No! I refuse! You Can't Make me become a paedobaptist!

[BlackCalvinist]

Okay, so last night, I had the usual credo-paedo conversation with Tony Arnold, pastor of Gaithersburg Community Church. Tony's covenantal, historicist premill.

So........ I'm sitting here reading an article over at reformedtheology.ca and the 'light' just clicked on in the back of my head that (for the first time) made the paedo viewpoint make sense.

Maybe I'm temporarily insane. I did get abducted by the guys in black suits a while back......

I'm off to read some Fred Malone before I wake up Presbyterian.....

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

I'd be interested to see you reply to my "13 Questions for Reformed Baptists" thread.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Kerry,
I suggest staying away from Malone. Continue reading presbyterian material. My 2 cents: Just because you were reared in a credo camp, does not make you credo by default. You owe it to God and to yourself to endeavor to fully understand the position, else the position you own is not truly a position at all.

 

[Me Died Blue]

I can relate in that nothing about the paedo- viewpoint made sense to me until one day the "Aha!" light came on regarding one single point, and only then did other points subsequently begin to make sense.

Out of curiosity, Kerry, what is the point you're thinking of that started to make the overall paedo- view possibly seem at least somewhat plausible?

 

[Archlute]

Kerry,

Reading Malone won't help you at this point. As a Baptist, I fought the proponents of covenantal baptism for two-and-a-half years, and Malone's book was my last sure defense. But at the end of that period, after studying the arguments from every possible angle (atomistically speaking, even the syntactical possibilities of the key Greek passages, as well as word studies in the LXX, etc.) I realized that there was no longer anything in Malone's work (or anyone else's) to assure me of the correctness of the Baptist position. They were just unable (or unwilling) to deal with the fully biblically-encompassing hermeneutic of the covenantal position.

I used to return occasionally to Malone, wondering if maybe I'd missed something in his argument(s), but each time I returned I would find myself saying, "He's only attacking isolated sub-positions, not the real issues, and he's ignoring some important arguments as well." The more frequently you return, the quicker your dissatisfaction will make itself manifest. I love my Baptist friends and family, but I am now a completely convinced and unashamed conservative, confessionally-reformed, Presbyterian (I'm in the habit of making all of those qualifications - my wife's entire family is in the PCUSA, and we must distinguish!)

Hope that's more of an encouraging challenge for you than anything else.

In Christ.

 

[JohnV]

I used to return occasionally to Malone, wondering if maybe I'd missed something in his argument(s), but each time I returned I would find myself saying, "He's only attacking isolated sub-positions, not the real issues, and he's ignoring some important arguments as well." The more frequently you return, the quicker your dissatisfaction will make itself manifest. I love my Baptist friends and family, but I am now a completely convinced and unashamed conservative, confessionally-reformed, Presbyterian (I'm in the habit of making all of those qualifications - my wife's entire family is in the PCUSA, and we must distinguish!)

Well said, Adam. I've never been a Credo, being Paedo all my life, but a number of people have talked to me about it, and you say it very well. I really don't know what they're up about when they're missing so much. But I grant that the kind that I usually am faced with are Arminian Baptists, who hang an awful lot on the "coming out of the water" type of arguments. In part I feel left out of discussions like this because of my being raised Paedo. Its not right to think that therefore I've never thought it out, or really confronted the arguments; but all the same, I also haven't the richness that those who have come out of the Credo persuasion have received in their struggles. My struggles with the debate is not likely as deep a wrestling as theirs. So I usually confine myself to helping out in areas where the richness of my heritage can be of assistance in understanding it. But you hit on my feelings exactly in your post about the integrity of the position on its own, apart from the feelings we bring into it.

 

[LawrenceU]

Kerry,
You don't need Malone. All you need is in the Scriptures.

 

[Tirian]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
I can relate in that nothing about the paedo- viewpoint made sense to me until one day the "Aha!" light came on regarding one single point, and only then did other points subsequently begin to make sense.

Chris,

Which point was it for you? I have been considering this prayerfully for sometime and I'm not convinced yet by the paedo viewpoint.

Matt

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by Matthew Glover

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
I can relate in that nothing about the paedo- viewpoint made sense to me until one day the "Aha!" light came on regarding one single point, and only then did other points subsequently begin to make sense.

Chris,

Which point was it for you? I have been considering this prayerfully for sometime and I'm not convinced yet by the paedo viewpoint.

Matt

For me it was to presume continuity between the covenants unless God says otherwise.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by Draught Horse
For me it was to presume continuity between the covenants unless God says otherwise.

Agreed, and the parables of the kingdom.

