Baptism and the stance

Discussion in 'Baptism' started by Sonny, May 26, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Sonny

    Sonny Puritan Board Sophomore

    *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.
  2. Sonny

    Sonny Puritan Board Sophomore

    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.
  3. Sonny

    Sonny Puritan Board Sophomore

    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?
  4. jonjordan

    jonjordan Puritan Board Freshman

    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.
  5. KSon

    KSon Puritan Board Junior


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

    eqdj Puritan Board Freshman

    Exellent question.
  7. Peairtach

    Peairtach Puritan Board Doctor

    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

    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.

    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
    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.:amen: 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.
    Last edited: May 26, 2010
  8. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast Puritan Board Junior

    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–
    Believer's baptism [credo baptism] is taught in is a fine name to use. it is a positive obedience to Jesus teaching.
    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:think: 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.:up: They are happy to obey Jesus command and teaching.
  9. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast Puritan Board Junior

    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.
  10. C. M. Sheffield

    C. M. Sheffield Puritan Board Junior

    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.
  11. C. M. Sheffield

    C. M. Sheffield Puritan Board Junior

    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).

    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:


    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:


    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?
  12. C. M. Sheffield

    C. M. Sheffield Puritan Board Junior




  13. C. M. Sheffield

    C. M. Sheffield Puritan Board Junior

    I understand.

    I don't use the word "antipaedobaptist." :scratch:

    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.

    Isn't it obvious? :lol:
  14. Wannabee

    Wannabee Obi Wan Kenobi

    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.

  15. Wannabee

    Wannabee Obi Wan Kenobi

    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.

  16. jayce475

    jayce475 Puritan Board Freshman

    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.
  17. Peairtach

    Peairtach Puritan Board Doctor

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

    Covenantal Baptists (?)
  18. Sonny

    Sonny Puritan Board Sophomore

    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.
  19. C. M. Sheffield

    C. M. Sheffield Puritan Board Junior

    The Book to Read: Baptism: Three Views

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

    Sonny Puritan Board Sophomore

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

    C. M. Sheffield Puritan Board Junior

  22. Sonny

    Sonny Puritan Board Sophomore

    Thank you sir, I will begin to read now.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page