Feelings on paedobaptism

[Herald]

Matthew, in Andrew's defense he said:

My first response to such a brother is to be joyful with him and celebrate the fact that he has obeyed the conviction set on his heart. That is not to say that I necessarily agree with the conviction but the circumstances are not the appropriate ones for me to express my opinion, obviously. Does my first response make me a crummy baptist? Should I keep silent? Or if I am told directly do I just say, "Oh" and not worry about it?

It seems to me that Andrew was unsure of how he should react. If Andrew, or any Baptist, is actually rejoicing in the baptism of an infant, then you wouldn't be the only one to see the disconnect between conviction and sentimentality. On the other hand, a few of us have offered counsel and commentary that doesn't contain ambiguity. Do you consider it sentimentality to rejoice that a child is being raised in a Christian home even though we are not compromising our theological conviction on the matter of baptism?

 

[MW]

It seems to me that Andrew was unsure of how he should react. If Andrew, or any Baptist, is actually rejoicing in the baptism of an infant, then you wouldn't be the only one to see the disconnect between conviction and sentimentality. On the other hand, a few of us have offered counsel and commentary that doesn't contain ambiguity. Do you consider it sentimentality to rejoice that a child is being raised in a Christian home even though we are not compromising our theological conviction on the matter of baptism?

If the OP pertained to raising a child in a Christian home, I could understand the question. It pertains to baptising a child. That is the point to which I have directed my comments.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

It seems to me that Andrew was unsure of how he should react. If Andrew, or any Baptist, is actually rejoicing in the baptism of an infant, then you wouldn't be the only one to see the disconnect between conviction and sentimentality. On the other hand, a few of us have offered counsel and commentary that doesn't contain ambiguity. Do you consider it sentimentality to rejoice that a child is being raised in a Christian home even though we are not compromising our theological conviction on the matter of baptism?

If the OP pertained to raising a child in a Christian home, I could understand the question. It pertains to baptising a child. That is the point to which I have directed my comments.

Is not raising a child in a Christian home a part of the Covenant Child perspective in the Paedo formula? I thought that was a major part of it? I rejoice in that part of it. I will always rejoice when a child is raised in the admonition of the Lord.

Now I am about to enter debate. The OP stated that he didn't want debate and I can easily go into the Covenant of Grace, the non elect in relationship to that, election, and so forth. Let's just start a new thread if that is where this is headed. I rejoice that a child will be taught and admonished in the Lord. That is more than most children in this world will ever truly experience. Especially in a Turkish (old term) country.

 

[MW]

The OP stated that he didn't want debate

The OP said there should be no debate on "credo vs paedobaptism." There has been no debate of that subject.

 

[Herald]

It seems to me that Andrew was unsure of how he should react. If Andrew, or any Baptist, is actually rejoicing in the baptism of an infant, then you wouldn't be the only one to see the disconnect between conviction and sentimentality. On the other hand, a few of us have offered counsel and commentary that doesn't contain ambiguity. Do you consider it sentimentality to rejoice that a child is being raised in a Christian home even though we are not compromising our theological conviction on the matter of baptism?

If the OP pertained to raising a child in a Christian home, I could understand the question. It pertains to baptising a child. That is the point to which I have directed my comments.

Matthew, if I may inquire; how would you answer the question I posited had the OP been about raising a child in a Christian home?

 

[Marrow Man]

I would strongly discourage starting another credo v. paedo thread. It's not as if we are going to convince one another of our particular views and it will likely end with strong words. I suggest we stick to the original question of this thread, which I believe has been answered.

I will again emphasize that my Facebook statement was only that I had baptized my daughter and it was a great privilege as a father and a pastor. No statement was made as to whether it was an infant baptism or an adult baptism. The issue should be whether a father rejoices if he is able to baptize his child. Rejoice with me in that is all I ask. Or don't, if that's your inclination. But I'd rather it be the former.

Bill, I appreciate your comments above, dear friend. To me, that reflects the very best perspective that a Baptist might have toward a Presbyterian brother over this issue.

 

[AThornquist]

Matthew, in Andrew's defense he said:

My first response to such a brother is to be joyful with him and celebrate the fact that he has obeyed the conviction set on his heart. That is not to say that I necessarily agree with the conviction but the circumstances are not the appropriate ones for me to express my opinion, obviously. Does my first response make me a crummy baptist? Should I keep silent? Or if I am told directly do I just say, "Oh" and not worry about it?

It seems to me that Andrew was unsure of how he should react. If Andrew, or any Baptist, is actually rejoicing in the baptism of an infant, then you wouldn't be the only one to see the disconnect between conviction and sentimentality. On the other hand, a few of us have offered counsel and commentary that doesn't contain ambiguity. Do you consider it sentimentality to rejoice that a child is being raised in a Christian home even though we are not compromising our theological conviction on the matter of baptism?

