Credo/Paedo Hybrid-Something new?

Status
Not open for further replies.

B.J.

Puritan Board Freshman
My investigation of this debate has led to many interesting dialogues with friends on both sides. In recent discussions with a Baptist brother it was brought to my attention that he believed that children are members of the New Covenant: However, they are not, in his estimation, to be baptized until they profess faith.


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. Whats interesting about this view is that it is Paedo in hermeneutic, and Credo in practice. So to recap....

God has not abbrogated children from the New Covenant, but they dont recieve the sign until they profess. Is this non-sense, or is it something to be taken seriously?

What say you? Anyone.
 
Well, I guess one thing that's different (from a Reformed Baptist perspective) is the idea that your friend is confident that he knows people that are in the New Covenant.

From a practical standpoint, Baptists treat their kids like they are Covenant members all the time. They bring them into Church and into intimate contact with the Body life of the Church. They pray with them and have them pray. They teach them things of God and expect them to obey it. They sing praises to God and expect their children to be participants.

The difference between your friend and his peers in Reformed Baptist congregations is that he's not practicing something completely contrary to what he confesses regarding his children. I've never met a Baptist, thankfully, that does treat his children like tiny pagans.

Now, as I've stated elsewhere, the real issue is the significance of the sacrament itself. If Baptism is a sign of adult faith that has no initiating significance with respect to the New Covenant then it is not formally a contradiction. In other words, Reformed Baptists acknowledge that Baptism does not join a person to the New Covenant. If it did then it would join the Reprobate to it for every baptized believer that proves to be apostate. Most Baptists see the sacrament as a sign of something within the believer and not a ministerial act in which God's promise is signified.

So, for this man who is actually speaking out loud the way most Baptists treat their kids naturally, the issue of Baptism has no significant bearing. Because it represents not a promise of God outside of the person but a sign of something within that person then it's acceptable for him to wait until that something is manifest.
 
In recent discussions with a Baptist brother it was brought to my attention that he believed that children are members of the New Covenant:

Children in general or Children of believing parents?
 
Well, I guess one thing that's different (from a Reformed Baptist perspective) is the idea that your friend is confident that he knows people that are in the New Covenant.

From a practical standpoint, Baptists treat their kids like they are Covenant members all the time. They bring them into Church and into intimate contact with the Body life of the Church. They pray with them and have them pray. They teach them things of God and expect them to obey it. They sing praises to God and expect their children to be participants.

The difference between your friend and his peers in Reformed Baptist congregations is that he's not practicing something completely contrary to what he confesses regarding his children. I've never met a Baptist, thankfully, that does treat his children like tiny pagans.

and this is the major inconsistency/fracture in the credo theological road map. This is the pothole in the road that they just can't avoid. In fact, it was enough to drive me to Presbyterianism.
 
Maybe they're thinking their children are like females in the OC, who clearly would be members of it but without the covenant sign?

T'would appear the sign of the covenant cannot be strictly required, since half the population was excluded from it under the OC.

Mind, I agree that those who are being discipled ought to be baptized, which was what took me from credo to paedo.

Still, perhaps the "wait on it" view comes from RBs reflecting on all those who were in the OC without the covenant sign.
 
Maybe they're thinking their children are like females in the OC, who clearly would be members of it but without the covenant sign?

Ann,
females in the old covenant DID have the covenant sign upon them; by proxy, through the federal head, i.e. their father, i.e. the reproductive organ and the passing of the seed. Those that were able to have the physical sign placed, i.e. male children, had it placed. This keeps things consistent.

T'would appear the sign of the covenant cannot be strictly required, since half the population was excluded from it under the OC.

Who was excluded?
 
Actually there are two schools of thought:

Quoting Dr. Clark
Circumcision was a type and shadow (Hebrews uses these categories). By definition a type and shadow is imperfect and an imperfect indicator of things to come.

One of the imperfections of the type and shadow circumcision is that, by its nature, was restricted to males.

When the promised seed - who is Christ (Gal 3) came - the type and shadow was fulfilled. In his death he was "circumcised," (metaphorically) for his people.

Hence, the pattern of covenant initiation (having been instituted under Abraham, not Moses) continues but its administration changes. Now, the sign and seal of the (new - relative to Moses) covenant of grace, by its nature, includes males and females.

