Once credo, now paedo?

[MRC]

I was saved in my mid-twenties and, by default, ended up attending non-confessional, dispensational baptist churches. As such I was taught a credo understanding of baptism, without ever questioning it. Since becoming reformed I have thought I need to study paedobaptism due to its confession in reformed churches. If I only use one book to convince me of the paedobaptism perspective, which would it be? It would be nice if someone out there who converted from credo to paedo would offer some guidance as well, but I welcome input from all.

 

[JoyFullMom]

My husband and I were both raised credo and are now paedo. We tried to understand paedobaptism on it's own for several years and truly just could not get it. When the RBC we were attending began teaching *New* Covenant Theology, we were bothered by it and were prompted to dive into our own study of Covenant Theology. It was during that study that the light bulb went on and paedobaptism just neatly slid into place for us.

I know that is not really what you asked, but we already had struggled through the most recommended books on paedobaptism. A simple start for us for Covenant Theology was Covenants by O. Palmer Robertson. I believe we picked up "Why We Baptize Our Infants" by Bryan Chappell when we had our *aha* moment.

I hope that helps.

 

[raekwon]

Mike,

I plan on coming back to this post to offer some counsel (if, by that point, better counsel hasn't offered a better perspective, anyway), but I wanted to just quickly say that I actually grew up in the C&MA and am now a paedobaptist in the PCA. (So, our paths might be similar.)

 

[Ivan]

Since becoming reformed I have thought I need to study paedobaptism due to its confession in reformed churches.

I find this sentence both striking and odd. So you became reformed without a conviction about baptism?

 

[Osage Bluestem]

This document from a Puritan's mind is a very good account of a knowledgable credo becoming paedo.

Link: My Retraction: A 15 year Reformed Baptist turns Paedo-Baptist

I was raised Baptist but fell away and later became Roman Catholic. I got my understanding that baptism = circumcision there. When God rescued me from my error and placed me back in a church that preaches salvation by grace through faith it was easy for me to accept the presbyterian point of view because it is generally the same as the RCC point of view except Presbyterians reject that regeneration is done at baptism but all of the covenant theology remains. However, if I just use scripture without external influence I can see the credo point of view as well, so I must admit that I am personally a bit disturbed. The only reason I adhere to Paedo baptism these days is because if baptism does indeed equal circumcision then it is a sin for us to not baptize our children, because we were commanded to baptize. If baptism is not circumcision and instead just a mark of the covenant for believers, then infant baptism would be a mistake. So, until I am convinced that baptism is not the same as circumcision I am paedo, but convince me of that and I will be looking for a Baptist church to join.

 

[MLCOPE2]

If I only use one book to convince me of the paedobaptism perspective, which would it be?

The Bible.

 

[MRC]

Since becoming reformed I have thought I need to study paedobaptism due to its confession in reformed churches.

I find this sentence both striking and odd. So you became reformed without a conviction about baptism?

I suppose I am currently experiencing conviction on the doctrine of baptism as a continuation of my "reformed indoctrination". Also keep in mind that the credobaptism perspective is affirmed by reformed baptists.

 

[T.A.G.]

If I only use one book to convince me of the paedobaptism perspective, which would it be?

The Bible.

no he asked what book would give a good argument for paedobaptism not believers baptism

 

[JoyFullMom]

Mike,

I plan on coming back to this post to offer some counsel (if, by that point, better counsel hasn't offered a better perspective, anyway), but I wanted to just quickly say that I actually grew up in the C&MA and am now a paedobaptist in the PCA. (So, our paths might be similar.)

I just thought I'd add, as a note of interest, my husband was also raised by C&MA missionary parents and is now a paedo in the OPC.

 

[Ivan]

Since becoming reformed I have thought I need to study paedobaptism due to its confession in reformed churches.

I find this sentence both striking and odd. So you became reformed without a conviction about baptism?