 

[daveb]

Originally posted by Draught Horse
For me it was to presume continuity between the covenants unless God says otherwise.

Same here.

 

[pastorway]

Originally posted by LawrenceU
Kerry,
You don't need Malone. All you need is in the Scriptures.

Yep. The light did not have to come on for me because it was already on and has just gotten brighter and brigheter the longer I confirm and defend the credo position from the Scriptures.

All these years on the Puritan Board and I am more a Baptist today than I was when I signed up!

Phillip

 

[Tirian]

For me it was to presume continuity between the covenants unless God says otherwise.

Do you mean the Abrahamic covenant an the New covenant in Christ? To argue against continuity would be absurd and I agree with you on this. However my children are included in that covenant by birth legally and when they are regenerated (whenever that occurs) they also partake of that covenant spiritually. Am I being disobedient by instructing(or rather at this point, raising) them to be baptised after they make a profession? Are they excluded from any covenantal promise/benefit before baptism? Are you suggesting that even though the mode of the sacrement has changed that there is no possibility that the timing/application could have changed - that I should continue to apply it to my children upon legal inclusion in the convenant (birth)?

In asking these questions I find myself on the precipise of answering them in favor of the paedo view..... more prayer and consideration required.

Matt

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by Matthew Glover

For me it was to presume continuity between the covenants unless God says otherwise.

Do you mean the Abrahamic covenant an the New covenant in Christ? To argue against continuity would be absurd and I agree with you on this. However my children are included in that covenant by birth legally and when they are regenerated (whenever that occurs) they also partake of that covenant spiritually. Am I being disobedient by instructing(or rather at this point, raising) them to be baptised after they make a profession? Are they excluded from any covenantal promise/benefit before baptism? Are you suggesting that even though the mode of the sacrement has changed that there is no possibility that the timing/application could have changed - that I should continue to apply it to my children upon legal inclusion in the convenant (birth)?

In asking these questions I find myself on the precipise of answering them in favor of the paedo view..... more prayer and consideration required.

Matt

You know the answers to these questions, but I will address one. Can you show me where the timing changed? Good, searchign post, btw.

 

[BlackCalvinist]

Originally posted by pastorway

Originally posted by LawrenceU
Kerry,
You don't need Malone. All you need is in the Scriptures.

Yep. The light did not have to come on for me because it was already on and has just gotten brighter and brigheter the longer I confirm and defend the credo position from the Scriptures.

All these years on the Puritan Board and I am more a Baptist today than I was when I signed up!

Phillip

*grabs PastorWay's arm and hides behind him*

 

[pastorway]

Study the New Covenant! NEW. Compare the Old and New covenants in 2 Cor 3, and everywhere else we find mention of it in the Scriptures. In doing so we find that for starters everyone in the NC:

knows God (a synonym for salvation - John 17:3)
has their sins forgiven (Heb 8-9)
has had Christ's blood shed for them (1 Cor 11:25; Luke 22:20)

I also recommend reading Owen on Hebrews 8! And listen to James White on Hebrews 8 here: The Better Covenant

Phillip

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Matthew Glover

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
I can relate in that nothing about the paedo- viewpoint made sense to me until one day the "Aha!" light came on regarding one single point, and only then did other points subsequently begin to make sense.

Chris,

Which point was it for you? I have been considering this prayerfully for sometime and I'm not convinced yet by the paedo viewpoint.

Matt

Well, I now believe that non-elect children of believers are external members of the New Covenant as part of the Covenant of Grace, but originally the key point that made me begin to rethink my credobaptism was that even if they weren't, and even if credobaptists were right about the New Covenant consisting only of the elect, it is then a question of how it is to be determined from our perspective who is elect, and regarding that question, surely God's own many promises of spiritual blessing and favor to the children of believers are at least as reliable a ground on which to presume election as is professed faith, which is based on presumption just as much. I talked about that point further here.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by pastorway:
Study the New Covenant! NEW. Compare the Old and New covenants in 2 Cor 3, and everywhere else we find mention of it in the Scriptures. In doing so we find that for starters everyone in the NC:

knows God (a synonym for salvation - John 17:3)
has their sins forgiven (Heb 8-9)
has had Christ's blood shed for them (1 Cor 11:25; Luke 22:20)

It's a NNNNNNNNEEEEEEWWWWWW Covenant!!!

