Once credo, now paedo?

[TexanRose]

I was a credo-baptist and am now a paedo-baptist. I started studying the issue last year when I was thinking about joining a Reformed church, and knew that I would be expected to have my two boys baptized. The problem I used to run into was that different people defined the covenants differently--one person might mean one thing by "covenant of grace" and another person might mean something completely different. Very confusing. And when you study paedo-baptism, you encounter a lot of errors, like baptismal regeneration, presumptive regeneration, etc. which obviously don't help the paedobaptist case at all.

The one book that made all the lightbulbs go on for me was a little booklet by Peter Bloomfield entitled Covenant Baptism. I had been reading and studying the issue for months and felt myself getting farther and farther away from paedobaptism--until I read this booklet, and all the pieces came together; it was really a profound, paradigm-shifting experience for me. And like everyone who's switched to paedo-baptism says, it's all about the covenants. Though I didn't understand that until after I'd made the switch.

I can't recommend this one highly enough--and it's only $3.

 

[BlackCalvinist]

Westminster Bookstore - Reformed Books - Low Prices - Flat Fee UPS Shipping - Basics of the Reformed Faith Series

 

[Willem van Oranje]

For myself the most influential book which led me from the credo to the paedo position not long after I started to become reformed was the chapters of Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion dealing with baptism.

Since then I have read some good treatments by Larry Wilson and Bill Shishko, but that was long after I had already come to the position of paedo-baptism.

---------- Post added at 02:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:26 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?

It doesn't strike me as odd. I had a similar experience in that I joined a reformed (PCA) church while I still leaned toward the sola-credo-baptist position. It just wasn't the most prominent doctrine on which I thought I should base my church membership. I was prompted to join because of the doctrines of grace, soteriology, which seemed to be much more important.

---------- Post added at 02:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:31 PM ----------

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..

You're on the right track in that circumcision did typify regeneration. On that note, what do you think baptism typifies? If they both typify regeneration, and circumcision was applied to infants, what would that suggest about baptism?

 

[Osage Bluestem]

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.

It's hard to imagine you as a Methodist. Were you tarred and feathered after a sermon on sovereign grace?

 

[py3ak]

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)

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.

How experiences differ! I thought that Professor Ferguson's article was very well done, and an extremely exciting tour of Biblical teaching. I also thought Anthony N.S. Lane's historical contribution was outstanding.

 

[Kiffin]

You're on the right track in that circumcision did typify regeneration. On that note, what do you think baptism typifies? If they both typify regeneration, and circumcision was applied to infants, what would that suggest about baptism?

From Baptists and the Ordinances by Tom Nettles

First, Baptists do recognize a relationship between Circumcision and Baptism. Colossians 2:11-13 establishes this relationship. But to insist that a direct analogy exists in which Baptism fulfills Circumcision (or replaces it) has no warrant from the New Testament. Circumcision typifies, not Baptism, but regeneration (v. 11). As Paul emphatically states in Galatians, "For in Christ Jesus neither Circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature" (Gal. 6:15). Circumcision foreshadowed by type the specific work of Christ, by his Spirit, in the "removal of the body of flesh" (Col. 2:11).

Baptism includes a picture of fulfilled Circumcision, the quickening of the sinner while he is dead in trespasses and sins, but it includes much more. While the removal of death by the power of life makes Baptism an apt image for this fulfilled Circumcision, Baptism opens one's view to the much fuller intent of Christ's historical work. Baptism expands the focus, not only on the inner life of the sinner, but on Christ's historical work by which life, forgiveness, and righteousness come. The "faith according to the operation of God" (v. 12 translated by Conybeare "faith wrought in you by God") refers to the quickening work of the Spirit raising sinners from death to life by which we are granted the faith which unites us to Christ. Baptism assumes spiritual Circumcision as one aspect of the complete salvation purchased by the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

Second, Baptist principles of interpretation function on an assumption of discontinuity as well as continuity. The spirituality of the New Covenant introduces a new order of things, a reality built upon, but different, discontinuous, from the past. "More are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife" (Is. 54:1).