Thank you, Bill. You understood my intentions correctly. Matthew, I apologize if I wasn't clear enough, though I thought I had been since most understood my situation. Regardless, as others have said my instinctual joy is not at all from the act of infant baptism itself but rather the intentions of the parents and the providence of God. Ultimately my question was, as Bill said, posed because I was unsure of how to feel.

About debating: though I did not intend for this thread to be a debate and in fact did not expect there to be one (what was I thinking?!), I wouldn't mind it being used for that purpose. This thread has been edifying to me and I appreciate that greatly.

[Edit - I cross-posted with Tim. And by the way Tim, I'm really sorry for using the baptism of your little one as my example without asking. I hope I didn't take anything away from what I hope has been a joyous event for you by causing a disagreement over its validity or how it should be perceived or whatever. I simply thought that it was a decent example since others could relate. Again, I apologize.]

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Congratulations Pastor Philips on the baptism!

 

[jogri17]

I prefer to put my thoughts crudely. When I see credos not baptize their children I just think in my head they should be reprimanded by angels for spiritual child neglect. And I'm sure the creodo friends think ''Joe, some day yours going to horrible spiritually abuse your child with water''. we can be friends just not attend the same church. But all credos and all paedeos (unless your a kuyperian or federal visionist) want their children to repent and believe the promises of God in the Gospel. And you don't baptism to do that. You need the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit par the predication de la parole.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Were any of you raised by Godly people of one baptismal persuasion and when you grew up you embraced the opposite side of the argument from those who raised you? How did you deal with that? I was raised by Godly creedo baptists and I am a paedo baptist. I don't really know what to do about it. Sometimes I feel a bit ashamed because they know I disagree with things they have believed all their lives.

 

[Marrow Man]

I was raised in a credo church and am now paedo.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I was raised in a credo church and am now paedo.

What did your parents think of you embracing paedo and how did you deal with having that doctrinal difference with them?

 

[Marrow Man]

It hasn't been a bone of contention. My dad is deceased, and my mom still goes to that country Baptist church I grew up in. Credo is all she's ever known for the most part. She has asked questions about infant baptism (actually, more about mode than anything else). My wife's parents drove up for the baptism, but my mom did not come -- I didn't really invite her because I didn't want it to be an issue. I mentioned the baptism, but she gave no indication she really wanted to come.

 

[au5t1n]

I was also. I am sure many of us were raised in the other camp from our own. It hasn't really been an issue with my parents, although maybe my dad will have something to say when I'm married and it becomes important.

 

[Herald]

I suppose you could say I was paedo when I was a Roman Catholic. Since I became a believer I've been credo. I was on the teeter totter in 2005/2006, but the issue was settled shortly thereafter.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I suppose you could say I was paedo when I was a Roman Catholic. Since I became a believer I've been credo. I was on the teeter totter in 2005/2006, but the issue was settled shortly thereafter.

What settled it for you?

---------- Post added at 03:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:41 PM ----------

It hasn't been a bone of contention. My dad is deceased, and my mom still goes to that country Baptist church I grew up in. Credo is all she's ever known for the most part. She has asked questions about infant baptism (actually, more about mode than anything else). My wife's parents drove up for the baptism, but my mom did not come -- I didn't really invite her because I didn't want it to be an issue. I mentioned the baptism, but she gave no indication she really wanted to come.

It rarely ever comes up but my grandparents ( I was raised by them. My grandpa was a Southern Baptist pastor for over 40 years) look at me with a bit of dissapointment when it does. They think that it makes people who aren't saved think they are. In addition they say that baptism is supposed to be by full immersion instead of sprinkling or pouring, so they think that our baptism are invalid. But I just try to change the subject and move on because it hurts to have contention with them. They are relieved that I left teh RCC though! That was certainly a low point with them. They thought they had raised a fool for awhile.

 

[Herald]

For me, the pivot on which my Baptist convictions solidified was the nature and administration of the New Covenant. Once I became convinced that their was a discontinuity between the Abrahamic Covenant & the New Covenant everything else
fell in line. Obviously there is more detail to my decision, but the discontinuity of the Covenant was the major contributing factor.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

For me, the pivot on which my Baptist convictions solidified was the nature and administration of the New Covenant. Once I became convinced that their was a discontinuity between the Abrahamic Covenant & the New Covenant everything else
fell in line. Obviously there is more detail to my decision, but the discontinuity of the Covenant was the major contributing factor.

