Paedo-Baptism Answers Credobaptist to Paedobaptist Transition

[Jonathan95]

I wish I could leave like a voice clips or something, hahaha. I have much on my mind and need other minds to bounce ideas off of. Thank you my friends for any answers that follow.

I am currently a credobaptist who seems to be slowly but surely transitioning into a paedo position.
I'd love to say that it was due to my own rigorous study of the Scriptures day and night throughout quarentine but in all actuality I met this lovely young woman over the internet who holds to Presbyterian Reformed Theology. You schemers must have planted her.



Hahaha, well regardless, this was the first time I had gotten into a discussion with another Christian involving this topic. Most churches I've come across seem to be Evangelical, Charasmatic and hold to a credobaptist position. So I never had to work through this part of the faith. Needless to say, since our conversation I've been racking my brain. Seeing whatever the Scriptures have to say about all of this of course, I just opened up the Institutes the that chapter on paedobaptism and I'm working through that.

I even pulled a buddy of mine from church and went through this discussion with him. He's a lot like me and hasn't really had this conversation with others.

As a Baptist it just seems so much easier to answer this question. Who should be baptized? Well believers, duh. Don't overthink it right? Whoever loves the Lord Jesus and wants to follow after Him, they should be baptized.

No discussion or consideration of the covenants. In fact, it seems like Baptists make it all very individualized. It's about you and you're relationship to God. And baptism is about your profession of faith where you declare what you believe.

We dont really take into account the fact that God calls a people to Himself. That's the way God has always done things. But that doesn't get considered. We call you guys crazy for calling your babies Christians. No no, Christians are believers. They are synonymous and and infant can't believe anything that warrents the title.

The Scriptures even say to repent and be baptized. Where is the repentance? We need the evidence!

God's covenant with His people was symbolized with circumcision. Not once those children grew up and believed in God and the promises Messiah. No, they were still considered the people of God. Wayward sure. And not all of those who were visible were elect. But they are called the people of God still.


I just started reading up on all of this. I don't really know what my question is but I feel that I am in-between the two camps. Any words of wisdom or anecdotes or resources you could offer would be greatly appreciated. Excuse my rambling, I'm still learning about all of this. Thank you!

Also! I have read that it is a temptation for former Baptists to slip into Federal Vision Theology. And I don't really know what that is except I know they practice paedo communion. Maybe some more info on that would be helpful as well! Thanks!

 

[Solparvus]

@Jonathan95

Truly an interesting twist in life dyanamics.

I made the transition from credo to paedo a few years ago. Scripture, Scripture, Scripture, prayer, prayer, prayer. Then repeat.

My recommendation for listening is Ted Donnelly on baptism. As a Baptist I found it very easy to follow him. See here.

One helpful hint. Take the phrase "infant baptist", scratch out the word "infant", and put in its place the word "household." There's the explicit New Testament warrant.

Baptists don't ignore covenants, and you'll find as you do your study that many Baptists don't simply argue from the Baptism passages themselves. It'll get to covenants eventually, and you'll find that this is a real bedrock of the Baptist argument--that the New Covenant is new in a sense that none but those who are regenerate should receive the covenant signs. That will become an interpretive key when the New Testament data gets pretty obscure and difficult for the Baptist position.

Take for example, the baptism of Lydia's household. No mention of faith or repentance on the part of her household. A paedo contends that if there were infants, they were baptized based on covenantal continuity, and in every other instance where there were infants. The credo in the absence of explicit mention of faith and repentance in Lydia's household (besides herself) will ultimately rest on a covenant argument, that the New Covenant is new in such a sense that only those who repent and believe could have possibly been baptized. Both sides ultimately rest on good and necessary consequence of their covenantal context--which is the world in which baptism takes place.

Edit add: And you'll find the underlying Baptist covenant theology kicking in when interpreting passages such as Romans 11, 1 Corinthians 10, Romans 4, or the warning passages in Hebrews, which upon their surface reading don't favor the Baptist position that well.

Understanding covenants will be big in grasping this issue rightly.

 

[Jake]

@Jonathan95

Truly an interesting twist in life dyanamics.

I made the transition from credo to paedo a few years ago. Scripture, Scripture, Scripture, prayer, prayer, prayer. Then repeat.

My recommendation for listening is Ted Donnelly on baptism. As a Baptist I found it very easy to follow him. See here.