So, there is continuity of substance: "I will be your God and your children's God;" and discontinuity of administration: both sexes are now initiated at birth.

R. Scott Clark, D.Phil
Associate Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology
Westminster Seminary California
 
Perhaps the RBs are assuming the proxy aspect is still in force, with their children being in the covenant because the parents are in the covenant, like the females were in the covenant because their federal heads were in the covenant?

Heck, I dunno. The original poster inquired about this "hybrid" view and I'm just speculating as to what would be the rationale, that's all.
 
Perhaps the RBs are assuming the proxy aspect is still in force, with their children being in the covenant because the parents are in the covenant, like the females were in the covenant because their federal heads were in the covenant?

Heck, I dunno. The original poster inquired about this "hybrid" view and I'm just speculating as to what would be the rationale, that's all.

Not that I want to go here again, that would not be possible as if the RB's family are neglecting placing the sign upon the male children, Gods word clearly states that they are cut off.
Genesis 17:9-14 9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. 10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. 11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. 12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. 13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

From a previous thread on the issue:

When did the OT not include girls?

Were girls "circumcised" in the OT? If they were not, then they are cut off from among God's people, and not allowed to participate in the Passover.

In mentioning infants, some see problems with Females. Females were not circumcised. Would we contend that they are then baptized? Let me say this, forget baptism for a moment. We are jumping ahead because we have not established that children should be baptized at all yet. But I think an important aspect of the Old Testament covenant has eluded you and we should take it up now. Females were circumcised. We know, in certain medical ways, that women can be "circumcised" of sorts. But nowhere in the Old Testament does God command that women are to be circumcised. That woudl be wrong to a certain degree. Read Exodus 12:48, "And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as a native of the land. For no uncircumcised person shall eat it."

Who is not allowed to eat the Passover?

No uncircumcised person.

How then, could females eat of it? If NO uncircumcised person is to eat of it, no one with a foreskin, and women, anatomically do have that in a smaller degree, then what could God be talking about here?

The male is circumcised on the foreskin. It is cut. Covenants, as we know, are cut. When God made a covenant with Abraham he passed through the animal parts and ratified the cutting of the covenant. He passed through the blood of the covenant. Males are cut, and the sign of the covenant is in their flesh. But females, EVERY FEMALE SEED passes through the midst of the covenant every time procreation takes place. The female seed passes through the male procreative organ, right in the middle of the circumcision made in blood. A covenant, then, is cut every time the child of covenant promise is conceived. The reality of it is ratified on her. Females are virtually circumcised by passing through the covenant sign, and the males are both virtually and actually circumcised to continue the sign in the own flesh.

More here pal:
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/vi...=5685#pid68614
 
My investigation of this debate has led to many interesting dialogues with friends on both sides. In recent discussions with a Baptist brother it was brought to my attention that he believed that children are members of the New Covenant: However, they are not, in his estimation, to be baptized until they profess faith.


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. Whats interesting about this view is that it is Paedo in hermeneutic, and Credo in practice. So to recap....

God has not abbrogated children from the New Covenant, but they dont recieve the sign until they profess. Is this non-sense, or is it something to be taken seriously?

What say you? Anyone.

The idea is a contradiction; the person sounds like they are either confused or transitioning.
 
Dr. Clark may be able to affirm this (then again, maybe not), but I think that some of the Covenantal Credos are developing something along these lines (the idea that children of believers are set apart, but not to be baptized)...men like James Renihan, etc.

Is that true, Dr. Clark, or am I losing my mind?

Josh,
If it's true, they still have to deal with Gen 17, which would end up shooting them in the big toe. It reminds me of the infant dedication thingie.
 
Dr. Clark may be able to affirm this (then again, maybe not), but I think that some of the Covenantal Credos are developing something along these lines (the idea that children of believers are set apart, but not to be baptized)...men like James Renihan, etc.

Is that true, Dr. Clark, or am I losing my mind?

My dh and I, who were reformed baptists until last year, as RB'sdid view our children as set apart. We didn't know what that meant necessarily, other than the fact that they were providentally put in our family and that God regarded them as "privileged" in some respect.
 
