Courtship/Marriage between Paedos and Credos

Status
Not open for further replies.

Herald

Administrator
Staff member
Just for the record, before I met my husband, I dated a wonderful Christian man, and we had such a disagreement. We met in a reformed Baptist church, but I was studying paedo baptism at the time. It wasn't too long before I made the switch, and he couldn't agree. I knew I wasn't going to change my mind, so we broke it off.

Though I highly respect the views of my credo baptist brothers and sisters, if I had married (and we were discussing it seroiusly) I would have always felt like I was denying my convictions, and I'm sure it would have caused trouble later on.
It shouldn't. If a paedo woman marries a credo man I would certainly expect them to discuss the issue. In the end the wife is to submit to her husband on the issue and not allow it to become a point of contention. If she continues to fight against it then she is sinning. If both feel strongly about the issue before marriage than courtship/marriage should never take place. Unfortunately many are blinded by love and don't count the cost in this area.
 

Nse007

Puritan Board Freshman
I was kidding hence the smirk.

On a serious note, I'm not sure, though I think I could probably submit to a paedo husband's stance on that issue. However, what if the children once adults wanted to be baptized again because they did not come to accept the position of paedo baptism? I've seen many adults do this, especially those who left the church and came back. Oh and why would it be blasphemy? :confused:

As a credo, I have no problem courting or marrying a paedo....

The children will probably just have to be baptized twice :smug:
But to the paedo husband, and the Reformed Paedos everywhere, that would be considered as blasphemous and a denial of their children's baptism (i.e. the original).

Nikki,

There's more at stake than just when you baptize. The understanding of the covenant is different which makes the rearing of the children different. If brought up with a proper peado covenantal understanding, they will not desire a second baptism when grown up...they will look to "improve" on their first...
 

Simply_Nikki

Puritan Board Junior
I don't see how it would be different from preaching the gospel to them and training them up in the Lord :um:. But what do I know.. i'm not dogmatic about paedo v credo so I think for me personally it would not be as difficult as it would be for other credo-women to submit to a paedo husband.

I agree with the other posts it does boil down to submissiveness and/or one partner being converted to one or the other view. :graduate:

I was kidding hence the smirk.

On a serious note, I'm not sure, though I think I could probably submit to a paedo husband's stance on that issue. However, what if the children once adults wanted to be baptized again because they did not come to accept the position of paedo baptism? I've seen many adults do this, especially those who left the church and came back. Oh and why would it be blasphemy? :confused:

But to the paedo husband, and the Reformed Paedos everywhere, that would be considered as blasphemous and a denial of their children's baptism (i.e. the original).

Nikki,

There's more at stake than just when you baptize. The understanding of the covenant is different which makes the rearing of the children different. If brought up with a proper peado covenantal understanding, they will not desire a second baptism when grown up...they will look to "improve" on their first...
 

Nse007

Puritan Board Freshman
Nikki,

What I'm saying is that credos and peados view the nature of baptism, ie what it means as being different and that plays out when the child is older which is why they should not desire to be "rebaptized"
 

MOSES

Puritan Board Freshman
I think that the most difficult, out of all the possibilites, would be for a Paedo woman to marry a Baptist man, and submit to his authority (depending on her paedo view).
Because.

She will be forced to raise "pagan" unbelieving children. Rather then raising covenant Christian baptized children, she will be forced to raise the heathen (un-baptized) children of her baptist husband. That may be quite difficult for her (depending on the strength of her conviction).

Note: It may not be difficult at all if she is a paedo who holds that baptism is basically a dead traditional sign that does nothing, and it does not matter much if the children are baptized or not.
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
I think that the most difficult, out of all the possibilites, would be for a Paedo woman to marry a Baptist man, and submit to his authority (depending on her paedo view).
Because.

She will be forced to raise "pagan" unbelieving children. Rather then raising covenant Christian baptized children, she will be forced to raise the heathen (un-baptized) children of her baptist husband. That may be quite difficult for her (depending on the strength of her conviction).