The principle of continuity/discontinuity may be demonstrated in the Pauline treatment of Circumcision. Circumcision in the Old Covenant signified three things. It was given to mark physically God's people, as separate from the Gentiles. Next, it spiritually pointed back to the righteousness of faith which was imputed to Abraham (Rom. 4:11-25). Finally, it pointed forward to the true Circumcision of heart which would identify the true spiritual children of Abraham (Rom. 2:25-29). Now that Christ has come, these three elements of Circumcision have been fulfilled in the gifts he brought. One, God's people have distinctive characteristics described in terms of holiness, conformity to Christ, and emulation of the cross-bearing of Christ. Two, the righteousness which Abraham had before Circumcision and of which Circumcision was the seal was fully realized in the satisfactory work of Christ. The faith Abraham demonstrated by actions of belief on his part must be manifest just as clearly in his spiritual descendants. Scripture identifies those "who are of the faith of Abraham," as those "to whom it will be reckoned...who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead" (Rom. 4:11, 12, 16, 24). Three, instead of Circumcision of the flesh, those evidences which inevitably accompany the new birth will now be the identifying characteristics of the people of God. They are to "walk in newness of life" (Rom. 6:4).

Precisely those three elements constitute the apostle's refutation of the Judaizers in his letter to the Philippians. Paul calls believers the true Circumcision: "For it is we who are the Circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh" (Phil. 3:3 NIV). Thus, the three elements of Circumcision are fulfilled: 1) worshipping by the Spirit of God signifies the new birth (Circumcision of the heart); 2) glorying in Christ Jesus points to justification by an imputed righteousness (fulfilling Abraham's righteousness of faith clearly pictured in Phil. 3:9); and 3) "no confidence in the flesh" clearly excludes biological pedigree as gaining any standing before God (Phil. 13:4-7). To regard infant Baptism as properly picturing a fulfilled Circumcision builds upon an unwarranted and massive confidence in flesh relationships, precedes any evidence of the work of the Spirit in the new birth, and reduces to nothing the need for manifest faith, that is, "glorying" in Christ Jesus.

Contrary to the bold claim of the Reformed scholar Bannerman in his The Scripture Doctrine of the Church, Baptism does not have a one-to-one correspondence with Circumcision as if Circumcision could picture all the provisions and promises of the New Covenant and its Mediator as well as Baptism. Baptism goes beyond a mere continuation of the old and shows the points in which the new is superior to the old. Baptism includes both continuity and discontinuity. Circumcision is fulfilled; Baptism looks back at its fulfillment in regeneration, forward to the fruition of the reign of grace in resurrection (Rom. 5:21), and the present safety of union with Christ in justification and in the fullness of his redemptive work. "For if we have been united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection" (Rom. 6:5).

It is precisely at this point that the paedobaptist call for proof of the exclusion of infants is answered. When the covenant which included them passed away to be replaced by a better covenant with better promises more apposite to the spirituality of the people of God, the inclusion of members without spiritual evidences ceased. Reformed paedobaptists agree that no one inherits the kingdom of God on the basis of a flesh relationship. It is this, however, that makes their willingness, even insistence, that the sign be given on the basis of the flesh relationship incongruous with their soteriology.

Baptism, therefore, in replacing Circumcision as a physical sign, more powerfully displays Circumcision's antitypical reality. Those who are baptized presently testify, volitionally and symbolically, that they experience the substance of that which it symbolizes (Gal. 3:26, 27; Col. 2:12; Rom. 6:1-11). Believers' Baptism does not shrink and circumscribe God's grace or deprive anyone of a legitimate blessing. Instead, it signifies the deliverance of God's people from a yoke of bondage (Gal. 5:3) by another who has already shed his blood to fulfill the Law's demands: It signifies the putting on, or union with, Christ by faith (Gal. 3:25-29); his doing and dying has become my doing and dying. His life is my life.

Sorry for the long quote...

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Here are some online and published resources:

Online Resources on Infant-Baptism

More Summer Reading: Infant Baptism and the Silence of the NT

Abraham was Not Moses

 

[Grafted In]

Any paedo turned credo out there? I see a trend here.

 

[Kiffin]

Any paedo turned credo out there? I see a trend here.

haha..

Well, I think a big part of many credos (not all!) turning paedo is because once they discover the Doctrines of Grace and Covenant Theology, they reject anything Baptist. This is because the Baptist church they come out from was Arminian and Dispensational. They throw the baby out with the bath water and fail to recognize that there is a Covenantal Baptist position.

 

[Simply_Nikki]

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.

As someone who was credo-onlyist and now paedo and credo , honestly the only book that could convince me was the infallible word of God. I know that's a stereotypical answer, but I would not budge unless I was convinced that this is what the scriptures taught. I'm not necessarily talking about the exact chapter and verse that said "all believers shall baptize thine children". Indeed no such verse exists, but, thankfully through patient friends and men who were able to reason with me from the scriptures I finally understood the position and came to believe that it was biblically accurate I have yet to read outside books on paedo-baptism, but I hope to. The same mechanism was used to convince me of Calvinism. Only by the scriptures was I able to be convinced and conform myself what I believe is the accurate interpretation of the Word only after coming to believe in its accuracy from the scriptures, did I begin to read other articles and books on the matter.

