Credobaptism = Arminianism?

[heartoflesh]

This was implied inanother thread, but I didn't quite understand the argument and thought I would pursue it more here.

1) Unless I'm missing something, don't both Paedos and Credo baptize adult believers (who were not baptized as infants)?


2) If the answer to question #1 is yes, do not such baptisms follow a prfession of faith by the recipient?

3) What makes one Arminian and the other not?

~Rick

 

[Augusta]

To clarify for Rick. Yes if you have a new adult convert you baptized them. As for covenant families there is no need to wait for a profession but do as our forefathers did who also believed in Christ the Rock (1 Cor 10:3-4) and give our children the sign. To wait for a profession seems to leave your children dangling outside of the covenant and the blessings that come from it. If an unbelieving spouse is sanctified by union with an elect spouse, how much more their children. The whole shebang of calling, regeneration, sanctification is God's work. We don't have any job accept to abide in Him and what He has given. I see nowhere that we are to wait for our children to have some age of accountablility as if they can account for anything. It is all God's work and to His glory.

We receive only and add nothing accept our faith which is also a gift. God is completely sovereign in all of it. Pastors are never called to separate the wheat from the tares and then baptize them. God will separate them in the end. We are actually told not to.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Baptism is what God says about a man, not what a man says about God.

When God Sovereignly gives a child to Christian parents, God has made a statement about that child. God has said that child is in covenant with Him. Baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant God initiated with the child. In baptism, God says, "This child is mine!" "I am his/her God!"

It is no different with adult baptism. There is a confession beforehand, but the baptism is NOT the confession itself. Rather, the profession tells us that God has Sovereignly put that person into covenant with Himself (much like the birth of a child to Christian parents lets us know that God has put the child into covenant with Himself). Once we know that God has made this declaration, we baptize the person. In baptism, God says, "This person is mine!" "I am his/her God!" It is a sign and seal of the covenant God initiated with the person.

In fact, I go even farther than some of the paedobaptists on this board. I side with Dr. McMahon and Scott Bushey regarding presumptive regeneration. . . . When we baptize an adult, it is because we presume that person regenerate, because of his/her profession. When we baptize an infant, it is because we presume that infant regenerate, because of the faith of his/her parents.


To sum up:

1) We baptize both adults and infants when it is clear that they are in covenant with God.

2) We baptize both adults and infants based on presumptive regeneration.

(NOTE: even if a person disagrees with point #2, point #1 still stands firm.)


Either way, we baptize adults and infants for the same reasons.

 

[Philip A]

It's always dangerous to take a part as representative of the whole. I could just as easily say:

Paedobaptism=Romanism

but the cause of truth would be served no better.

Now obviously Paedobaptism is not Romanism, but there are plenty of folks out there for whom their only experience of paedobaptism is of the Romanist sort. As such they often view paedobaptism (the whole) as if it were exhaustively defined by Rome's aberration of it (the part).

In the same way, the only experience many of our dear Paedobaptist brethren have had with credobaptism is of the Arminian sort, so it is easy for them to thing of credobaptism (the whole) as exhaustively defined by the SBC's (or whoever else's) aberration of it (the part).

 

[Augusta]

Rome thinks it is a work they must perform too. I would actually equate their version with the arminian version. The root problem is trying to insert an human work into a sovereign work of God. Reformed theology, biblical theology, says we are cups to filled. It is a monergistic work of God through and through. Credobaptism is making it synergistic again. It goes against everything that reformed theology stands for. It is basically giving the ministers of God a litmus test for the covenant sign. This is unprecedented anywhere in scripture.

It's like when arminians confuse a general call to imply that we have have the ability to answer. Baptists take the general call and do the same. When the call goes out "believe and be baptized" they take that as an implication that belief must follow baptism. It is not letting scripture interpret scripture. It boils down to the same mistake arminians make. A profession means nothing. Whether God puts His sign on you effectually and ordained you before the foundations of the world is what counts and we will never know who is who until the end.

 

[heartoflesh]

Traci, thanks for your reply, but I'm not talking about children. I'm specifically referencing the following quote you made (and I'm not trying to pick on you, but I do want to understand your meaning, especially since it was applauded by Joseph, who seems like a scholarly kind of guy):

credobaptism is just repackaged arminism. It is taking the sinners prayer and moving it someplace else. It is giving us a work that doesn't even work. (many unsaved are baptized I have witnessed it over and over in my arminian church, look at these mega-churches baptizing people left and right).