Note: It may not be difficult at all if she is a paedo who holds that baptism is basically a dead traditional sign that does nothing, and it does not matter much if the children are baptized or not.
If this is the biggest hurdle the new couple would face, then they have nothing to worry about!
 

Mushroom

Puritan Board Doctor
I have many RB brothers and sisters that I dearly love, but I must confess that I tell my daughters to stay away from their sons. I'll not brook the thought of non-covenant children carrying my bloodline.
 

raekwon

Puritan Board Junior
I have many RB brothers and sisters that I dearly love, but I must confess that I tell my daughters to stay away from their sons. I'll not brook the thought of non-covenant children carrying my bloodline.
I understand your concern here, but would they really be non-covenant children though, Brad? Baptism is the sign and the seal of the covenant, but it is not the covenant itself, nor does it bring the covenant into effect. The children of believers (even of a Baptist and a Presbyterian) are entitled to baptism through the covenant and by right of birth.

Such entitlement wouldn't exist if the covenant was actually effected by baptism.
 

Archlute

Puritan Board Senior
I have many RB brothers and sisters that I dearly love, but I must confess that I tell my daughters to stay away from their sons. I'll not brook the thought of non-covenant children carrying my bloodline.
I understand your concern here, but would they really be non-covenant children though, Brad? Baptism is the sign and the seal of the covenant, but it is not the covenant itself, nor does it bring the covenant into effect. The children of believers (even of a Baptist and a Presbyterian) are entitled to baptism through the covenant and by right of birth.

Such entitlement wouldn't exist if the covenant was actually effected by baptism.
Exactly.
 

raekwon

Puritan Board Junior
Just my :2cents::

Ultimately, the woman -whatever she may be- must submit to her husband's beliefs in such a matter, and follow him accordingly. If she cannot do that/work through that in educating and counsel, there should be no courtship.
:thumbsup:

I'd also say that if the husband is on any sort of shaky ground theologically when it comes to the matter of baptism, or if he holds his position (be it paedo or credo) only on the basis of tradition, he should be willing to listen to his wife's convictions on the matter and possibly to study the Scriptures with her to come to a firm conclusion for their family.
 

raekwon

Puritan Board Junior
I have many RB brothers and sisters that I dearly love, but I must confess that I tell my daughters to stay away from their sons. I'll not brook the thought of non-covenant children carrying my bloodline.
I understand your concern here, but would they really be non-covenant children though, Brad? Baptism is the sign and the seal of the covenant, but it is not the covenant itself, nor does it bring the covenant into effect. The children of believers (even of a Baptist and a Presbyterian) are entitled to baptism through the covenant and by right of birth.

Such entitlement wouldn't exist if the covenant was actually effected by baptism.
Exactly.
And that's not to say that there's no such thing as baptismal efficacy, either! Baptism is effective unto salvation in the same way that the Word of God is: when it is received in faith and repentance.
 

DMcFadden

Puritanboard Commissioner
I think that the most difficult, out of all the possibilites, would be for a Paedo woman to marry a Baptist man, and submit to his authority (depending on her paedo view).
Because.

She will be forced to raise "pagan" unbelieving children. Rather then raising covenant Christian baptized children, she will be forced to raise the heathen (un-baptized) children of her baptist husband. That may be quite difficult for her (depending on the strength of her conviction).

Note: It may not be difficult at all if she is a paedo who holds that baptism is basically a dead traditional sign that does nothing, and it does not matter much if the children are baptized or not.
My, Shawn, you certainly have an opinion! My wife and I raised five children in our Baptist churches over the years. All of them are walking with the Lord (one is a pastor, one teaches Bible at a Christian school, one is an attorney, etc.). I get that you believe in paedo baptism. However, check out the posts by Raekwon and Archlute, certainly no wusses on the baptism issue.
 

Mushroom

Puritan Board Doctor
I have many RB brothers and sisters that I dearly love, but I must confess that I tell my daughters to stay away from their sons. I'll not brook the thought of non-covenant children carrying my bloodline.
I understand your concern here, but would they really be non-covenant children though, Brad? Baptism is the sign and the seal of the covenant, but it is not the covenant itself, nor does it bring the covenant into effect. The children of believers (even of a Baptist and a Presbyterian) are entitled to baptism through the covenant and by right of birth.