I suppose I am currently experiencing conviction on the doctrine of baptism as a continuation of my "reformed indoctrination". Also keep in mind that the credobaptism perspective is affirmed by reformed baptists.

Okay, I'll keep that in mind.

 

[CharlieJ]

I went from Baptist to Presbyterian, and found that there are two types of books out there on the paedo side. The first type are basically positive constructions of the doctrine that also take some time to address polemical issues. You definitely need to read one of these to get a big picture view. I would suggest Pierre Marcel's The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism. Secondly, maybe John Murray's Christian Baptism.

The second type are a bit more polemically bent, written especially to convince a credobaptist. Of these, I might recommend Doug Wilson's To a Thousand Generations and Children of the Promise by Robert Booth.

If you're seriously considering this issue, you can't just pick one book and decide to rest on that. I spent over a year researching this issue, including about 20 books, dozens of journal articles and sections of systematic theologies, personal talks with pastors and professors on both sides, and a full-Bible read-through devoted specifically to this topic. If it's worth looking into at all, it's worth looking into thoroughly. You don't have to have an answer by next week.

 

[Ivan]

I went from Baptist to Presbyterian, and found that there are two types of books out there on the paedo side. The first type are basically positive constructions of the doctrine that also take some time to address polemical issues. You definitely need to read one of these to get a big picture view. I would suggest Pierre Marcel's The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism. Secondly, maybe John Murray's Christian Baptism.

The second type are a bit more polemically bent, written especially to convince a credobaptist. Of these, I might recommend Doug Wilson's To a Thousand Generations and Children of the Promise by Robert Booth.

If you're seriously considering this issue, you can't just pick one book and decide to rest on that. I spent over a year researching this issue, including about 20 books, dozens of journal articles and sections of systematic theologies, personal talks with pastors and professors on both sides, and a full-Bible read-through devoted specifically to this topic. If it's worth looking into at all, it's worth looking into thoroughly. You don't have to have an answer by next week.

Sounds like a lot of work.

 

[MRC]

So, until I am convinced that baptism is not the same as circumcision I am paedo, but convince me of that and I will be looking for a Baptist church to join.

I recently read a blurb that Michael Horton wrote about what conviced him to covert from credo to paedo. It was the comment about circumcision finding antitype in baptism (if I am using the terminology correctly) that gave me pause for thought. I agree, if this is true I need to consider paedobaptism. This is what is prompting my desire to study the doctrine of baptism.

---------- Post added at 02:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:41 PM ----------

Since becoming reformed I have thought I need to study paedobaptism due to its confession in reformed churches.

I find this sentence both striking and odd. So you became reformed without a conviction about baptism?

I suppose I am currently experiencing conviction on the doctrine of baptism as a continuation of my "reformed indoctrination". Also keep in mind that the credobaptism perspective is affirmed by reformed baptists.

Okay, I'll keep that in mind.

Sorry, I think I missunderstood your original comment. Were you asking me why baptism was not part of my "conversion" to reformed theolgy? Is so, I simply took it for granted that paedobaptism was incorrect given my spiritual upbringing.

 

[Ivan]

So, until I am convinced that baptism is not the same as circumcision I am paedo, but convince me of that and I will be looking for a Baptist church to join.

I recently read a blurb that Michael Horton wrote about what conviced him to covert from credo to paedo. It was the comment about circumcision finding antitype in baptism (if I am using the terminology correctly) that gave me pause for thought. I agree, if this is true I need to consider paedobaptism. This is what is prompting my desire to study the doctrine of baptism.

---------- Post added at 02:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:41 PM ----------

Since becoming reformed I have thought I need to study paedobaptism due to its confession in reformed churches.

I find this sentence both striking and odd. So you became reformed without a conviction about baptism?

I suppose I am currently experiencing conviction on the doctrine of baptism as a continuation of my "reformed indoctrination". Also keep in mind that the credobaptism perspective is affirmed by reformed baptists.

Okay, I'll keep that in mind.