One helpful hint. Take the phrase "infant baptist", scratch out the word "infant", and put in its place the word "household." There's the explicit New Testament warrant.

Baptists don't ignore covenants, and you'll find as you do your study that many Baptists don't simply argue from the Baptism passages themselves. It'll get to covenants eventually, and you'll find that this is a real bedrock of the Baptist argument--that the New Covenant is new in a sense that none but those who are regenerate should receive the covenant signs. That will become an interpretive key when the New Testament data gets pretty obscure and difficult for the Baptist position.

Take for example, the baptism of Lydia's household. No mention of faith or repentance on the part of her household. A paedo contends that if there were infants, they were baptized based on covenantal continuity, and in every other instance where there were infants. The credo in the absence of explicit mention of faith and repentance in Lydia's household (besides herself) will ultimately rest on a covenant argument, that the New Covenant is new in such a sense that only those who repent and believe could have possibly been baptized. Both sides ultimately rest on good and necessary consequence of their covenantal context--which is the world in which baptism takes place.

Edit add: And you'll find the underlying Baptist covenant theology kicking in when interpreting passages such as Romans 11, 1 Corinthians 10, Romans 4, or the warning passages in Hebrews, which upon their surface reading don't favor the Baptist position that well.

Understanding covenants will be big in grasping this issue rightly.

I like Jake's answer, as a Jake myself. I'd state it such as that not only do we see "household baptism" but as his response further shows we see "baptism administered to members of the household on account of the head of household's profession of faith" -- this is exactly what we Presbyterians do. This is why many Presbyterian and Reformed prefer the term "household Baptism" to "infant Baptism."

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Jonathan,

You may find it of interest - and some of your questions answered - in a post (and recent thread) on this and related topics: some crucial nuances of paedobaptism. In that post and others in the thread you will also find information on the covenants, which, as you suggest, may be key factors in understanding the matter.

 

[Jack K]

In fact, it seems like Baptists make it all very individualized. It's about you and you're relationship to God. And baptism is about your profession of faith where you declare what you believe.

To be fair, the original Baptists were not as smitten with individualism as American churchgoers of all stripes tend to be today, yet they still had reasons for their position. But I agree with you that American individualism makes the Baptist practice feel like the right default choice now in this country, and that many Baptists have turned baptism into a rite that showcases the believer's growth or commitment rather than showcasing Christ and his growing church. Most of us, both Baptists and Presbyterians, could stand to have a bigger understanding not only of the covenants but especially of the covenant community. What does it mean that God is saving his people, not just individual persons?

And what is happening when we gather as the assembly of believers? Those who stop at what church means to the individual (church is a chance to get recharged, or to get helpful teaching) stop short of the full glory of the gospel and Christ's covenant community. But those who see the fuller picture will also start to see how the baptism of everyone there makes sense. It'll start to feel odd to train a child in the faith, or even just to bring him to church, if he is not baptized.

 

[retroGRAD3]

I find myself non-dogmatic on this issue. I am not sure if I am alone in this. However, I have heard arguments from both sides (from individuals like RC Sproul, Bahnsen, Tom Ascol, etc.) and both make sense. I believe scripture can be used to argue both sides as well. In the end, I believe I could be comfortable in either a credo or paedo baptism church (Protestant of course).

 

[Jonathan95]

@Jonathan95

Truly an interesting twist in life dyanamics.

I made the transition from credo to paedo a few years ago. Scripture, Scripture, Scripture, prayer, prayer, prayer. Then repeat.

My recommendation for listening is Ted Donnelly on baptism. As a Baptist I found it very easy to follow him. See here.

One helpful hint. Take the phrase "infant baptist", scratch out the word "infant", and put in its place the word "household." There's the explicit New Testament warrant.

Baptists don't ignore covenants, and you'll find as you do your study that many Baptists don't simply argue from the Baptism passages themselves. It'll get to covenants eventually, and you'll find that this is a real bedrock of the Baptist argument--that the New Covenant is new in a sense that none but those who are regenerate should receive the covenant signs. That will become an interpretive key when the New Testament data gets pretty obscure and difficult for the Baptist position.

Take for example, the baptism of Lydia's household. No mention of faith or repentance on the part of her household. A paedo contends that if there were infants, they were baptized based on covenantal continuity, and in every other instance where there were infants. The credo in the absence of explicit mention of faith and repentance in Lydia's household (besides herself) will ultimately rest on a covenant argument, that the New Covenant is new in such a sense that only those who repent and believe could have possibly been baptized. Both sides ultimately rest on good and necessary consequence of their covenantal context--which is the world in which baptism takes place.