My dh and I, who were reformed baptists until last year, as RB'sdid view our children as set apart. We didn't know what that meant necessarily, other than the fact that they were providentally put in our family and that God regarded them as "privileged" in some respect.

The 'privilege' being that they were sitting under preaching and were being catechized. Outside of that, being consistant, if taken to task, they would have to admit that they were no different than any other unregenerate out there.
 
The 'privilege' being that they were sitting under preaching and were being catechized. Outside of that, being consistant, if taken to task, they would have to admit that they were no different than any other unregenerate out there.

Yes, though once we began to study the paedo view, our understanding of believers children shifted to the point that we did view them as new covenant members. We didn't necessarily know if that meant they should be baptised as babies/children though. So I guess we were in the transition stage at that point (and very confused). ;)
 
This is something I've found kind of funny. Baptists will frequently attempt to show how often Paedobaptists contradict each other (T.E. Watson's book consists of almost nothing but this sort of thing), but it's usually on relatively minor points, like how to interpret this or that verse, or whether such and such argument for Paedobaptism is really valid. But they still all agree on the "big stuff," i.e. one covenant of grace in both Testaments, children are still in the covenant, baptism has replaced circumcision.

But on the other hand, Baptists will contradict each other on the "big stuff." Jewett and Kingdon both argue that baptism has replaced circumcision; and Reformed Baptists who disagree with that position will still recommend their books as among the best arguing for an RB understanding of baptism. But both authors are opposed to the idea of children in the covenant.

And I've met a couple baptistic (one ARBCA) pastors who believe that children are in the covenant (certainly not the majority RB position), but don't believe that baptism has replaced circumcision. It seems that this provides them with their basis for performing infant dedications.

As far as I can tell, all we have to do is get some Baptists to argue for baptism replacing circumcision, and other Baptists to argue that children are in the covenant, put the two arguments together, and we'll have a book arguing for Paedobaptism.
 
This will be a truly stupid question, but I've always wondered this. Are there any paedobaptists who are immersionists, immersing even the infants for a brief bit. Sorry, just a nagging question.
 
I've chatted to a few RB's about this. This is how they put it.

They say God is sovereign and in His sovereignty it Has pleased Him to place children into a Christian home. Those children are privileged to be raised under the word of God and so in some sense are different to other children. However they also say that until those children make a profession of faith they are outside the covenant, as in their estimation only the redeemed are in the NC.

Hope that sheds some light on the situation.
 
I've chatted to a few RB's about this. This is how they put it.

They say God is sovereign and in His sovereignty it Has pleased Him to place children into a Christian home. Those children are privileged to be raised under the word of God and so in some sense are different to other children. However they also say that until those children make a profession of faith they are outside the covenant, as in their estimation only the redeemed are in the NC.

Hope that sheds some light on the situation.

How does the profession of faith indicate to them that they are redeemed?
 
I've chatted to a few RB's about this. This is how they put it.

They say God is sovereign and in His sovereignty it Has pleased Him to place
children into a Christian home. Those children are privileged to be raised
under the word of God and so in some sense are different to other children.
However they also say that until those children make a profession of faith they are outside the covenant, as in their estimation only the redeemed are in the NC.

Hope that sheds some light on the situation.

I was once a "Reformed Baptist" so I can say that your summary about

covers it. There is one other thing. Because we believed that children of at

least one believing parent were in some sense sanctified, we would have

an "infant dedication" ceremony, but not baptism. It's like trying to have your

cake and eat it too.
baby2.gif
 
How does the profession of faith indicate to them that they are redeemed?

I daresay they're thinking of Romans 10:9 "... if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved", as well as 1 Corinthians 12:3 " Therefore I am informing you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, 'Jesus is cursed,' and no one can say, 'Jesus is Lord,' except by the Holy Spirit."

If an apparently-valid profession of faith isn't generally taken to be indicative of a renewed heart (granting it isn't always), what would be the criterion for baptizing an adult?
 
I daresay they're thinking of Romans 10:9 "... if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved", as well as 1 Corinthians 12:3 " Therefore I am informing you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, 'Jesus is cursed,' and no one can say, 'Jesus is Lord,' except by the Holy Spirit."

If an apparently-valid profession of faith isn't generally taken to be indicative of a renewed heart (granting it isn't always), what would be the criterion for baptizing an adult?