Sorry, I think I missunderstood your original comment. Were you asking me why baptism was not part of my "conversion" to reformed theolgy? Is so, I simply took it for granted that paedobaptism was incorrect given my spiritual upbringing.

I was just joshin'. God bless your convictions to the glory of God.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

So, until I am convinced that baptism is not the same as circumcision I am paedo, but convince me of that and I will be looking for a Baptist church to join.

I recently read a blurb that Michael Horton wrote about what conviced him to covert from credo to paedo. It was the comment about circumcision finding antitype in baptism (if I am using the terminology correctly) that gave me pause for thought. I agree, if this is true I need to consider paedobaptism. This is what is prompting my desire to study the doctrine of baptism..

That article I posted from Puritan's mind is insightful. But I am personally a bit confused about the doctrine of baptism because I really can see how both views can be based in scripture. I have not seen a satisfactory argument that refutes the teaching that baptism and circumcision are the same thing so I remain paedo. But if I ever do become convinced I would go with God and find a Church I believed was most faithful to the truth of scripture.

 

[MRC]

Mike,

I plan on coming back to this post to offer some counsel (if, by that point, better counsel hasn't offered a better perspective, anyway), but I wanted to just quickly say that I actually grew up in the C&MA and am now a paedobaptist in the PCA. (So, our paths might be similar.)

I just thought I'd add, as a note of interest, my husband was also raised by C&MA missionary parents and is now a paedo in the OPC.

Sure wish the OPC would come plant a church up here!!

 

[Kiffin]

So, until I am convinced that baptism is not the same as circumcision I am paedo, but convince me of that and I will be looking for a Baptist church to join.

I recently read a blurb that Michael Horton wrote about what conviced him to covert from credo to paedo. It was the comment about circumcision finding antitype in baptism (if I am using the terminology correctly) that gave me pause for thought. I agree, if this is true I need to consider paedobaptism. This is what is prompting my desire to study the doctrine of baptism.

The whole type/antitype stuff almost convinced me of the paedo position. But for me, I think that the view that Old Testament physical circumsion typified the circumcision of the heart (regeneration) is a stronger argument. Well, at least for now..

 

[MLCOPE2]

If I only use one book to convince me of the paedobaptism perspective, which would it be?

The Bible.

no he asked what book would give a good argument for paedobaptism not believers baptism

 

[MRC]

So, until I am convinced that baptism is not the same as circumcision I am paedo, but convince me of that and I will be looking for a Baptist church to join.

I recently read a blurb that Michael Horton wrote about what conviced him to covert from credo to paedo. It was the comment about circumcision finding antitype in baptism (if I am using the terminology correctly) that gave me pause for thought. I agree, if this is true I need to consider paedobaptism. This is what is prompting my desire to study the doctrine of baptism.

The whole type/antitype stuff almost convinced me of the paedo position. But for me, I think that the view that Old Testament physical circumsion typified the circumcision of the heart (regeneration) is a stronger argument. Well, at least for now..

My understanding is that circumcision was a sign of membership in the covenant community for Israel even though they were still justified by faith in Christ as per the covenant of grace. Would this not mean that regeneration was not tied to circumcision, strictly speaking, but to the covenant of works for Israel? With this understanding circumcision finds its fulfillment in Christ where our hearts are circumcised as a sign that we are Christ's. Would this then not lead us to seeing baptism as the outward sign of covenant membership (grace) just like circumcision was for Israel?

I am just learning at this point, so take my thoughts with a grain of salt.

 

[Poimen]

Mike:

Since you are looking for resources on paedobaptism... here is Dennis Johnson's explanation of how his convictions changed from credo to paedo: Infant Baptism: How My Mind Has Changed

Also, a fairly comprehensive list of books on the subject (from both sides of the fence), is available in this thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/infant-baptism-bibliography-24631/

If I was going to recommend a book to read on the subject of infant baptism, I would get Rev. Danny Hyde's book entitled "Jesus Loves the Little Children"

 

[Kiffin]

I know you're asking for paedo resources but i'm going to link you a credo resource by Tom Nettles Baptists and the Ordinances, Thomas Nettles | The Reformed Reader

 

[lynnie]

I would buy this for sure, we heard rave reviews.