Edit add: And you'll find the underlying Baptist covenant theology kicking in when interpreting passages such as Romans 11, 1 Corinthians 10, Romans 4, or the warning passages in Hebrews, which upon their surface reading don't favor the Baptist position that well.

Understanding covenants will be big in grasping this issue rightly.

I like Jake's answer, as a Jake myself. I'd state it such as that not only do we see "household baptism" but as his response further shows we see "baptism administered to members of the household on account of the head of household's profession of faith" -- this is exactly what we Presbyterians do. This is why many Presbyterian and Reformed prefer the term "household Baptism" to "infant Baptism."

Hello Jonathan,

You may find it of interest - and some of your questions answered - in a post (and recent thread) on this and related topics: some crucial nuances of paedobaptism. In that post and others in the thread you will also find information on the covenants, which, as you suggest, may be key factors in understanding the matter.

To be fair, the original Baptists were not as smitten with individualism as American churchgoers of all stripes tend to be today, yet they still had reasons for their position. But I agree with you that American individualism makes the Baptist practice feel like the right default choice now in this country, and that many Baptists have turned baptism into a rite that showcases the believer's growth or commitment rather than showcasing Christ and his growing church. Most of us, both Baptists and Presbyterians, could stand to have a bigger understanding not only of the covenants but especially of the covenant community. What does it mean that God is saving his people, not just individual persons?

And what is happening when we gather as the assembly of believers? Those who stop at what church means to the individual (church is a chance to get recharged, or to get helpful teaching) stop short of the full glory of the gospel and Christ's covenant community. But those who see the fuller picture will also start to see how the baptism of everyone there makes sense. It'll start to feel odd to train a child in the faith, or even just to bring him to church, if he is not baptized.

Thank you for all of the replies and resources. All great food for thought and helpful. I'll be sure to write back with any further questions I might have!

 

[Jake]

I find myself non-dogmatic on this issue. I am not sure if I am alone in this. However, I have heard arguments from both sides (from individuals like RC Sproul, Bahnsen, Tom Ascol, etc.) and both make sense. I believe scripture can be used to argue both sides as well. In the end, I believe I could be comfortable in either a credo or paedo baptism church (Protestant of course).

When I was studying this, I determined that Presbyterian style church government (including higher courts) was more important for my membership than view on baptism, especially as an unmarried man at the time. So I joined a Presbyterian church rather than remain in an independent congregational one and continued to study.

 

[JTB.SDG]

I just started reading up on all of this. I don't really know what my question is but I feel that I am in-between the two camps. Any words of wisdom or anecdotes or resources you could offer would be greatly appreciated.

Brother, check out this little study on infant baptism: https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/be37d2_9b43f9d6bf644fd08edae296e25f8d24.pdf

 

[Jonathan95]

Brother, check out this little study on infant baptism: https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/be37d2_9b43f9d6bf644fd08edae296e25f8d24.pdf

Most definitely will do, thank you brother!!

 

[Afterthought]

You might find my pastor's series helpful (as yet another resource). I especially recommend the sermons about Children in the OT and NT and the nature of the New Covenant.

The Sacraments: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1126191957421

What is Baptism? https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=124192331151

One Covenant of Grace: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=129191832502

One Church & One Gospel: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=121619203372

Children in the Old Testament: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=114202245424

Children in the New Testament: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=12120213990

What about the New Covenant? https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=128201947410

The Children of Believers Must be Baptized: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=2620752200

Mode of Baptism -- How Should we Baptize? https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=211202257477

 

[Jonathan95]

You might find my pastor's series helpful (as yet another resource). I especially recommend the sermons about Children in the OT and NT and the nature of the New Covenant.

The Sacraments: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1126191957421

What is Baptism? https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=124192331151

One Covenant of Grace: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=129191832502

One Church & One Gospel: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=121619203372

Children in the Old Testament: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=114202245424

Children in the New Testament: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=12120213990

What about the New Covenant? https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=128201947410

The Children of Believers Must be Baptized: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=2620752200

Mode of Baptism -- How Should we Baptize? https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=211202257477

Perfect! Thank you!