Such entitlement wouldn't exist if the covenant was actually effected by baptism.
My point is that they would be raised as non-covenant members. My daughters are taught to submit in all things to their husbands. I would strongly object to my grandchildren being denied the outward benefits of being members of the covenantal community of believers. I would react sheer apoplexy to see my own descendents treated as pagans outside of the covenant by their own parents.

I try to stay out of the paedo-credo arguments on this board, simply because the credo position is wrong and a denial of God's faithfulness intermingled with a good dose of man's desire for autonomy. The very worst thing about credobaptism for me is that it moves christians to treat their OWN children as though they are enemies of Christ. In my mind that is disgusting. That's all I'll say of it, so offended credos will have to argue with someone else.

But as for my daughters.... love you guys, but if you're credo, stay far away. I have that right. -1 Cor. 7-
 

raekwon

Puritan Board Junior
I have many RB brothers and sisters that I dearly love, but I must confess that I tell my daughters to stay away from their sons. I'll not brook the thought of non-covenant children carrying my bloodline.
I understand your concern here, but would they really be non-covenant children though, Brad? Baptism is the sign and the seal of the covenant, but it is not the covenant itself, nor does it bring the covenant into effect. The children of believers (even of a Baptist and a Presbyterian) are entitled to baptism through the covenant and by right of birth.

Such entitlement wouldn't exist if the covenant was actually effected by baptism.
My point is that they would be raised as non-covenant members. My daughters are taught to submit in all things to their husbands. I would strongly object to my grandchildren being denied the outward benefits of being members of the covenantal community of believers. I would react sheer apoplexy to see my own descendents treated as pagans outside of the covenant by their own parents.

I try to stay out of the paedo-credo arguments on this board, simply because the credo position is wrong and a denial of God's faithfulness intermingled with a good dose of man's desire for autonomy. The very worst thing about credobaptism for me is that it moves christians to treat their OWN children as though they are enemies of Christ. In my mind that is disgusting. That's all I'll say of it, so offended credos will have to argue with someone else.

But as for my daughters.... love you guys, but if you're credo, stay far away. I have that right. -1 Cor. 7-
Okay, that clears things up. :up:
 

DMcFadden

Puritanboard Commissioner
I have many RB brothers and sisters that I dearly love, but I must confess that I tell my daughters to stay away from their sons. I'll not brook the thought of non-covenant children carrying my bloodline.
Brad, "disgusting" as I am, I admire your passion. I'm not sure that your characterization of credo baptists is any more accurate than the rabid Baptists who accuse Presbyterians of being crypto-Romanists because their practice of infant baptism leads "inevitably" to nominal Christianity and "dead" churches.

Still, you've got style. I don't want my only unmarried child to go to an Arminian college or marry an Arminian either. If my daughters were in Reformed churches, I would be honored to see my grandchildren baptized (my sons are in credo baptist churches so not much chance there). So, your fatherly concern for your "bloodline" is not lost on me.

Incidentally, at this stage of life watching my four grandsons being raised, I suspect that regardless of formal theological differences, the actual practices of credo and paedo parents (except for the paedocommunion ones) are not all that different. My grandsons were all "dedicated" in church ceremonies, brought to church weekly (or more often), taught the Bible, prayed with nightly, and their parents eagerly anticipated that they would submit to baptism as soon as they were old enough to understand it. Perhaps theory should lead to them being regarded as "enemies of Christ" (to use your phrase), but that is not how it is done in practice. And, my guess is that even the average "Baptist" Vacation Bible School and "Presbyterian" one share the same curriculum by the same publisher.

Honestly, there are several points where our different theological conceptions tend to get "accommodated" to the reality of our existential situations. Not only are we not as good as the consistent implications of our doctrine would suggest, but (blessedly) we are not as bad either. God in his grace seems to preserve us from some of the logical consequences of our dumb ideas.

