the matter is is that even heathens live within some sort of covenant and raise their children within that covenant. It's the same sort of thinking as "everyone has a religion even the atheist". The problem with the atheist is that he doesn't realize he has a religion and he refuses to admit to having one but he indeed has one.

God's covenant with his children has always been (OT and NT), "I will be your God and you will be my people. Therefore, you are to be a holy people separated unto me from the world."

The Jewish nation was separated unto God through the moral law, ceremonial law, and judicial law. They weren't supposed to act like other nations or look like other nations nor were they to intermarry with other nations. They were given God's covenant and were to be a peculiar people. Their children were raised within this covenant by learning/"keeping" these laws and the sign of the covenant they engaged in was circumcision. Circumcision set them apart as being a people who had the sign of being God's covenant children.

NT believers have been given the same covenant and although some of the laws have been done away with we still have the moral law and some of the judicial laws. Jesus also explained in detail the full meaning of these laws showing us how holy we are to be and how separated unto God we are to be in mind heart soul and body. This holiness is only obtained through salvation by Christ faith and grace alone. So in the NT the whole Covenant has been fulfilled by Christ. God made known his Covenant at the fall, gave examples of his Covenant through the Jewish nation, and then fulfilled it when Christ came. His covenant people is now made up of all nations, not just one. He unites us as his people within his Covenant by using baptism which is the sign of his covenant.

We all raise our children within those covenantal parameters just as the Jewish people did. So we don't allow our children to listen to any kind of music they want, watch any movie they want, speak however they want, dress however they want, believe in whatever they want, etc. Why don't we? Well, because we believe in what God has commanded us to do in raising our children. He has commanded that we raise them within his covenantal parameters. So we catechize our children, we take them to church, we teach them obedience and holy living, etc. What's the point of doing all this if we don't believe they are covenant children? Why treat them as covenant children in the way we raise them if they aren't covenant children? The answer is we all believe our children are covenant children some just won't call them that and won't given them the sign of that covenant.

When we see baptism as a sign of the covenant God has made for his people (this includes their children since we clearly see God instructing parents on how to raise their children) instead of as an act for getting saved, its true meaning is revealed. We can always look back on our baptism and remember the covenant God established for his people. It's meaningful and has everything to do with what God has done for his people instead of having a meaning of "I got baptized because I got saved" sort of thing which holds no meaning.

To be fair, I don't really know what baptism means for the Baptist. I wasn't taught any sort of doctrine about baptism growing up. If you said, "I'm saved" you got baptized. So when I became a Presbyterian later in life and was taught the covenantal view it just made so much sense to me. Also to be fair, there are others here who can say what I said much better. But this is how it makes sense to me.

OPC'n said:

I believe that Baptists treat their children as covenant children they just don't realize it. The fact of the matter is is that even heathens live within some sort of covenant and raise their children within that covenant. It's the same sort of thinking as "everyone has a religion even the atheist". The problem with the atheist is that he doesn't realize he has a religion and he refuses to admit to having one but he indeed has one.

Click to expand...

Are you comparing Baptists to Atheists?

With regards to the OP:
To be brutally honest, I share in your confusion over passages like the "whole household"-ones. But on the other side there are some passages that make me think about preterism and some that make me think about dispensationalism
...and maybe one that make me think about arminianism...maybe.

Our pastor once told me that theology (and especially eschatology) is sometimes like a belt that does not quite fit - just as you think it is going to go all the way around the waist, it comes short. This is not to be ascribed to the shortcomings of God's word, but to the futility that our minds have been subjected to after the fall.

I would say that Baptists view baptism as a way to join the church. The biggest problem with this is that children were to be a part of the old covenant and therefore should be able to become part of the new. Baptists must deny that there is a difference between the visible church and the invisible church. They don't realize that there are people in the external covenant that are not in the internal.

Within the last year I left the credo position for the paedo, I was shocked by the number of verses that I had no interpretation for as a credo.
Off the top of my head I can think of two in particular.
Matthew 22:1-14
John 15:1-11
There are other verses, particularly in Hebrews, that seem to suggest that a person can lose his salvation. These verses were exploited by the neo-orthodox Karl Barth folks. And they are either explained away or ignored outright by the credos. These verses can be understood from the paedo side as verses describing the turning away of those in the external covenant, while upholding the fact that those in the covenant internal are secure.
"Many are called, few are chosen." Always seemed to contradict Romans 8:30 when I was a credo.