 

[Jake]

I was reminded: I found this sermon helpful as a short, one sermon treatment on the topic of baptism from my former pastor: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1211151735253

 

[Jonathan95]

I was reminded: I found this sermon helpful as a short, one sermon treatment on the topic of baptism from my former pastor: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1211151735253

I really appreciate this. Thanks brother!

 

[KMK]

I find myself non-dogmatic on this issue. I am not sure if I am alone in this. However, I have heard arguments from both sides (from individuals like RC Sproul, Bahnsen, Tom Ascol, etc.) and both make sense. I believe scripture can be used to argue both sides as well. In the end, I believe I could be comfortable in either a credo or paedo baptism church (Protestant of course).

Jason, this is a Paedo-baptist Only forum. Your signature says LBC, so you have to bite your tongue.

 

[timfost]

We could get into the nuts and bolts of the issue and many here are more than capable. But on a practical level, I can ask my four-year-old to pray before dinner, instruct my children (six between the ages of 14 and 4) in the Lord (Eph. 6:1), and regard them as holy (1 Cor. 7:14). I find it difficult to fathom parenting children without viewing them as part of the household of faith.

Nearly two years ago my brother lost his wife very suddenly. She was carrying fullterm twins who perished with her. How are we to regard these infants? In Christ or outside of Christ? How does the Baptist account for the salvation of babies who die? Age of accountability? I can assure you there is a better biblical argument for baptizing infants than finding age of accountability in the Bible. Since Scripture calls these children holy (see Deut. 7:6, 1 Cor. 7:14), I have every confidence that these children, Elliot and Juliana, are with their mother in the mighty arms of their Savior, even though they never even drew a breath that could return a verbal profession of faith in their Savior.

I say these things because the issue of baptism goes much farther than an intellectual discussion about biblical covenants. It directly instructs us how we raise our children. In many ways, it is one of the most practical doctrines set forth in scripture and imperative for the household of faith, if indeed the household includes all members of the household.

Finally, in the event of an infant's death amongst the household of faith, we can confidently say with Dort, "godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom it pleases God to call out of this life in their infancy" (Dort 1:17).

Blessings on your continuing discussions!

 

[Stephen L Smith]

How does the Baptist account for the salvation of babies who die? Age of accountability?

Just to clarify your question, the 1689 Baptist Confession 10:3 says "Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who works when and where and how he pleases. The same is true of every elect person who is incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word."

 

[Jonathan95]

We could get into the nuts and bolts of the issue and many here are more than capable. But on a practical level, I can ask my four-year-old to pray before dinner, instruct my children (six between the ages of 14 and 4) in the Lord (Eph. 6:1), and regard them as holy (1 Cor. 7:14). I find it difficult to fathom parenting children without viewing them as part of the household of faith.

Nearly two years ago my brother lost his wife very suddenly. She was carrying fullterm twins who perished with her. How are we to regard these infants? In Christ or outside of Christ? How does the Baptist account for the salvation of babies who die? Age of accountability? I can assure you there is a better biblical argument for baptizing infants than finding age of accountability in the Bible. Since Scripture calls these children holy (see Deut. 7:6, 1 Cor. 7:14), I have every confidence that these children, Elliot and Juliana, are with their mother in the mighty arms of their Savior, even though they never even drew a breath that could return a verbal profession of faith in their Savior.

I say these things because the issue of baptism goes much farther than an intellectual discussion about biblical covenants. It directly instructs us how we raise our children. In many ways, it is one of the most practical doctrines set forth in scripture and imperative for the household of faith, if indeed the household includes all members of the household.

Finally, in the event of an infant's death amongst the household of faith, we can confidently say with Dort, "godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom it pleases God to call out of this life in their infancy" (Dort 1:17).

Blessings on your continuing discussions!

Just to clarify your question, the 1689 Baptist Confession 10:3 says "Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who works when and where and how he pleases. The same is true of every elect person who is incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word."

So, for the paedobaptist, you view your children as elect? I think the way I've heard it taught in Baptist churches I've attended is that we have no way of knowing whether or not a child is elect. Baptists I know would never say that they are sure that God has saved little ones who perish. There is just no way to know, and therefore no way to really encourage the parents.

It's not a matter of whether or not God does save them. It's more about our surety of the matter.

To that point, if I die tonight and a funeral is held, I'm sure that my church will have no qualms with claiming I am with the Lord.

In the same way as with an infant, they would admit that they have no real way of knowing whether or not that's true; the only clue being if I bore good fruit in my life. So they would say it based on what they have seen me do.