The part that confused me here was why it was wrong for the mega church to be baptizing people "left and right". You say that the people were "unsaved", but besides wondering how you would know this, wouldn't this be an argument against the discernment of this particular church, and not credobaptism itself.

By the way, I don't have any axe to grind in all of this-- I am a credo only by default, and I am still learning. It just seems hard to believe that someone as staunchly Calvinistic as Charles Spurgeon could be a credobaptist if it is nothing more than "repackaged Arminianism".

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Philip A
It's always dangerous to take a part as representative of the whole. I could just as easily say:

Paedobaptism=Romanism

but the cause of truth would be served no better.

Now obviously Paedobaptism is not Romanism, but there are plenty of folks out there for whom their only experience of paedobaptism is of the Romanist sort. As such they often view paedobaptism (the whole) as if it were exhaustively defined by Rome's aberration of it (the part).

In the same way, the only experience many of our dear Paedobaptist brethren have had with credobaptism is of the Arminian sort, so it is easy for them to thing of credobaptism (the whole) as exhaustively defined by the SBC's (or whoever else's) aberration of it (the part).

to Traci and Joseph. The problem with Baptism is not so much WHEN a person baptises, but WHY a person baptises. Do we baptise because of something a person has done?...or do we baptise because something God has done?

The misunderstanding that Joseph points out is correct, that baptism IS what God decleres about man, not what man declares concerning God. This is the same with Arminianism and Romanism. Both make this flaw, yet baptise at different times (one padeo, other credo).

 

[Arch2k]

Since baptism is a sign and seal of regeneration (et al), if one says that baptism is something that man says about God (instead of something God says about man) it could be argued that these people are implicitly saying the same thing about what baptism signifies (regeneration etc.) which is exactly what Arminianism and Romanism do with regeneration.

Baptists don't do this explicitly, but implicitly they do, but through a faulty view of what baptism is.

 

[Augusta]

Mostly it is the litmus test part of it. That a profession must follow baptism. This is to me like the sinners prayer. If you say it you have done something toward your salvation. With professions it is the same, you are waiting for you children to become accountable for what? Is it a work of God or man? It is an added human element. Arminianism adds a human element. So does credobaptism.

I believe God chose children to be circumcised on the 8th day because He was making a statement that it is His domain. Just as in the case of Jacob and Esau: for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls.

[Edited on 7-6-2005 by Augusta]

 

[heartoflesh]

Originally posted by Augusta
Mostly it is the litmus test part of it. That a profession must follow baptism. This is to me like the sinners prayer. If you say it you have done something toward your salvation. With professions it is the same, you are waiting for you children to become accountable for what? Is it a work of God or man? It is an added human element. Arminianism adds a human element. So does credobaptism.

Perhaps this is what I'm not understanding. Is it the profession that is the key difference between the Credo/Paedo adult baptism? Excuse my ignorance, but I am new to all of this. Do adult Paedo's not have any kind of "profession" when they get baptized?

 

[john_Mark]

Okay, nice reading all of the Baptists' posts here while we were allowed here. Now that we are really Arminians we can't hold to the statements' of faith so we will all be banned. Take care and choose more wisely the next discussion boards you join! :bigsmile:

[Edited on 7-6-2005 by john_Mark]

[Edited on 7-6-2005 by john_Mark]

 

[john_Mark]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Since baptism is a sign and seal of regeneration (et al), if one says that baptism is something that man says about God (instead of something God says about man) it could be argued that these people are implicitly saying the same thing about what baptism signifies (regeneration etc.) which is exactly what Arminianism and Romanism do with regeneration.

Baptists don't do this explicitly, but implicitly they do, but through a faulty view of what baptism is.

Arminianism and Romanism don't say these actions signify regeneration, in my opinion.

Rather:
The Arminian says believe in order to become regenerate and the Romanist says to be baptised (as an infant) to become regenerate. These positions clearly illustrate that man does something for God in order to receive something from God. Monergism vs. synergism.

 

[heartoflesh]

Originally posted by Paul manata
If one is a reformed baptist he can easily argue that God's grace is the *cause* of the profession.

That's exactly what I've been pondering for the last 15 minutes. I'm really struggling to figure out where folks are coming from here, and I'm concluding there's alot of assumptions/presuppositions being made.

 

[just_grace]

Baptism...

I always thought it was a very simple outward sign towards heaven that you have repented and believe in God for the forgiveness of sins and of a new life given through Jesus Christ.