What do you mean by a discontinuity? I thought that there were two people on earth Israel and the reprobate. As Christians are we not grafted into Israel? As I understand it the seed of Abraham is spiritual but it is still the seed of Abraham because it is of saving faith. As Abraham was in Christ by his faith so are his seed in Christ by their faith and that seed now includes people from all over the world not just Israel.

Does a covenantal disconnect need to occur to make creedo baptist covenant theology operate? I have not heard of this before.

 

[Herald]

I'm mobile right now so I can't do the discussion justice. There are two classes of people. That's not the issue. The issue is the temporal administration of the NC. The sign of the AC was applied to all males born into the covenant nation. The sign did not guarantee saving faith to the one who received the sign. Therefore, the sign of the AC had all to do with national identity, not saving faith. The sign pointed to God's promise only. The NC is made made only with those who believe, and only includes those who believe. Imposters are in the ranks, but they are illegitimate and not members. Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Hebrews helped me understand this.

Again, I'm typing this on Tapatalk, so my time is limited. I'll try to address it later.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I'm mobile right now so I can't do the discussion justice. There are two classes of people. That's not the issue. The issue is the temporal administration of the NC. The sign of the AC was applied to all males born into the covenant nation. The sign did not guarantee saving faith to the one who received the sign. Therefore, the sign of the AC had all to do with national identity, not saving faith. The sign pointed to God's promise only. The NC is made made only with those who believe, and only includes those who believe. Imposters are in the ranks, but they are illegitimate and not members. Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Hebrews helped me understand this.

Again, I'm typing this on Tapatalk, so my time is limited. I'll try to address it later.

I think I understand you. You are saying that there is a change between the Abrahamic covenant and the New Covenant, but the only change is the sign of the covenant. You believe that now the sign of the covenant is not circumcision but baptism and that it is limited in administration to those who have professed faith in Christ. So you do not believe that the children of believers are in covenant. Is this a correct statement?

 

[DMcFadden]

I guess having been socialized in broad evangelical circles and educated in the same, most of my close friends disagreed with each other on a number of these issues (e.g., baptism, eschatology, Lord's Supper, spiritual gifts today) that we wore out in late night bull sessions. Discovering early on that we were not likely to change the others' minds, and concluding that we had more in common than separated us, there was never the mindset I hear echo in some threads on the PB. We did not deny the salvation of one another or express horror at the intramural "family" differences among us. I am currently exploring the baptism issue without any sense of "betrayal" of my roots (even though it would probably, and rightly, cost me my job if a shift comes). During the last five years my view of eschatology has shifted from historic premil to amil. Again, in my circles this is not the life-and-death matter that it appears to be for some of our PB folks.

This is not some "sentimental" latitudinarianism either. A Baptist should pastor a Baptist church and a Presbyterian a Presbyterian church. Ideas do have consequences. If one changes views, they should change "jobs" and churches as well (preferably voluntarily, but by compulsion if necessary). But, then, again, I have never understood "liberal" Republicans either. A "RHINO" should have the courage of their convictions and join the DEMs.

But, when it comes to a father baptizing his daughter, the differences separating an orthodox evangelical credo-baptist and paedo-baptist are relatively irrelevant to the issue at hand. Celebrate with your brother his great joy, even if it is that turkey Marrow Man.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I'm mobile right now so I can't do the discussion justice. There are two classes of people. That's not the issue. The issue is the temporal administration of the NC. The sign of the AC was applied to all males born into the covenant nation. The sign did not guarantee saving faith to the one who received the sign. Therefore, the sign of the AC had all to do with national identity, not saving faith. The sign pointed to God's promise only. The NC is made made only with those who believe, and only includes those who believe. Imposters are in the ranks, but they are illegitimate and not members. Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Hebrews helped me understand this.

Again, I'm typing this on Tapatalk, so my time is limited. I'll try to address it later.

I think I understand you. You are saying that there is a change between the Abrahamic covenant and the New Covenant, but the only change is the sign of the covenant. You believe that now the sign of the covenant is not circumcision but baptism and that it is limited in administration to those who have professed faith in Christ. So you do not believe that the children of believers are in covenant. Is this a correct statement?

Dave,

Just to explain the Reformed Baptist position (and not debate the issue) I would just say that the Credo only position believes that there is only ONE Covenant of Grace and that it only consists of members who are elect. The Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants both administered promises that pertained to the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Works. There were promises made concerning both the elect and non elect. For instance Abraham was given promises concerning Ishmael even though he was rejected concerning the Everlasting Covenant in Genesis 17. Both the Abrahamic and Mosaic administered promises that were national, civil, and ceremonial which are not administered in the New Covenant. That is where the discontinuity is attributed. We all hold to some level of discontinuity between the covenants but the level of discontinuity is something that is debated. For the Reformed Baptist we believe that the New Covenant is purely of the Covenant of Grace.