Westminster Bookstore - Reformed Books - Low Prices - Flat Fee UPS Shipping - 9780830838561 - Baptism: Three Views (Paperback) by David F. Wright


Baptism: Three Views (Paperback)
View Larger Image

Read inside (PDFs): Sample Pages


Publisher: InterVarsity Press
Author: Wright, David F.; Ware, Bruce A; Ferguson, Sinclair B.; Lane, Anthony N. S.
ISBN-10: 0830838562 | ISBN-13: 9780830838561
Binding: Paperback
List Price: $16.00
Westminster Bookstore: $10.56 - 34% Off




Publisher's Description: The Christian church confesses "one baptism." But the church's answers to how, whom and when to baptize, and even what it means or does, are famously varied. This book provides a forum for thoughtful proponents of three principal evangelical views to state their case, respond to the others, and then provide a summary response and statement. Sinclair Ferguson sets out the case for infant baptism, Bruce Ware presents the case for believers' baptism, and Anthony Lane argues for a mixed practice.

As with any good conversation on a controversial topic, this book raises critical issues, challenges preconceptions and discloses the soft points in each view. Evangelicals who wish to understand better their own church's practice or that of their neighbor, or who perhaps are uncertain of their own views, will value this incisive book.

Table of Contents
Introduction: Daniel G. Reid

Believers' Baptism View: Bruce A. Ware
Infant Baptism Response
Dual-Practice Baptism Response
Believers' Baptism Concluding Response
Infant Baptism View: Sinclair B. Ferguson
Believers' Baptism Response
Dual-Practice Baptism Response
Infant Baptism Concluding Response
Dual-Practice Baptism View: Anthony N. S. Lane
Believers' Baptism Response
Infant Baptism Response
Dual-Practice Baptism Concluding Response
Contributors
Scripture Index

200 Pages
Published September 2009

About the Editor: David F. Wright (1937-2008) was professor of patristic and Reformation Christianity at New College, University of Edinburgh. He wrote a number of books on both historical and theological topics.

About the Contributors:

Sinclair B. Ferguson is senior minister at First Presbyterian Church in Columbia, South Carolina, and serves as professor of systematic theology at Redeemer Seminary in Dallas, Texas and is Distinguished Visiting Professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary, Glenside, PA.

Bruce A. Ware is professor of Christian theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He has written numerous journal articles, book chapters, book reviews, and has authored God's Lesser Glory, God's Greater Glory, and Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Anthony N. S. Lane is professor of historical theology and director of research at the London School of Theology. He is the author of A Concise History of Christian Thought, John Calvin: Student of the Church Fathers, and Justification by Faith in Catholic-Protestant Dialogue and compiled The Lion Christian Classics Collection. A world-class Calvin scholar, he abridged the Institutes into a popular student edition and also edited the translation of Calvin's Bondage and Liberation of the Will.

**********

Personally I have joined the paedo-credo camp, that "Defenders of the dual-practice view don’t refuse to take a stand. On the contrary, they take their stand on the position that infant baptism is neither required (as paedobaptists hold) nor forbidden (as credobaptists hold)" ( JT blog post). I've heard all the arguements on both sides, been in two PCA churches and in Reformed Baptist, and at this point I'm in that third group, that both sides have a solid biblical and historical basis, and neither is wrong, and both are OK. You ought to at least be aware that the third position exists.