Why do you complicate things?

 

[Augusta]

Rick, the point is why wait for a profession from your children. Is it their confession of faith that puts them in the covenant or is it God. We know the wheat and tares grow together anyway. So why this waiting for a profession from a child of Christian parents when this is unprecedented in scripture. Especially if the profession is likely to be a false one. So it doesn't work anyway.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Rick Larson

Originally posted by Augusta
Mostly it is the litmus test part of it. That a profession must follow baptism. This is to me like the sinners prayer. If you say it you have done something toward your salvation. With professions it is the same, you are waiting for you children to become accountable for what? Is it a work of God or man? It is an added human element. Arminianism adds a human element. So does credobaptism.

Perhaps this is what I'm not understanding. Is it the profession that is the key difference between the Credo/Paedo adult baptism? Excuse my ignorance, but I am new to all of this. Do adult Paedo's not have any kind of "profession" when they get baptized?

I think I see where the communication link is broken here . . .

Yes, adults have to give a profession of faith whether they are baptized in a Baptist church or Presbyterian church. That particular fact is not different either way.

But the Baptists (and please correct me if I'm wrong) consider the baptism ITSELF to BE a confession . . . essentially the person saying, "Yup, I am choosing to be united with Christ's death and resurrection."

The Paedos (like me) would require a confession. But that is only their ground for realizing the person is now a covenant member. --- The baptism ITSELF is NOT considered a confession by the person being baptized. . . . The baptism is not considered to be anything that person is saying about his/her relationship with God. Rather, because it is recognized that God has put that person into covenant with Himself, the baptism is administered, demonstrating what God Himself has said about that person.

Like Jeff stated so well: "The problem with Baptism is not so much WHEN a person baptises, but WHY a person baptises. Do we baptise because of something a person has done?...or do we baptise because something God has done? "

 

[heartoflesh]

Originally posted by Augusta
Rick, the point is why wait for a profession from your children. Is it their confession of faith that puts them in the covenant or is it God. We know the wheat and tares grow together anyway. So why this waiting for a profession from a child of Christian parents when this is unprecedented in scripture. Especially if the profession is likely to be a false one. So it doesn't work anyway.

I understand the argument about children, but that's not what I'm addressing. I want to know what the difference is between credo/paedo for adult baptism. Is there any difference? Is it the profession part? Is this what is Arminian?

 

[just_grace]

Our children...

Jesus told us to take no thought for tomorrow, food , clothing, etc etc, do you think that God's love for us omits our inmost feelings and concerns, is God Good or not.

O you of little faith...

Praise His name...

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Rick Larson
I understand the argument about children, but that's not what I'm addressing. I want to know what the difference is between credo/paedo for adult baptism. Is there any difference? Is it the profession part? Is this what is Arminian?

Like I said in my post above, the baptist considers the adult baptism to BE a confession. The paedobaptist does NOT consider an adult baptism to BE a confession.

The baptist thinks: "Here is JoeBob being baptized as a public confession of his faith in Christ."

The paedo should think: "Here is God baptizing JoeBob into covenant with Himself."

 

[heartoflesh]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by Rick Larson
I understand the argument about children, but that's not what I'm addressing. I want to know what the difference is between credo/paedo for adult baptism. Is there any difference? Is it the profession part? Is this what is Arminian?

Like I said in my post above, the baptist considers the adult baptism to BE a confession. The paedobaptist does NOT consider an adult baptism to BE a confession.

The baptist thinks: "Here is JoeBob being baptized as a public confession of his faith in Christ."

The paedo should think: "Here is God baptizing JoeBob into covenant with Himself."

An interesting delineation, but not one I think most people are aware of, credo or paedo, when they are baptized. I also fail to see where the credo view is akin to Arminianism. Again, why couldn't God be **the cause** of my choosing to be baptized?

I understand the differences in understanding the nature of covenants, but we can't just throw the "A' word around whenever we feel like it.

 

[Philip A]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
But the Baptists (and please correct me if I'm wrong) consider the baptism ITSELF to BE a confession . . . essentially the person saying, "Yup, I am choosing to be united with Christ's death and resurrection."

JOSEPH, YOU ARE WRONG!!!

(at least in part )

Remember your own words: "please correct me if I'm wrong".