 

[Willem van Oranje]

You're on the right track in that circumcision did typify regeneration. On that note, what do you think baptism typifies? If they both typify regeneration, and circumcision was applied to infants, what would that suggest about baptism?

From Baptists and the Ordinances by Tom Nettles

First, Baptists do recognize a relationship between Circumcision and Baptism. Colossians 2:11-13 establishes this relationship. But to insist that a direct analogy exists in which Baptism fulfills Circumcision (or replaces it) has no warrant from the New Testament. Circumcision typifies, not Baptism, but regeneration (v. 11). As Paul emphatically states in Galatians, "For in Christ Jesus neither Circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature" (Gal. 6:15). Circumcision foreshadowed by type the specific work of Christ, by his Spirit, in the "removal of the body of flesh" (Col. 2:11).

Baptism includes a picture of fulfilled Circumcision, the quickening of the sinner while he is dead in trespasses and sins, but it includes much more. While the removal of death by the power of life makes Baptism an apt image for this fulfilled Circumcision, Baptism opens one's view to the much fuller intent of Christ's historical work. Baptism expands the focus, not only on the inner life of the sinner, but on Christ's historical work by which life, forgiveness, and righteousness come. The "faith according to the operation of God" (v. 12 translated by Conybeare "faith wrought in you by God") refers to the quickening work of the Spirit raising sinners from death to life by which we are granted the faith which unites us to Christ. Baptism assumes spiritual Circumcision as one aspect of the complete salvation purchased by the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

Second, Baptist principles of interpretation function on an assumption of discontinuity as well as continuity. The spirituality of the New Covenant introduces a new order of things, a reality built upon, but different, discontinuous, from the past. "More are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife" (Is. 54:1).

The principle of continuity/discontinuity may be demonstrated in the Pauline treatment of Circumcision. Circumcision in the Old Covenant signified three things. It was given to mark physically God's people, as separate from the Gentiles. Next, it spiritually pointed back to the righteousness of faith which was imputed to Abraham (Rom. 4:11-25). Finally, it pointed forward to the true Circumcision of heart which would identify the true spiritual children of Abraham (Rom. 2:25-29). Now that Christ has come, these three elements of Circumcision have been fulfilled in the gifts he brought. One, God's people have distinctive characteristics described in terms of holiness, conformity to Christ, and emulation of the cross-bearing of Christ. Two, the righteousness which Abraham had before Circumcision and of which Circumcision was the seal was fully realized in the satisfactory work of Christ. The faith Abraham demonstrated by actions of belief on his part must be manifest just as clearly in his spiritual descendants. Scripture identifies those "who are of the faith of Abraham," as those "to whom it will be reckoned...who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead" (Rom. 4:11, 12, 16, 24). Three, instead of Circumcision of the flesh, those evidences which inevitably accompany the new birth will now be the identifying characteristics of the people of God. They are to "walk in newness of life" (Rom. 6:4).

Precisely those three elements constitute the apostle's refutation of the Judaizers in his letter to the Philippians. Paul calls believers the true Circumcision: "For it is we who are the Circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh" (Phil. 3:3 NIV). Thus, the three elements of Circumcision are fulfilled: 1) worshipping by the Spirit of God signifies the new birth (Circumcision of the heart); 2) glorying in Christ Jesus points to justification by an imputed righteousness (fulfilling Abraham's righteousness of faith clearly pictured in Phil. 3:9); and 3) "no confidence in the flesh" clearly excludes biological pedigree as gaining any standing before God (Phil. 13:4-7). To regard infant Baptism as properly picturing a fulfilled Circumcision builds upon an unwarranted and massive confidence in flesh relationships, precedes any evidence of the work of the Spirit in the new birth, and reduces to nothing the need for manifest faith, that is, "glorying" in Christ Jesus.

Contrary to the bold claim of the Reformed scholar Bannerman in his The Scripture Doctrine of the Church, Baptism does not have a one-to-one correspondence with Circumcision as if Circumcision could picture all the provisions and promises of the New Covenant and its Mediator as well as Baptism. Baptism goes beyond a mere continuation of the old and shows the points in which the new is superior to the old. Baptism includes both continuity and discontinuity. Circumcision is fulfilled; Baptism looks back at its fulfillment in regeneration, forward to the fruition of the reign of grace in resurrection (Rom. 5:21), and the present safety of union with Christ in justification and in the fullness of his redemptive work. "For if we have been united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection" (Rom. 6:5).