First of all, I hope you are not arguing that true, spiritual members of the Old Covenant did not have forgiveness of sins and that they did not know God. Admittedly, they did not know God in the way we can through the New Covenant in Christ's blood, wherein we know God through Christ in a personal, relational way (and no longer through priests and sacrifices and shadows of Christ), but nonetheless, they knew God in a primitive, pre-incarnate way. The Jer. 31/Heb. 8 passage is not a laundry list of brand new realities never-before-had by God's people, but shows that, in comparison to the Old Covenant, all of these realities are enjoyed in a more glorious and sure way, through Christ.

The Hebrew word for "new" in Jeremiah 31 is KDSH, rightly translated "fresh" or "renew" in English. The covenant of promise is made fresh and renewed in the New Covenant; it is not a brand new covenant.

Paul makes it clear that we are not a NEW tree, but grafted into the same tree as before (Rom 11). He also makes it clear that we have been brought into the same ol' covenant of promise, not a BRAND NEW covenant of promise (Eph 2). If it is the same tree and the same covenant of promise, where is the blatantly CLEAR passages explaining the repeal of previous covenant membership understanding for the thousands of previously Jewish converts to Christ?

Peter made a grievous error at Pentecost, with all of the Jewish men and families present (many of whom were likely holding their children in their arms, wondering if this promise was to them also as before) by saying the promise was to "you and to your children and to all who are far off (the Gentiles)."

Where is the clear, Holy Spirit-inspired explanation of a radical change in the same covenant of promise for an all-Jewish Church to understand without confusion?

The NEWNESS of the New Covenant, according to Hebrews, is related to the glory of its outward administration and the blessings enjoyed by the covenant members in spiritual union with God through Christ; that is, no longer being through a cold, rigid relationship of sacrifices, rituals and offerings. Most people stop reading at Hebrews 8 and conclude that what has been said in Jer. 31 is the "new stuff," when in reality the members of the CoG have all along had those things in some form, just not in as glorious of a form (2 Cor 3).

However, at the end of Hebrews 8 when we read that "what is getting old is ready to pass away," we must keep reading and find that the author of Hebrews then tells us precisely what is getting old and is ready to pass away in the phrase "Now even the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly place of holiness." A good exegete will realize that this next section of Hebrews is a clarification of what is "getting old and ready to pass away" in Ch. 8. Sometimes we have to not let the chapter boundaries get in the way of our interpretation of a text.

Yes, Christ's blood was shed for all of the members of the New Covenant, but you can be legally obligated within a covenant and not receive the benefits of that covenant. The children of believers are, by birth, legally brought into the covenant community, obligated to produce saving faith in order to enjoy the spiritual communion of life with God through Christ and in his blood.

Despite not all being elect and in a spiritual communion of life with God (through Christ's blood which is symbolized through animal blood until his coming), Moses still shows the blood of the covenant covering all of Israel (Exo 24:7-8).

By its very nature, a covenant is within a legal sphere of understanding. Legally speaking, one can be in the covenant and bound by its obligations/stipulations without knowledge of it (cg. unbelievers referred to as "covenant breakers" in Rom 1:31; I doubt we would argue your average pagan realizes they are in covenant with God). This does not guarantee you will ever receive the benefits promised in the covenant, yet the promise is still given to you, legally speaking. An infant born of a believer is made legally bound to the stipulations of the covenant (saving faith in Christ), but only when such faith is produced (a gift of God) are they brought into a spiritual communion with God through Christ and receive the spiritual benefits of the covenant in full.

[Edited on 3-29-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]

 

[pastorway]

Listen to the link I gave for James White. He answers your post with sound exegesis.

Phillip

 

[john_Mark]

Kerry, I was waiting for you

I was waiting for you in #prosapologian last night, but you never showed. I had a present for you.

 

[Peter]

Matt, are you a Covenanter?

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by pastorway
Listen to the link I gave for James White. He answers your post with sound exegesis.

I've heard it and I disagree.

 

[pastorway]

well alrighty then......what else do we have to discuss then? You reject sound exegesis a main passage explaining the New Covenant, so we are at a roadblock......

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

You reject sound exegesis a main passage explaining the New Covenant, so we are at a roadblock......

That's pretty much an ad hominem, Phillip.

I can reverse that claim and put it back on you easily (along with the rest of the Presbyterians on this board).

 

[pastorway]

no ad hom intended

White gives good solid exegesis of the passage and those who disagree with him are of necessity then holding to poor exegesis.