Brad, I am re-evaluating the whole paedo/credo issue for myself. So, you won't offend me by your comments about how "disgusting" my beliefs are. I do want you to be relieved of the fear that my granchildren (all raised in non-"Baptist" but baptistic churches) are being raised as pagans. The 7 year old and 4 year old have already expressed their faith in Christ and are treated as "believers." The older one has been baptized. [editorial note to self: funny how paedo baptists baptize infants before they have faith and credo baptists delay baptism (sometimes for years) after the young child expresses faith] In either case, faith is a gift of God (TULIP and all).

[BTW - I've been home with a fever the last couple of days and am sure enjoying LOTS of extra time for the PB. Honest, I do have a life . . . most days and typically go to church every Sudnay.]
 
Last edited:

MOSES

Puritan Board Freshman
I think that the most difficult, out of all the possibilites, would be for a Paedo woman to marry a Baptist man, and submit to his authority (depending on her paedo view).
Because.

She will be forced to raise "pagan" unbelieving children. Rather then raising covenant Christian baptized children, she will be forced to raise the heathen (un-baptized) children of her baptist husband. That may be quite difficult for her (depending on the strength of her conviction).

Note: It may not be difficult at all if she is a paedo who holds that baptism is basically a dead traditional sign that does nothing, and it does not matter much if the children are baptized or not.
My, Shawn, you certainly have an opinion! My wife and I raised five children in our Baptist churches over the years. All of them are walking with the Lord (one is a pastor, one teaches Bible at a Christian school, one is an attorney, etc.). I get that you believe in paedo baptism. However, check out the posts by Raekwon and Archlute, certainly no wusses on the baptism issue.
<-- bold emphasis mine

Well, hopefully you got that my comment was exagerated to make a point.

Personally, I don't think the children of baptists are heathens. I don't believe that the Church should baptize un-repentant heathens...but I do believe that all baptist's should have thier children baptized..(so logically, I cannot believe that baptist children are heathens)...only that baptists presume their children to be unbelievers (perhaps infidel is a better word).

As for your children...see...they proved not to be heathen...you could of baptized them as infants...:)
God is faithful to his covenant promises.
 

Mushroom

Puritan Board Doctor
I have many RB brothers and sisters that I dearly love, but I must confess that I tell my daughters to stay away from their sons. I'll not brook the thought of non-covenant children carrying my bloodline.
Brad, "disgusting" as I am, I admire your passion. I'm not sure that your characterization of credo baptists is any more accurate than the rabid Baptists who accuse Presbyterians of being crypto-Romanists because their practice of infant baptism leads "inevitably" to nominal Christianity and "dead" churches.

Still, you've got style. I don't want my only unmarried child to go to an Arminian college or marry an Arminian either. If my daughters were in Reformed churches, I would be honored to see my grandchildren baptized (my sons are in credo baptist churches so not much chance there). So, your fatherly concern for your "bloodline" is not lost on me.

Incidentally, at this stage of life watching my four grandsons being raised, I suspect that regardless of formal theological differences, the actual practices of credo and paedo parents (except for the paedocommunion ones) are not all that different. My grandsons were all "dedicated" in church ceremonies, brought to church weekly (or more often), taught the Bible, prayed with nightly, and their parents eagerly anticipated that they would submit to baptism as soon as they were old enough to understand it. Perhaps theory should lead to them being regarded as "enemies of Christ" (to use your phrase), but that is not how it is done in practice. And, my guess is that even the average "Baptist" Vacation Bible School and "Presbyterian" one share the same curriculum by the same publisher.

Honestly, there are several points where our different theological conceptions tend to get "accommodated" to the reality of our existential situations. Not only are we not as good as the consistent implications of our doctrine would suggest, but (blessedly) we are not as bad either. God in his grace seems to preserve us from some of the logical consequences of our dumb ideas.

Brad, I am re-evaluating the whole paedo/credo issue for myself. So, you won't offend me by your comments about how "disgusting" my beliefs are. I do want you to be relieved of the fear that my granchildren (all raised in non-"Baptist" but baptistic churches) are being raised as pagans. The 7 year old and 4 year old have already expressed their faith in Christ and are treated as "believers." The older one has been baptized. [editorial note to self: funny how paedo baptists baptize infants before they have faith and credo baptists delay baptism (sometimes for years) after the young child expresses faith] In either case, faith is a gift of God (TULIP and all).