This is the crux of why this whole discussion is one of the most ridiculous I have seen:

What is going in is that a number of paedobaptists, who seem to have only had experiences in WACKED-OUT ARMINIAN Baptist churches, are assuming that the Arminian view of credobaptism is the ONLY view of credobaptism, i.e. taking the part as representative of the whole.

Let me explain. Off the top of my head I can think of at least three different views of baptism within the credo camp:

1. wacked-out Arminian Baptists - The view you are arguing against, i.e., they consider baptism itself to be a confession.

2. not so wacked out Arminian Baptists, and some Calvinistic Baptists - they consider baptism to be a testimony of what has ALREADY happened to them. For the Calvinistic Baptist, it is a testimony of what God has done monergistically in their lives.

3. The confessional Reformed (Particular) Baptist view -

"Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life." - 2LBCF XXIX:1

There are other positions out there, but those are the ones that I can think of at the moment.

Notice that for the confessional Reformed Baptist, baptism is a sign to him, it is not his confession. Notice also that the WCF uses the same exact phraseology, "to be unto him a sign".

So, here's how it is:

The paedo says: "All baptists at all times and in all places believe XYZ about baptism."

The confessional RB says, "no, actually, I do not, and neither does my confession."

The paedo should think: "Oops! Sorry!"

[Edited on 7-6-2005 by Philip A]

 

[Rich Barcellos]

Joseph, you said, "The paedo should think: 'Here is God baptizing JoeBob into covenant with Himself.'" Are you claiming that the Scripture indicates that God is the subject of *water* baptism (i.e., the baptizer) and man the object (i.e., the batpized)? I thought minsters of the gospel baptized (WCF 28:2b ? Just trying to understand your point.

Also, what gets one into the covenant? Is one in the covneant prior to baptism? If so, upon what basis? There are varying views on this so I am just wondering what view you hold. You said: "The Paedos (like me) would require a confession. But that is only their ground for realizing the person is now a covenant member. --- The baptism ITSELF is NOT considered a confession by the person being baptized. . . . The baptism is not considered to be anything that person is saying about his/her relationship with God. Rather, because it is recognized that God has put that person into covenant with Himself, the baptism is administered, demonstrating what God Himself has said about that person." So one becomes a covenant member then is bapitzed? Earlier, you said, "When God Sovereignly gives a child to Christian parents, God has made a statement about that child. God has said that child is in covenant with Him. Baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant God initiated with the child. In baptism, God says, "This child is mine!" "I am his/her God!""

So, if I understand you correctly, covenant membership precedes water baptism. Am I understanding you correctly?

 

[Philip A]

Go back and read Paul Manata's posts.

You might not remember him, but Paul was very active on this board a while back. He and I went round and round in some very edifying discussions on the subject. I can affirm that he is one of the most sound of my Presbyerian brethren that I know of, a brother in the Lord whom I respect greatly, even though we disagree on a few points. You could learn much from him.

But my point is, even Paul Manata can see through all the straw in this thread!

 

[Theological Books]

Hey, Paul, what if your new girlfriend doesn't agree...???? lol... <singing> Paul's got a girlfriend... Paul's got a girlfriend...

 

[Rich Barcellos]

Paul, is that pic you or Derek Webb smoking a pipe? If DWebb, I now know where he gets his raspy voice from.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Rich Barcellos
So, if I understand you correctly, covenant membership precedes water baptism. Am I understanding you correctly?

Yes, but in the same sense that a person was a covenant member prior to receiving circumcision. Even though the infant was already a covenant member before circumcision, in Gen. 17, God called circumcision itself the "covenant". So there is a powerful tie between sign and that which is signified. To use a very fallible analogy, the covenant membership is the wedding, and the baptism is the consummation. In one sense, we can and should distinguish the two. But in another sense, we don't really want to seperate the two radically from each other, and we might very well feel that a couple isn't "fully married" if they go through the ceremony but then remain abstinent. (Please just accept that as a VERY rough analogy. . . .I probably should come up with a better one.)

So I'm ok with distinguishing covenant membership and covenant sign, just as long as we don't drive a wedge between them.

Are they covenant members before circumcision/baptism? Yes.
But is the circumcision/baptism itself the "covenant"? Yes.

The tie is so tight that bad stuff happens when we try to pull them apart.

 

[Augusta]

The whole point is why don't credo's baptize their children? Because they want a profession, they want a human agreement. This is why I say it is like arminianism repackaged or at least moved. They still want that human assent. If the sign isn't the the thing signified but just a sign WHY leave your children without it. Why not give it to them in faith that God will save them if you diligently train them, that God might use that means of your training, to save the child's soul.