This is a must read for all Baptists thinking about paedo: Indifferentism and Rigorism

Poythress is a prof at WTS, and now a paedo but used to be credo. This excellent essay presents the position that when a child shows evidence of a tender heart for the Lord, which can be as young as 2! or 3 or definitely 4 or 5, it is incumbent on baptists to recognize the regenerated heart and baptize the child. You don't wait until 12 or 14 or 16 when the kid loves the Lord at a young age. A must read; it is so well thought out. You might call it a fourth view of baptism.

 

[Jack K]

I would buy this for sure, we heard rave reviews.

Westminster Bookstore - Reformed Books - Low Prices - Flat Fee UPS Shipping - 9780830838561 - Baptism: Three Views (Paperback) by David F. Wright


Baptism: Three Views (Paperback)

Personally I have joined the paedo-credo camp, that "Defenders of the dual-practice view don’t refuse to take a stand. On the contrary, they take their stand on the position that infant baptism is neither required (as paedobaptists hold) nor forbidden (as credobaptists hold)" ( JT blog post). I've heard all the arguements on both sides, been in two PCA churches and in Reformed Baptist, and at this point I'm in that third group, that both sides have a solid biblical and historical basis, and neither is wrong, and both are OK. You ought to at least be aware that the third position exists.

This is a must read for all Baptists thinking about paedo: Indifferentism and Rigorism

Poythress is a prof at WTS, and now a paedo but used to be credo. This excellent essay presents the position that when a child shows evidence of a tender heart for the Lord, which can be as young as 2! or 3 or definitely 4 or 5, it is incumbent on baptists to recognize the regenerated heart and baptize the child. You don't wait until 12 or 14 or 16 when the kid loves the Lord at a young age. A must read; it is so well thought out. You might call it a fourth view of baptism.

Well, I recently read the "Three Views" book and thought Sinclair Ferguson's argument was uncharacteristically weak and gave me no new insight. Doug Wilson and Robert Booth are far more compelling, I'd say. And do read the Poythress article Lynnie just mentioned. I first encountered it only a few months ago, and I think it's as good as anything I've read on the topic. Very challenging to credobaptists who haven't thought things through, yet gracious. And a short, easy read.

 

[MRC]

...when a child shows evidence of a tender heart for the Lord, which can be as young as 2! or 3 or definitely 4 or 5, it is incumbent on baptists to recognize the regenerated heart and baptize the child. You don't wait until 12 or 14 or 16 when the kid loves the Lord at a young age. A must read; it is so well thought out. You might call it a fourth view of baptism.

This is basically my default view generated from the scriptures without ready be "aware" that I was thinking about baptism. Being in a credo-baptist church now I am finding I have a difficulty as my 3.5 year old is starting to "show signs of a tender heart towards the Lord" and I know I will be viewed as a bit "odd" for wanting to baptize my boy when he is so young. He is interested in talking about God and praying to the Lord at bed time, meals, etc. Soon I am planning on daily catechizing him, as I have already started teaching him about Jesus as Saviour for our sins. The credo in me is looking for a confession of faith, but maybe I am being convicted scripturally that this is not necessary.

Oh, the humility of raising God's children in a way that brings Him glory! I pray that He would be pleased with my heart-attitude and graciously regenerate and sanctify my kids hearts in spite of me!!

 

[dudley]

R. Scott Clark has a new book "Recovering the Reformed Confession A Reformed Defense of Paedobaptism"

It is very good. I was baptised as an infant in the Roman catholic church. I received baptism as an adult in the Baptist fold by immersion. I am now a Presbyterian and a Paedobaptist. I found the book very helpful. He discusses the rc view , the Baptist, the Lutheran and the Presbyterian view all very well.

 

[puritanhope]

Personally, I wouldn't spend time focusing on the issue of baptism unless it is a pressing issue. I'd spend my time studying the LBC and WCF because the issue of credo-paedo is really an issue of systematic theology more than it is of baptism.

 

[dudley]

Personally, I wouldn't spend time focusing on the issue of baptism unless it is a pressing issue. I'd spend my time studying the LBC and WCF because the issue of credo-paedo is really an issue of systematic theology more than it is of baptism.

