Credo/Paedo Hybrid-Something new?

[Gryphonette]

[mildly] Alright, Rich. I wasn't promoting the credo view, ye ken, simply referencing it.

 

[S. Spence]

I know it's not quite the same, as what has been discused on this thread, but the Free Presbyterian Church baptises infants and believers by pouring, sprinkling and immersion. To many of its ministers mode is not an issue.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

This is not a typical "Reformed Baptist" view as I am aware. Typically Reformed Baptist exclude their children from being members, that is unless they die, and then they fight for the notion that they were in the New Covenant without a profession.

Actually, that's your thought on it brother. There are many that i know that hope their childeren are in heaven, but they don't know for sure. They will not fight for it, but only hope. Even a Paedo cannot be sure of their child being in heaven. They can only hope.

 

[AV1611]

Baptism, as I understand it, does not make us part of the Covenant but rather testifies that we are within it.

We know that we are in the covenant when we receive the blessings of it being repentance and faith (obviously there are others but they would be irrelevant to this discussion). Those then ought to be baptised.

The issue then arises as to whether infants are a part of the covenant. The elect ones are and now the issue becomes, accepting that elect infants are in the covenant should they be baptised?

My answer, which I am currently reassessing, is yes they should be but because we do not know which of our seed are elect we then should baptise them all.

The obvious response would be that we ought to wait until they manifest their election by bringing forth the fruits of it demontrating they belong to the covenant and then baptise them.

If you have any thoughts then feel free to let me know

 

[Andrew P.C.]

we ought to wait until they manifest their election by bringing forth the fruits of it demontrating they belong to the covenant and then baptise them.

I agree with this statement.

I believe that Baptism testifies your repetance and turn to faith in Christ. I see that consistently throughout the bible. (This includes circumcision. Abraham didn't beomce circumcised until he was declared righteous before God. Romans 4)

 

[AV1611]

I believe that Baptism testifies your repetance and turn to faith in Christ. I see that consistently throughout the bible. (This includes circumcision. Abraham didn't beomce circumcised until he was declared righteous before God. Romans 4)

So why was Isaac circumcised?

 

[JM]

RJS, would you baptize an adult if you didn't know he believed or not?

 

[AV1611]

RJS, would you baptize an adult if you didn't know he believed or not?

I wouldn't.

 

[JM]

I wouldn't.

What if his parents were believers?

 

[AV1611]

What if his parents were believers?

My gut reaction was to say no, but I suppose it would depend upon their age (how old was Isaac?)...but then there is the whole where does the age of discretion begin debate.

 

[JM]

My gut reaction was to say no, but I suppose it would depend upon their age (how old was Isaac?)...but then there is the whole where does the age of discretion begin debate.

Ok, what if you had a butler and a maid living in your house, under your roof [and you may have, I don’t know], would you baptize them?

 

[AV1611]

The circumcision of the flesh is replaced by the circumcision of the heart.

A. The true Israel (the remnant) were circumcised in their heart.
B. Some of the circumcision of the flesh had the circumcision of the heart in the OT.

So I am not convinced it is a clear cut as that.

 

[AV1611]

Ok, what if you had a butler and a maid living in your house, under your roof [and you may have, I don’t know], would you baptize them?

Again my gut reaction would be to say no.

 

[JM]

...the promises of the new covenant include that the entire covenant community would know the Lord, from the least to the greatest.

That sounds about right.

 

[lv1nothr]

Ok, I'll bring it up:

So, to all those who think only believing adults ought to be baptized, (If I'm reading the last few posts correctly) what do you do with the NT "HOUSEHOLD" baptisms? Sorry, need to ask, since I've not heard any believer's baptism only folk able to give me a valid explanation without having to inject some presupposition (ie. there were no children in the households) which does not exist in the text.

 

[Gryphonette]

I'm doctrinally paedo, but to be honest, the "household" argument has always struck me as lame.

At one point Don and I had a household of several people, us plus five elementary-school-up-to-adult children...no infants or toddlers, though.

The "household" verses prove nothing either way, It seems to me.

 

[JM]

Not if they didn't profess.

Even in the OT, is the slaves in the house didn't profess, if they denied that they wanted to follow Jehovah, if they wanted to continue to worship false God, etc., they were not circumcised.

Now, I guess you could argue that this idea isn't true.

Paul, I wouldn't argue with you, I've seen/heard you debate.

That, even granting all of the above, the slaves would be circumcised. So, we'd have, say, Moses, circumcising unwilling participants. Now, if you weren't willing, how would you feel about someone cutting parts of your member off with an ancient knife? So, was Moses running around like a manican, trapping running slaves, tying them down, and then cutting their members while they were kicking and screaming?

And then, these God haters were forced to take offerings to the priest? They were forced to repent, partake of the passover, etc?

Wow, what an interesting view baptists have of the OT.

Seems odd to me. But I think my paradigm makes more sense and is more plausible: Adults have always had to profess, children have not..

I always thought a slave did the will of his master, especially in the Biblical sense? What would happen if a slave didn't do what was asked of him?

 

[JM]

He wouldn't be included as a covenant member.

There were plenty of pagans who lived in Jewish territory, I think we can assume they were "asked" to turn unto Jehovah. If they did not, they still lived amongst the Jews, just not as a covenant member.

At any rate, if the salve "always did the will of the master," then we'd have all the slaves being circumcised because they professed faith and turned from their idols only to follow Jehovah.

So, even if your point is true, it just underscores my point.

How so?

 

[JM]

I actually typed up a post, but it doesn't matter.



Peace,

j