I guess for the paedobaptist, the fact that the child was born of a believer is as much proof(if not more) of being a child of God as bearing fruit would be?

 

[timfost]

Just to clarify your question, the 1689 Baptist Confession 10:3 says "Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who works when and where and how he pleases. The same is true of every elect person who is incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word."

Thank you for this. I know that Baptists believe that infants who die can be saved. My point is this: There is no assurance that an infant is saved since they are not considered part of the household of faith, unless age of accountability is held to. Apart from age of accountability, wouldn't it be more accurate to assume that the infant is not saved?

I bring this up not to debate the issue, but to show how practical the issue is in the family.

 

[Jonathan95]

Thank you for this. I know that Baptists believe that infants who die can be saved. My point is this: There is no assurance that an infant is saved since they are not considered part of the household of faith, unless age of accountability is held to. Apart from age of accountability, wouldn't it be more accurate to assume that the infant is not saved?

I bring this up not to debate the issue, but to show how practical the issue is in the family.

I agree. I think this is one of the reasons why a Baptist has a hard time with the idea of baptizing an infant. They only wish to baptize those whom they are reasonably sure is saved based on the fruit of the individual.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

So, for the paedobaptist, you view your children as elect?

I guess for the paedobaptist, the fact that the child was born of a believer is as much proof(if not more) of being a child of God as bearing fruit would be?

Since no one answered this yet I’ll venture to comment that the paedobaptist doesn’t view his children as elect, but does view them as initiated into membership into the visible church by baptism. Baptism is the sign of their inclusion into the visible church and they are under the outward administration of the covenant of grace. So children are brought up as church members, as Christians. That includes of course teaching them that they must trust in Christ and repent of their sins.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I think this is one of the reasons why a Baptist has a hard time with the idea of baptizing an infant. They only wish to baptize those whom they are reasonably sure is saved based on the fruit of the individual.

So, for the paedobaptist, you view your children as elect? I think the way I've heard it taught in Baptist churches I've attended is that we have no way of knowing whether or not a child is elect. Baptists I know would never say that they are sure that God has saved little ones who perish. There is just no way to know, and therefore no way to really encourage the parents.
..........
I guess for the paedobaptist, the fact that the child was born of a believer is as much proof(if not more) of being a child of God as bearing fruit would be?

No one knows who the elect are. Baptism (as with circumcision) is based not on "evidences" but on biblical criteria (whatever those are; we disagree). Simply as a descriptive: Baptist practice "errs" on the side of caution; Presbyterian practice "errs" on the side of presumption. These notions, however, are leaving the realm of prescriptive requirements for baptism.

On the death of a child, the Presbyterian parent would be advised: "Remember the promise God has made: I will be God to you, and to your children." In the end, the only thing we ever hold on to is NOT fruits, but promises. Trust in "fruit" is fruitless; such is dependence on the arm of the flesh.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

My point is this: There is no assurance that an infant is saved since they are not considered part of the household of faith, unless age of accountability is held to.

Jeri said:

I’ll venture to comment that the paedobaptist doesn’t view his children as elect,

Bruce said:

No one knows who the elect are.

That is basically what the 1689 Baptist Confession 10:3 is saying.

 

[timfost]

Jeri said:

Bruce said:

That is basically what the 1689 Baptist Confession 10:3 is saying.

Col. 3:20: "Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, put on tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness, longsuffering..."

1 Pet. 1:1-2: "To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father..."

Dort 1:18 "...godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom it pleases God to call out of this life in their infancy."

I agree that we do not infallibly know who the elect are, but insofar as one is a member of the household of faith, we regard and call each other elect. This includes our children.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Individuals are elected, and collectively they are referred to as the elect. Paul (in various places) and Peter, pastors and those speaking to and for the church for centuries have and ought to speak to the gathered church as the elect: "...knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God," 1Ths.1:4.

As individuals, we should comfort ourselves with the assurance that the doctrine of election is meant to provide. When shaken by doubts and fears about our own standing with God (but it is not for the proud and unrepentant), we should take ourselves to the strong security of the foundation of divine election; this is the function of Rom.9 in the scope of Paul's presentation of the gospel in that letter.