It is precisely at this point that the paedobaptist call for proof of the exclusion of infants is answered. When the covenant which included them passed away to be replaced by a better covenant with better promises more apposite to the spirituality of the people of God, the inclusion of members without spiritual evidences ceased. Reformed paedobaptists agree that no one inherits the kingdom of God on the basis of a flesh relationship. It is this, however, that makes their willingness, even insistence, that the sign be given on the basis of the flesh relationship incongruous with their soteriology.

Baptism, therefore, in replacing Circumcision as a physical sign, more powerfully displays Circumcision's antitypical reality. Those who are baptized presently testify, volitionally and symbolically, that they experience the substance of that which it symbolizes (Gal. 3:26, 27; Col. 2:12; Rom. 6:1-11). Believers' Baptism does not shrink and circumscribe God's grace or deprive anyone of a legitimate blessing. Instead, it signifies the deliverance of God's people from a yoke of bondage (Gal. 5:3) by another who has already shed his blood to fulfill the Law's demands: It signifies the putting on, or union with, Christ by faith (Gal. 3:25-29); his doing and dying has become my doing and dying. His life is my life.

Sorry for the long quote...

Thank you for that quote by Nettles which when I read it seemed to present a lot of wonderful truths which would tend to prove infant baptism, but then suddenly, and strangely, he takes them as supporting the other position. All of the things he said about baptism were also true for circumcision.

There is discontinuity, as he notes. It is in degree of clarity of revelation of what circumcision always signified, and which baptism now signifies, but with a more expansively revealed word affixed. There is discontinuity in the sign, for the Jews of old cut off the foreskin of a male's member in a bloody sign (pointing forward to the Messiah who was cut off for our salvation), but we now have a bloodless sign of baptism which points back to a fulfilled reality in Christ. Here lies the discontinuity. Everything else about the two signs is identical as far as what they mean spiritually. The differences lie only in the degree of revelation that go along with them and in the form of the rites themselves.

Nettles says that paedo-baptism "builds upon an unwarranted and massive confidence in flesh relationships" Bong, wrong! We place no confidence in the flesh, but in God's promise. If I had an adopted son he would have every bit as much a right to the covenant blessings and baptism as my sons and daughters who were conceived of my loins by natural generation. I would baptize him no less, and catechize him just as much. He would be a child of the promise.

As far as the "new and better" covenant that we enjoy, I'm sure glad that Peter at Pentecost reaffirmed the principle of the covenant promise of God on the seed of his people, for otherwise the Jews who heard and were converted at Pentecost would have seen this new and better covenant as worse than the Old Covenant (they had enjoyed since birth,) under which their children were included in the covenant blessings.

I love Dr. Nettles and rejoice for what God is doing in the SBC, but these so-called arguments against paedo-baptism are anything but.

 

[louis_jp]

Pierre Marcel, "The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism."

Also agree with Riley. The best arguments for paedobaptism are to listen to the arguments of credobaptists. Just my humble opinion, no offense meant.

 

[Marrow Man]

Well, some reformed Baptist arguments are respectable (even if I respectfully disagree, and especially see rather considerable inconsistencies with a reformed understanding of the covenant of grace and federal headship), but the average run-of-the-mill Baptist argument I've run across in the past is extremely weak to say the least. There is often no historic understanding of the issues (e.g., the historicity of infant baptism, even as a Protestant doctrine), and in some cases a quasi-Church of Christ position comes forth (i.e., one cannot be a Christian unless one is baptized as an adult by immersion). Basically, you get a "tradition" argument from many Baptists; very often, you get a "tradition" argument from some paedobaptists as well, which is an equally sad thing.

I believe I've mentioned this before, but I've heard James White (a gifted man whom I admire greatly) become very incensed when Presbyterians pat Reformed Baptists on the head (his expression I believe) and say they are not really "reformed." I can see how that would be offensive to a Reformed Baptist. But I also see the opposite come from the other side -- that Presbyterians and the like didn't "reform" enough. That's not very helpful either. Neither is the notion that if you don't adopt or conform to the credo position then you haven't really been baptized. Once again, I understand the argument and the convictions behind it, but it's not really helpful either in these discussions.