[BTW - I've been home with a fever the last couple of days and am sure enjoying LOTS of extra time for the PB. Honest, I do have a life . . . most days and typically go to church every Sudnay.]
OK, I withdraw the word "disgusts' and replace it with "concerns" in the interest of peace among the brethren. That's why I stay out of paedo-credo debates. Too easy for me to give offense without thinking. Hope you can forgive my unnecessary intensity, Dennis. I am now officially bowing out of the discussion.
 

smhbbag

Puritan Board Senior
But as for my daughters.... love you guys, but if you're credo, stay far away. I have that right. -1 Cor. 7-
You have the right to deny your blessing, but not to deny your permission.

The denial of blessing can be made on issues of prudence, doctrine, or practicality (and a wise daughter would take such a denial with great weight).

While the denial of permission can only be made on specific Biblical criteria, namely the suitor's lack of faith or damnable doctrinal heresy. To deny a daughter permission to marry another believer is never excusable. That is the only qualification necessary to earn a father's permission, and if he recognizes the suitor's faith, giving permission is a moral duty.
 

staythecourse

Puritan Board Junior
I have many RB brothers and sisters that I dearly love, but I must confess that I tell my daughters to stay away from their sons. I'll not brook the thought of non-covenant children carrying my bloodline.
To me that's dangerous thinking. Ruth, Boaz, and Rahab tainted my Savior's blood, brother.
 

MOSES

Puritan Board Freshman
But as for my daughters.... love you guys, but if you're credo, stay far away. I have that right. -1 Cor. 7-
You have the right to deny your blessing, but not to deny your permission.

The denial of blessing can be made on issues of prudence, doctrine, or practicality (and a wise daughter would take such a denial with great weight).

While the denial of permission can only be made on specific Biblical criteria, namely the suitor's lack of faith or damnable doctrinal heresy. To deny a daughter permission to marry another believer is never excusable. That is the only qualification necessary to earn a father's permission, and if he recognizes the suitor's faith, giving permission is a moral duty.
<-- bold mine

This seems like and excellent point...and I am willing to agree with it. But first, I am just curious, do you have a biblical argument for this position?
Did the king of Israel have to permit marriage of his daughter to anyone just as long as he was in covenant Israel?
Do you have OT (or NT) examples of people giving daughters permission to marry as a moral duty just as long as the suitor was a "believer"?

Personally, I see a lot more qualifications needed for someone to court my daughters then JUST being a believer...being a believer is just the starting point (somewhat along the lines of the courter being male !!...that is just the first qualification)

NOTE: There are going to be a whole bunch of believers who do not qualify for marriage to my daughters.
 

Theoretical

Puritan Board Professor
I have many RB brothers and sisters that I dearly love, but I must confess that I tell my daughters to stay away from their sons. I'll not brook the thought of non-covenant children carrying my bloodline.
To me that's dangerous thinking. Ruth, Boaz, and Rahab tainted my Savior's blood, brother.
:ditto: and I strongly agree with the paedo position.
 

smhbbag

Puritan Board Senior
<-- bold mine

This seems like and excellent point...and I am willing to agree with it. But first, I am just curious, do you have a biblical argument for this position?
Did the king of Israel have to permit marriage of his daughter to anyone just as long as he was in covenant Israel?
Do you have OT (or NT) examples of people giving daughters permission to marry as a moral duty just as long as the suitor was a "believer".

Personally, I see a lot more qualifications needed for someone to court my daughters then JUST being a believer...being a believer is just the starting point (somewhat along the lines of the courter being male !!...that is just the beggining qualification)
You are right that there are other things packed into the word "believer" as I used it. It is not just faith, but would include his being male, and of appropriate age.

But most other substantial objections seem to qualify as a reason to question or doubt his status in Christ - like what if he does not have a job, nor desire to have a job and cannot provide even the most meager support? Or numerous other serious problems.