But it is not IN divine election of any individual that we should settle our minds; but rather in the Elector. If the nation is at war, I am not at ease in some company of fellow men simply because of the "badge" we all wear bearing personal witness to one's allegiance; nor (and here is the comparison to divine election) because I think, "this is a handpicked outfit." The latter confidence might not be a bad comparison to the Baptist church down the road, after all in that scenario each man knows he's been tapped for this assignment, and so expects all his comrades were also.

So, I'm more comfortable saying, "I am elect," and "we (the church) are the elect," less comfortable with saying he is elect. I think what Dort is about, in 1:17, is not assurance to sorrowing parents for assuaging their grief with the certainty that little Johnny is elect, he's OK. But rather, that God is in control of salvation from beginning to end; salvation (starting with election) is for the church; salvation is not dependent on the church, and not on baptism administered by the church; and that we know who belongs to the church (and whom they should baptize in order to mark them) and that the promises of God are for the church.

Election's focus is not the person elected, but the Elector. This is what makes the perverse inversion of the biblical doctrine of election so ungodly. There we see man turned into the elector, who chooses God (who then ratifies man's choice). However, at least that mixed up view understands that the one doing the election is the focus of the business. When we turn election's focus on the elected, we've strangely managed to turn a God-focused doctrine--of all the parts of salvation, it is the most God-focused--into one with the focus on man.

As a child of believers Johnny belongs to the church; salvation is for the church; baptism (a promise for believers) marked Johnny as a member of the church; parental believers should not doubt the promises of God; election eventually produces faith, that apprehends Christ, who saves his elect. Should Johnny die in infancy, nothing has changed respecting God or his promises.

What reason is there to doubt divine promises that have connection to Johnny? If the answer is, "I never had a chance to see Johnny do/say/be whatever," that person is focusing on the powers of Johnny, not the powers of God. If Johnny was baptized, his parent was given in that rite a sensible sign for the purpose of strengthening faith, faith in the promises.

Belief in the promise gives us hope of salvation, which is founded on the election of the one saved, which comes about because of God the Elector. I've been elected, I know, for I have believed. I belong to the elect, I know, for I belong to the church, the house of the elect. Are you (individual) elect? Is Johnny elect? Are you in the church, have you ever been, or have you been expelled? Is Johnny in the church? Whoever is in the church has just that much expectancy due for him in his case: that he belongs to the elect.

When I say to someone else, personally, you/he have been elected, there is some kind of qualifier (spoken or unspoken) on that statement. When I say it of myself, there is no qualification. When I say it of the church, there is no qualification.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

The primary difference between a Baptist view of baptism and a Reformed Paedobaptist view owes to a fundamental difference over what a disciple is.
A disciple is not a person whom the Church says: "He is probably elect and regenerate, therefore we will baptize him." Baptism is then thought to correspond to the presumption of regeneration. It is the process after a person has been discipled.

Rather, a disciple is one who is to be taught. Adults who have never been in the household of faith are baptized because they are to be disciples. They must submit themselves to the teaching and discipline of the Church. The Church does not baptize them because it presumes Spiritual rebirth It baptizes for the admittance of the party into the place where the Gospel is preached, the Sacraments are administered and they are urged Today to believe in the Gospel. This is why baptism is to be only administered once - because the party baptized is admitted into the visible Kingdom not on the basis of known faith but for the purposes of following after the things of God and letting the Spirit do its Sovereign work.

I never look at an adult or a child knowing that any are elect. That is up to the Spirit of God I do not assume regeneration. That, too, is hidden and the Spirit sovereignly works these matters. It is up to the Church to preach the Word and declare God's Promises in the Sacraments. It is up to the Spirit to seal the reality of things signified. But, never, is the Church to operate on the basis of things that belong to God.

A child of believing parents is a disciple. They have been born into the household of God Parents are commanded to raise them in the fear and admonition of the Lord. It is only when we create the artificial and un-Biblical notion that a person is baptize AFTER they have been fully convinced (after they have been disciples) that we turn baptism from an initiatory rite that is focused on the Promise of God into a confirmatory right grounded in the wavering profession of man.

 

[Jonathan95]

Really good responses, this along with all of the resources are very helpful.

Is someone able to recommend something on Federal Vision Theology, more specifically paedo communion? Any resources or thoughts to ponder and be aware of?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Really good responses, this along with all of the resources are very helpful.

Is someone able to recommend something on Federal Vision Theology, more specifically paedo communion? Any resources or thoughts to ponder and be aware of?