But he didn't say the New Covenant consisted of those who had indications of a renewed heart. He stated that the New Covenant consisted solely of the Redeemed.
 
Rich,

I agree with you that a profession of faith does not necessarily mean that someone is redeemed, I'm just using the lingo that the RB's use when discussing this. I guess they go down this route in an effort to keep the Church 'pure,' that is, so the visible church will be a closer reflection of the invisible church.

I must say for many years I personally held to this view and found it very, very difficult to give up.
 
The credobaptist believes the New Covenant is superior to the Old Covenant in that, while one could be in the Old Covenant yet still be eternally lost, everyone in the New Covenant is eternally saved. To be saved is to be in the New Covenant.

Clearly there is no way to accurately identify all those who are actually in the New Covenant, but the credobaptist gives it his best shot, relying upon an apparently valid profession of faith to indicate "presumptive regeneration."

I thought it was interesting when it first occurred to me here's one area in which credos and paedos are the same: when they baptize an adult, they do so on the basis of presumptive regeneration, using a profession of faith as a means test, so to speak. Both groups recognize the profession of faith might not be valid, but the credos would say the baptized nonbeliever wasn't actually placed into the New Covenant, while the paedos would say he was.

Credos believe that in the post-resurrection world, there are two classifications of people: the regenerate, who are those in the New Covenant, and the unregenerate, those who are not.

Paedos, if I've understood 'em correctly, believe there are essentially three classifications: the unregenerate outside of the New Covenant; the unregenerate in the New Covenant; and the regenerate, who are in the New Covenant.

Now, of course, everyone will pile on and tell me where I'm wrong.

paranoia.gif
 
I was giving it some more thought...

....and upon reflecting that one of the presuppositions held by paedos is that it's possible to accurately identify those in the New Covenant, while credos presuppose the opposite, i.e. that many of those presumed to be in the NC aren't, and adding to that the presupposition by paedos that not everyone in the NC is saved, but the credos presuppose the opposite, i.e. that everyone in the NC is saved, and it dawned on me the FV is actually melding the paedo presupposition that those in the NC can be accurately identified with the credo presupposition that everyone in the NC is saved.

[apologetically] I just thought it was interesting, that's all.
 
This will be a truly stupid question, but I've always wondered this. Are there any paedobaptists who are immersionists, immersing even the infants for a brief bit. Sorry, just a nagging question.


Yes. We have friends who believe in immersion and PB.
 
....and upon reflecting that one of the presuppositions held by paedos is that it's possible to accurately identify those in the New Covenant, while credos presuppose the opposite, i.e. that many of those presumed to be in the NC aren't, and adding to that the presupposition by paedos that not everyone in the NC is saved, but the credos presuppose the opposite, i.e. that everyone in the NC is saved, and it dawned on me the FV is actually melding the paedo presupposition that those in the NC can be accurately identified with the credo presupposition that everyone in the NC is saved.

[apologetically] I just thought it was interesting, that's all.

Yes. That's why Dr. Clark calls them crypto-Baptists because both groups conflate the sign (sacrament of Baptism) with the thing signified (union with Christ).

I'm not going to pile up on you but I just wanted to point out that it is quite impossible for a Reformed Baptist to link New Covenant membership with the sacrament of Baptism. In the end, they're left saying: "Well we're trying to do our best to have the best presumption regarding regeneration."

That's a far cry from:
a. The New Covenant is only the elect
b. Therefore, only the elect will be baptized.

It's as I've argued over and over. Baptists continually argue for the perfection of the New Covenant as if they are then able to make that leap into the visible Church and now prescribe whether or not a flesh and blood person standing before them is a qualified candidate for Baptism. After getting done arguing for the fact that only the Elect are in the NC, one might expect the minister to ask the person: "Are you Elect?"

Of course such a question is silly (hence the argument from the perfection of the NC to the proper recipient). The real thing they're looking for is "Do you profess?" That may be the only valid qualification but the fact that it's the only valid qualification needs to be established from the Scriptures and not by a "...well we do our best to baptize only believers."

Well, so do Paedobaptists who are serious about the Sacrament and its Covenantal implications. Being careful is not unique to Baptists.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top