Just explaining it. If you want to see this debated start a new thread or do a search concerning these Covenants.

 

[Herald]

I'm mobile right now so I can't do the discussion justice. There are two classes of people. That's not the issue. The issue is the temporal administration of the NC. The sign of the AC was applied to all males born into the covenant nation. The sign did not guarantee saving faith to the one who received the sign. Therefore, the sign of the AC had all to do with national identity, not saving faith. The sign pointed to God's promise only. The NC is made made only with those who believe, and only includes those who believe. Imposters are in the ranks, but they are illegitimate and not members. Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Hebrews helped me understand this.

Again, I'm typing this on Tapatalk, so my time is limited. I'll try to address it later.

I think I understand you. You are saying that there is a change between the Abrahamic covenant and the New Covenant, but the only change is the sign of the covenant. You believe that now the sign of the covenant is not circumcision but baptism and that it is limited in administration to those who have professed faith in Christ. So you do not believe that the children of believers are in covenant. Is this a correct statement?

Exactly. Children born into believing households are not members of the New Covenant. There certainly are blessings of the New Covenant community that are conveyed to them by the very fact they are born into believing households. They will be exposed to the family of God (the church), and hear the Gospel presented within their family and the church. As their family displays the reality of the Spirit in their lives, a child born into such a household will be an eye witness. When the day comes that they place their faith in Christ, they will become members of the New Covenant, and also its temporal administration. In other words, they will be spiritually part of the New Covenant, and able to participate as physical members of the New Covenant within the church.

The above is what I believe. Randy gave a good admonition; we are obviously not debating this topic. If you wish to carry this discussion further, feel free to start a new thread for that purpose.

 

[JML]

Were any of you raised by Godly people of one baptismal persuasion and when you grew up you embraced the opposite side of the argument from those who raised you? How did you deal with that? I was raised by Godly creedo baptists and I am a paedo baptist. I don't really know what to do about it. Sometimes I feel a bit ashamed because they know I disagree with things they have believed all their lives.

My whole family is paedo. I came to the credo position in college and remain the only credo. How do I deal with that? The sad thing is that both positions are abused. I have known credo baptists to baptize any professor even if they show no sign of true repentance. I also have family members who don't even go to church who bring in their infants to be baptized. I deal with the latter constantly with my family. That is something that I definitely want no part of. Personally, I don't have anyone in my family that is faithful to church or to right gospel doctrine, so I don't really know how to answer that question because I would probably deal with it differently if they seemed to be godly.

 

[MW]

Matthew, if I may inquire; how would you answer the question I posited had the OP been about raising a child in a Christian home?

In the words of Psalm 127; but sadly that also would form no part of an antipaedobaptist's rejoicing because they don't believe the promises pertaining to Abraham's offspring are any part of the new covenant.

 

[Herald]

Matthew, if I may inquire; how would you answer the question I posited had the OP been about raising a child in a Christian home?

In the words of Psalm 127; but sadly that also would form no part of an antipaedobaptist's rejoicing because they don't believe the promises pertaining to Abraham's offspring are any part of the new covenant.

Mmmm. I don't see how baptism changes the implication of Psalm 127:3-5.

Speaking only for myself, I can rejoice over a child being raised in a Christian home because the promise of the forgiveness of sins applies to all who believe the Gospel (Acts 2:39, 40); and where better to be exposed to the Gospel than in a Christian home?

 

[Marrow Man]

I'm just glad this didn't turn into a debate...

 

[MW]

Speaking only for myself, I can rejoice over a child being raised in a Christian home because the promise of the forgiveness of sins applies to all who believe the Gospel (Acts 2:39, 40); and where better to be exposed to the Gospel than in a Christian home?

Bill, how can there by any such creature as a "Christian home" according to the antipaedobaptist understanding of the new covenant? You are working with borrowed capital.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Matthew, if I may inquire; how would you answer the question I posited had the OP been about raising a child in a Christian home?

In the words of Psalm 127; but sadly that also would form no part of an antipaedobaptist's rejoicing because they don't believe the promises pertaining to Abraham's offspring are any part of the new covenant.

Rev. Winzer,
I think you and I have discussed this enough to know that this is not true by now. I am not sure what to make of this statement. Are you saying that we do not believe that there is a true Isreal?

I think this needs to be another thread. Do I have permission to make another thread about this Rev. Winzer?

Not saying that I will devote a lot of time to it but think this is a misconception or misunderstanding.

 

[Herald]

I'm just glad this didn't turn into a debate...