In most of those cases, the situation would actually make me begin to doubt the suitor's status in Christ at all. In the example I gave, a denial of permission may actually be in order. A life characterized by slothfulness in every area, and a refusal to accept responsibility to provide for his (desired) future wife, would make me seriously doubt his conversion. But, my denial of permission would be grounded in that fact, not on the basis that the standard of living wouldn't meet my criteria. I think the idea of the bride-price was a formal way of checking such things, and gives us a Biblical category to work with beyond just profession of faith, but also a life that is not entirely inconsistent with his profession.

Ultimately, I think it boils down to the things in I Cor. 5 - if his life is characterized by such things, a father not bound by the suitor's profession of faith to give him his daughter. In the same way, the church is not bound to maintain and individual's membership merely because he continues professing Christ.
 
Last edited:

MOSES

Puritan Board Freshman
I have many RB brothers and sisters that I dearly love, but I must confess that I tell my daughters to stay away from their sons. I'll not brook the thought of non-covenant children carrying my bloodline.

One paedo to another.

If you are consistent with this position, then you could never argue with a baptist that they should baptize their children...because even we paedos don't baptize "non-covenant" children.

The whole argument for paedos to creedos is that they SHOULD baptize thier children because they are covenant children.


Note: unless you are just exagerating that statement to drive home a point.
 

DMcFadden

Puritanboard Commissioner
OK, I withdraw the word "disgusts' and replace it with "concerns" in the interest of peace among the brethren. That's why I stay out of paedo-credo debates. Too easy for me to give offense without thinking. Hope you can forgive my unnecessary intensity, Dennis. I am now officially bowing out of the discussion.
Brad and Shawn,

Don't bow out on my account. I was not offended, just a little bit of middle aged bemusement at the strength of your expressions of convictions. I actually appreciate your fervancy for the view. As I articulated in another thread, my "tribe" is composed of those who ran from the Baptist label like it was poison because we were part of a liberal mainline denomination. Most of my ministry was spent explaining, "yes, I'm a Baptist, but . . ." So, no harm, no foul with me. I'm enjoying the thread.

BTW - I suspected that a real live Baptist using your strong words might make at least one of you feel uncomfortable. Sorry for playing with you.
 

staythecourse

Puritan Board Junior
I have many RB brothers and sisters that I dearly love, but I must confess that I tell my daughters to stay away from their sons. I'll not brook the thought of non-covenant children carrying my bloodline.
To me that's dangerous thinking. Ruth, Boaz, and Rahab tainted my Savior's blood, brother.
:ditto: and I strongly agree with the paedo position.
Please expound when you have the time, Scott.
 

staythecourse

Puritan Board Junior
Thanks Josh,

I was hoping to learn something about the significance of God bringing women outside of covenant into Jesus' bloodline from a paedo-perspective.
 

Mushroom

Puritan Board Doctor
Perhaps bloodline was a poor choice of words. I didn't mean genealogical lineage so much as those children that are a part of my family who by default are the objects of my affections. It would break my heart to know that my grandchildren were not being given the full extent of the benefits available to those born into the covenant. And they will be born into the covenant - I trust the promises of my God. That would apply to both biological and adopted children, and even a lot of covenant children I have been close to all their lives. There are kids I have known long enough to have been present at their baptisms, and thus to have covenanted with their parents to support their efforts in raising them in the fear and admonition of the Lord. If any of them were to be courted by a Reformed Baptist brother, I would think myself obligated to discourage it.

I don't presume to doubt the veracity of my RB brethren's faith, but I do obviously disagree with their view of the covenantal promises, or I wouldn't be a Presbyterian (duh!), and since that aspect of the faith is of utmost import in relation to children, I do want to protect mine from it.

1 Cor. 7 says I can refuse matrimony for my daughters, and gives no criteria for taking that decision. Some may disagree with that on the basis of what they think is "fair" or culturally acceptable, but they can take the proverbial flying leap in light of scripture. My position is that credo-baptism is not an acceptable theological construct for my children, or those of my daughters, to live under, and they will not. That discussion is closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top