Does baptism have any benefits at all? Yes it obviously has something or God wouldn't command it. Why wait for human assent?? Why? With all the scripture that speaks of households being saved, with all of the OT, with everything, why do baptists need human assent. This smacks to me of not truly believing in God's promises and in His absolute sovereignty in salvation. If you need your child to grow up and assent to a covenant sign, something commanded by God, to me its like waiting until they are old enough to pray the sinners prayer. Is God sovereign or not. No to mention He never says anything of the sort in scripture. It is implied, just like free will is implied in places but explicitly denied elsewhere.

 

[Rich Barcellos]

God the baptizer

Originally posted by Rich Barcellos
Joseph, you said, "The paedo should think: 'Here is God baptizing JoeBob into covenant with Himself.'" Are you claiming that the Scripture indicates that God is the subject of *water* baptism (i.e., the baptizer) and man the object (i.e., the batpized)? I thought minsters of the gospel baptized (WCF 28:2b ? Just trying to understand your point.

Joseph, what do you mean by God baptizing into covenant? I think I know what men water baptizing men means, but I do not know what you mean by God baptizing JoeBob into covenant. And into what covenant are you speaking?

 

[pastorway]

Joseph has confused water baptism and spirit baptism it seems. He has also confused what puts one in covenant with God and when.



Phillip

 

[Larry Hughes]

Rick,

In arminianism they would say, "no we too believe it is all by s. grace" BUT man's agency of faith is the factor that swings the person into the category of saved or not saved. Hence, the overall effectual saving of a man is man's effort and this ends up being the definitive nature of their view of grace though they speak duplicity.

Concerning "believers baptism". It is not so much a strictly spoken theological point because many reformed baptist and calvinistic leaning baptist affirm theologically sovereign grace full tilt. I think it is more of a practical outworking of the doctrine of "believers only" baptism. It is the "only" part that separates how the credo community Vs. the Paedo community view baptism. Now, you'll find abberations in all denominations but strictly speaking, assuming a baptism into Christ, Holy Trinity formula and so forth, and looking only at adults on both sides - a Paedo baptist would never rebaptize and would consider such a sin. Yet, a credo would. Again, we are speaking only of adults here and not even entering infants into the frey. The most obvious question is why so?

I think this is how it comes about, that is the view that it is arminian or man centered I think would be a better term. It is all in the emphasis of the sign and the "direction of communication" if you will. In most baptist churches, even calvinistic leaning ones (not necessarily formal Reformed Baptist), the emphasis is on the sign being "MY" profession of faith effectually making it MY sign. Though it includes this that ought not be the emphasis for it for it is God's sign and promise, not mine. That makes all the difference in the world in how one views baptism. If it is primarily "MY" sign and "MY" obedience, primarily, then the communication is earth to heaven rather than heaven to earth - law rather than gospel.

Remember when I said opening that arminians would affirm sovereign grace but the last "tidbit" that is effectual is man's will - hence making the overall power man's or man centered and not a tidbit at all. Likewise, this is what happens in the Credo position and why re-baptisms occur. Because the individual is resting in themselves and the baptism that is validated by their perception of possessing or not possessing faith prior to a baptism event. Thus, credo-baptism ultimately, the deciding over all factor, lies in the validity of the perception of the faith of man.

Now many will play word games at this point and say that if real faith was not present then the first baptism was invalid and hence any "re-baptism" is not really "re-baptism" but rather the first valid baptism. But that doesn't help ward off the man-centered argument, rather it supports and blatantly states it.

One can caveat it that faith is a gift as any good calvinistic baptist would and hence it ultimately is not man centered. But that doesn't help either because it is the struggling christian's perception of "when" he/she could affirm this faith, pre or post first baptismal event, which can be difficult if struggles with sin arise or one has had a very strong encounter with the Law. Baptism is still under this scheme defined by the perception of faith, it rests on man and not God. Baptism then becomes a work to be done. That is why a second, third or forth baptism occurs.

The thing to remember is that fundamentally the credo's "believer's baptism" differs from the paedo's "believer's baptism" not in that both require profession and so forth from adults (in that they are similar), but the essential primary meaning of baptism, the effectual meaning of it if you will that overtakes its over all doctrine (just like the arminian's view of Sov. Grace and man's will over taking the real view of the doctrine of salvation).

Maybe that helps, maybe not.

Larry