Your position is also very true... I am thinking you might be correct on this issue.

 

[reformedminister]

I used to be credo also. Before I took my first pastorate in the United Methodist Church, I studied this subject immensely since the UMC practiced covenant baptism. The end result is that I became a believer of paedo baptism.

 

[larryjf]

I'm a credo-turned-paedo.
These two books have good sections on paedobaptism...
Amazon.com: Back to Basics: Rediscovering the Richness of the Reformed Faith (9780875522166): Douglas J. Wilson, Douglas M. Jones, Roger Wagner, David G. Hagopian: Books
Amazon.com: Westminster Confession of Faith: For Study Classes (9780875525938): G. I. Williamson: Books


Michael Horton summarized it well when he wrote:

We should baptize our children because...
1. God has brought us into a covenant of grace and although not all members of this covenant will persevere (i.e., they are not elect), they enjoy special privileges of belonging to the covenant people of God. This was true of Israel (the church in the Old Testament), and the New Testament simply applies this to the New Testament church (Hebrews, esp. 4:1-11 and 6:4-12; Deut. 4:20 and 28:9 with 1 Pet. 2:9,10; Gal. 6:16; Hos. 2:23 and Is. 10:22 with Rom. 9:24-28). Also the parable of the Vine and the Branches. 2 ways of being in Christ: visibly and invisibly.
2. Even though bringing someone under the protection of God's covenantal faithfulness does not guarantee that every member possesses true, persevering faith (Heb. 4:1-11), but that does not mean that it is unimportant as to whether a person is in Christ and his covenant of grace.
3. Children were included in the covenant of grace in the Old Testament, through the sacrament of circumcision, and in the New Covenant (called the "better covenant"), God has not changed in his good intentions toward our children (Ac. 2:38-39) and circumcision has been replaced with baptism (Col. 2:11-12). Therefore, our children must be brought into the covenant of grace and united to Christ through baptism as the people of God in former times were brought into the covenant through circumcision.
4. The children of unbelievers are unholy, but the children of believers are set apart unto God. This is a distinction not only of the Old Testament (see the Passover, Ex.12:1; also the distinction between the "house of the wicked" and the "house of the righteous," especially in the Psalms), but is continued in the New Testament as well (1 Cor. 10:2). How are they marked or distinguished from unbelievers? By the sign and seal of the covenant.
5. Household baptisms in the New Testament are common (see esp. Acts 16:15, 33; 1 Cor. 1:16), and when the jailer asked how to be saved, Paul replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you and your household." We are told that this same night "he and his family were baptized" (Ac.16:31-34).
6. There is an unbroken record in church history of the practice of infant baptism. Although tradition is of a secondary value, it is especially important here for this reason: We know for a fact that the earliest Christians after the death of the apostles were practicing infant baptism, with the command of those who were trained by the apostles themselves. Where was the debate, assuming these immediate successors to the disciples were departing from the apostolic practice?
7. Baptism is the work of God, not man. It is not a sign of the believer's commitment to God (which would, therefore, require prior faith and repentance), but the sign and seal of God's promise to save all who do not reject their baptism by refusing to trust in Christ. For the nature of baptism, see Mark 16:16. The references to believers being baptized are to those who have first believed. The first converts, obviously, were adults when they believed, but they evidently baptized their children. The same was true of Abraham, who believed before he was circumcised, but then had his children circumcised as infants.

 

[MRC]

Personally, I wouldn't spend time focusing on the issue of baptism unless it is a pressing issue. I'd spend my time studying the LBC and WCF because the issue of credo-paedo is really an issue of systematic theology more than it is of baptism.

I am learning that paedobaptism is a pressing issue if one desires to truly understand and hold to historic, confessional Christianity. As I do I need to work through this issue as my credo stance, if I am honest, has been entirely due to accepting teaching from dispensational teachers (which I have been convicted is a virtually heretical teaching).