True, they say the same of me (and White), but we are right and you are wrong! (why? because I said so.....hehehe)

 

[lwadkins]

Just a general comment here. The truth of the baptism issue is either discoverable or it isn't. If it is then one side of this issue is in error. Now having come to this issue late in life and being unsure when I attended a Baptist church and still unsure when I joined a Presbyterian church. Both sides claiming that their side has the sound exegesis of scripture on their side. It seems obvious to me that one side or the other is unable to overcome their human biases in order to see the truth of scripture. Now I have come to a conclusion based on Scripture, but I believe there are non-scriptural evidences that can aid a person in coming to a valid conclusion. One of those aids for me is philosophically noting that the argumentation on one particular side is, in my view, precisely in line with the proclivities and personal desires of fallen humans beings rather that strictly relying on a solid understanding of God's word on this issue.

 

[Preach]

Kerry,
Brother, you have been on my mind and in my prayers for the last few months. I have sensed a restlessness within your posts. I commented on this about a month ago in another thread. If I am off base I apologize.

I mentioned then and I mention now that the Lord may be in the process of transforming you theologically. Continue to search the Scriptures. For many who have converted to the paedo position, it has been one argument.

For me, it was not the most phiosophically sound, nor primary line of defense, but I will share it with you.

Dr. John Gerstner asked this question (rough paraphrase): "Is it possible that the children of believers in the Old Testament had greater blessings than the children of believers in the New Testament"?

My immediate gut reaction was to say outloud, "no". That is what pricked my conscience.

Please know that we love you and are praying God's sovereign will upon your life.

"In Christ",
Bobby

 

[JohnV]

Well, if I look at it from another angle now, r.e. what is it about the Credo position that has me in knots, its this: Phillip and Lawrence I respect very much. I believe them. I think they're careful, loyal, thoughtful, truly believe, and also have the Holy Spirit. I don't think they are thorough, but then they likely think that I'm not thorough either. Now, though they haven't presented any argument that that makes the Paedo position shaky (I too think that they don't deal the the crux of the issue at stake), yet I cannot doubt their sincerity or the gifts God has given them. It's like Phillip says, it's in impasse. We just haven't, for all the posts on the subject on this Board, addressed the points we need to to make a difference for some.

On the other hand, we have done more than make a difference for others. To get back to Scott's first post, we need to deal with it honestly, or we're not really dealing with it, but just finding excuses. Well, I'm not about to go around accusing anyone of a lack of integrity, because I just don't believe that. We're more often too honest with our inner feelings and notions; or should I say too open with them sometimes. For some this has borne fruit in opening up to them the belief that others hold dear. For others, like myself and Phillip, it has only deepened and strengthened the position we already were rooted in. So I think the discussions have been more than worth it.

But getting back to Kerry's concern, as well as of others who have expressed the same struggling going on inside them, I would recommend listening to or reading all that has been recommended, from either side, for the truth will show itself, even through falsehood and deception, that's how strong it is. And then God will give you peace with it, whichever way you decide to believe, if you believe for the sake of God's truth and God's righteousness, not your own.

What has me convinced right now, as a very strong argument that seems impeachable, is William Young's statement in his article on Historic Calvinism And NeoCalvinism, where he says, "The Covenant relation warrants presumption that children of believers are regenerated from earliest infancy (he is arguing against Kuyperian Presumptive Regeneration here) and are to be treated as posessing saving grace unless and until they should reject the covenant." That piece inserted in the argument against a wrong kind of PR, which I agree with, nevertheless says with impeccable logic what the place of children of believers are to hold in the church. That means that we as Paedos, have a different understanding of what baptism means and represents than the Baptists. It is two different baptisms, though not entirely so. And I think that's the crux of the issue at stake with those who are struggling with it. We're not really talking about why children should be included in the rite of baptism, from the Paedo end, but why they should be excluded from it.

And that's a quite different discussion, as I make it out. We may defend our particular views, but for me there needs to be a reason for excluding the children. And that has been discussed to quite an extent on this Board. At the same time, it seems to me, the question for the Credo is not so much why children should be included, but why it should not be administered only to those who express, or can credibly express their faith.

 

[SRoper]

"For me it was to presume continuity between the covenants unless God says otherwise."

Same here. Specifically, I realized that "where is paedobaptism mentioned in Scripture?" is the wrong question.

 

[john_Mark]

Originally posted by SRoper
"For me it was to presume continuity between the covenants unless God says otherwise."

Same here. Specifically, I realized that "where is paedobaptism mentioned in Scripture?" is the wrong question.

This sounds like an argument from silence i.e. "unless I am explicitely told not to do it I am going to do it." No offense, but from my years of arguing with Roman Catholics if the above type of argumentation were enough to settle their Traditions the argument would have been over long ago.

They could assume all they wanted unless explicitely forbidden.

For Kerry: Last night, Dr. White said he's going to have to send you the last two issues of the RBTR where this issue is addressed.