Why do you want to read about FV? It sounds like you've been warned that Baptists who "go Paedo" are at risk of slipping into FV. The way to avoid error is not to study error but solid teaching. IA number of theological fads have come and gone since FV. I consider FV to be a passing fashion that will have no lasting impact because it isn't rooted in anything solid or historical or confessional.

Oh, it'll take a Puritan quote here or an Anglican there. A bit of anachroninistic language here combined with an idiosyncratic understanding over there.

The reality is that there is some diversity within the Reformed communion but the core of what our Confessions teach about Covenant, union with Christ, and the fruits of union with Christ is very consistent. You'd be better off grounding yourself in The Marrow of Modern Divinity, The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification, and Owen on Sin and Temptation to get an understanding at the central ideas about the importance of the Covenant of Grace and Christ as Mediator. Once you got that, then you'd see how dumb FV theology is when it speaks of all Church members as having union with Christ "in some sense".

Another good resource is A Puritan Theology by Beeke and Jones.

 

[Jonathan95]

The way to avoid error is not to study error but solid teaching

You asked why. My answer is that this is what I always do. I saw Paedobaptism as error and so I never studied it but now that I am studying it, it makes sense and I am coming around to the idea. I'm not saying I'm going to entrench myself in the teachings of error or heresy. If you look at my library, I own The New World translation of the Scriptures, the Book of Mormon, Nag Hamadi Gnostic Gospels, Quran, etc

We should always hunt for the truth. I belong to God and I'm not gonna fall away from the faith because some heresy pops its ugly head out. And I shouldn't be discouraged for wanting to hear different opinions. Otherwise I would never have joined a board that contains both Baptists and Paedos.

All of this to say, I just don't know what FV is. And when someone says they support it, I want to know what is being discussed. I met some women who support paedo communion and I disagree with it, but they wouldn't talk to me so I don't know why they believe what they believe and I wish to understand it more.

EDIT: I am unwilling to detail this thread though. My main question to come out of all of this is: Why aren't infant's allowed to take communion while being allowed to be baptized?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Speaking as a paedobaptist, I certainly hope you don't study paedobaptism, find it a suitable notion, and adopt it. One's baptismal practice should be a conclusion flowing from one's theology. If someone adopts a practice with an inadequate foundation, one may easily backfill the "basis" for it with some very peculiar and pernicious nonsense. This concern is the reason why SF proposed you should study some solid theology prior to poking around in some heretical swamp.

FV can be hard to pin down, because like most heresy it's slippery. Some of its original proponents now avoid the name (but not its ideas). "Covenantal Arminianism" is one term used to describe FV, (see https://heidelblog.net/2019/11/just...n-of-the-federal-visionists-and-their-allies/) inasmuch as it resurrects specific errors that the Canons of Dort expressely reject. Have you ever read the Canons, including their Rejections of Errors? Many Reformed people never have, much less Calvinistic Baptists. Though most all of them claim to abide staunchly in the "5-Points." Then, it isn't surprising when some are drawn off the reservation, so to speak, by plausible sounding errors.

Paedo-communion is another fundamental error, denying historic Reformed theology and covenant theology. And that, while it claims to "get it right" after so long a time. PC is a practice in search of biblical justification and a connection to our theology. PC begins with a theory: Everyone in the covenant community should bear the marks of that community. So, if baptism is for babies, then communion is also for babies (or as young as can eat solid food).

This is actually a principle that is indistinguishable at the theoretical level from the Baptist concept of a regenerate membership, which authorizes access to the other NT ordinance of the Lord's Supper. In other words, an argument can be made that PC is the inverse of Baptist commitment. The Baptist simply makes both signs of the New Covenant signs of "confirmation," while the PC makes both signs of "identification." There's quite bit of anecdotal evidence that many (if not most) PC advocates are former Baptists. Nothing against the Baptists, but they at least saw the reason to organize their own churches.

The historic Reformed position is that baptism is the NC sign of initiation, and communion is the NC sign of profession. The Lord's Supper demands greater things than baptism, including discernment of the body and blood of the Lord. PC advocates believe Old Covenant feasts were indiscriminate "family affairs," and by analogy (including to circumcision) so must the NC feast be equally inclusive. The OC feasts were not indiscriminate, and so the whole argument breaks down right there; but it isn't a simple thing to move those who have bought the concept away from this pet conviction.

Continue your research as you will. Hopefully you will not slip into a fascination with an attractive idea, actually little more than a thin cover over nothing.