Paedo vs Credo: Main point of contention?

[au5t1n]

austinww:

We paedos tend to emphasize external aspects somewhat more. God makes a covenant with professing believers and their households under their rule. Both adults and children in the covenant can apostatize, but the children, like their parents, are expected to keep the covenant they are raised in. Who is and is not truly regenerate is not something we can see (although there are fruits).

Can it be said that the major difference is hermeneutics: paedos tend to depend heavily on covenant theology; credos seek to follow the explicit statements in scripture, for which there is no explicit command to paedobaptize.

Of course, there's the oikos argument, but doesn't this fall short, given that besides being baptized, households also: 1) receive the Spirit (Acts 11:14-15) and 2) believe (16:34)? The argument that oikos necessarily includes children fails on this point, in my opinion.

It isn't really the point whether there were children or how young. The point is that the Scripture just assumes when a head converts, his household converts with him. This is both an OT and NT principle (cf. [esv]Gen. 17:7[/esv] and [esv]Acts 2:39[/esv], which echo the same basic household language that is present throughout Scripture). There are other threads discussing this question where people who know the arguments better than I have addressed the issue. Perhaps some of the paedos who have been on here longer can point you to a helpful thread or so on the household baptisms.

As for covenant theology, I'm hesitant to say that is the main difference. I think there are some soteriological implications as well. The Scripture treats the children of believers as believers to be raised in the faith, unless they prove otherwise by falling away. The Baptist view must be read into the text using modern, individualistic assumptions. I think others can address this better than I can, though, to be honest. I recommend you ask some older, wiser credo and paedo members of this board.

-----Added 11/2/2009 at 10:31:37 EST-----

Can it be said that the major difference is hermeneutics: paedos tend to depend heavily on covenant theology; credos seek to follow the explicit statements in scripture, for which there is no explicit command to paedobaptize.

No more are there commands to give them coming-of-age baptisms at a later time.

 

[Ivan]

Main point of contention?

There isn't a scripture that says "baptize them chillens" nor one that says "don't you dare baptize them chillens!"

I don't know about that...have you misplaced your copy of the Cotton Patch translation?

Really?! The Cotten Patch translation? Interesting. I'd like to see that because Clarence Jordan was a Southern Baptist...kinda.

 

[Peairtach]

The New Covenant is an administration of the Abrahamic Covenant.

The Abrahamic Covenant, long before the Old Covenant phase, included children.

What's the beef with our dear (ana)baptist brethren? Have they got no sense of (redemptive) history?

It's an Olive Tree (or Vine or Fig) we're ingrafted into. Does a tree not have branches, and do some of those branches not have little twigs or twiglets? The Covenant is organic not atomistic or individualistic.

 

[steadfast7]

The New Covenant is an administration of the Abrahamic Covenant.

The Abrahamic Covenant, long before the Old Covenant phase, included children.

What's the beef with our dear (ana)baptist brethren? Have they got no sense of (redemptive) history?

It's an Olive Tree (or Vine or Fig) we're ingrafted into. Does a tree not have branches, and do some of those branches not have little twigs or twiglets? The Covenant is organic not atomistic or individualistic.

It seem as though it is because of continuity with Abraham that baptism, like circumcision, is applied to infants. I admit, it is elegant to view the covenants as having this observable symmetry, but are there are any New Testament descriptions of baptism occurring apart from faith?

 

[lynnie]

"Moroni's magical glasses of proper interpretation:"

 

[DMcFadden]

Moderator Note

I recommend that a thread be made in the general baptism area. Too Many Baptists are Playing in a Paedo playbox. That should have been stomped on right away.

Sorry - i thought this was the one condensed thread - moving along : )

Oops! Me too. Sorry for being inattentive. Also moving along.

 

[steadfast7]

Can a moderator help move the thread?

hope I didn't cause any problems, sorry.

 

[lynnie]

One caution....every scholarly Baptist I knew in my old Baptist days believed that children were set apart/sanctified by the faith of the parents. They believed in Covenantal promises.

But that setting apart happens because of the parent's faith for a Baptist, not because of Baptism.

Even though I travel mostly in paedo circles now, it really bothers me when people say Baptists have no place for kids under the Covenant. Sure they do-they believe it is the faith of the parents that scripture says sets children apart.

 

[au5t1n]

The New Covenant is an administration of the Abrahamic Covenant.

The Abrahamic Covenant, long before the Old Covenant phase, included children.

What's the beef with our dear (ana)baptist brethren? Have they got no sense of (redemptive) history?

It's an Olive Tree (or Vine or Fig) we're ingrafted into. Does a tree not have branches, and do some of those branches not have little twigs or twiglets? The Covenant is organic not atomistic or individualistic.

It seem as though it is because of continuity with Abraham that baptism, like circumcision, is applied to infants. I admit, it is elegant to view the covenants as having this observable symmetry, but are there are any New Testament descriptions of baptism occurring apart from faith?

Where in Scripture do we see infants being described as "apart from faith"? They are raised in the faith. Obviously their mental faculties are undeveloped to a degree, and obviously they do not understand the gospel communicated through English (or whatever language) right out of the womb, but it seems a stretch to use that as a reason to describe them as being "apart from faith" when the Scripture everywhere includes them as belonging to the people of faith, if they are the offspring of believers.

I'm not speaking of regeneration here. Like I said earlier, we paedos don't like to base it on who is/is not regenerate, since that can't be seen. Either way, you will find that not everyone here shares the underlying assumption common in some Baptist circles that infants cannot be regenerate.

 

[Marrow Man]

Really?! The Cotten Patch translation? Interesting. I'd like to see that because Clarence Jordan was a Southern Baptist...kinda.

Really? Well, that explains a lot.

J/K!

 

[Skyler]

That may be the technical meaning of the term "Anabaptist",

I didn't intend it in anything other than a technical sense, so there is no cause for complaint.

Thank you for clarifying that.

 

[au5t1n]

I think you mean "Reformed Baptists".

There's a difference between baptists and Anabaptists, mainly on the subject of separation from the world and pacifism.

Hey, maybe you should start a third thread on this topic for self-identified Anabaptists.

 

[Ron]

are there are any New Testament descriptions of baptism occurring apart from faith?

Hello Dennis,

To answer your question, NO. But there's more to the story. We don't know whether the household baptisms recorded in the NT included babies but what we do know is that the reason indexed for those baptism was not individual faith but rather household membership. When we come to Scripture with a covenant eye we say sure, household baptism makes perfect sense. In fact, would would expect to see household baptisms occuring. Accordingly, we take those household baptisms as corroborating evidence for the paedo position. (It's not the main argument mind you, but it does offer stong corroborating evidence; as does Samuel Miller's argument from church history.)

You asked a fair question and now will I. Can we find in Scripture one example of a person born into a covenant home who got baptized after confessing Christ? You grasp the point. Both questions (yours and mine) are intended to argue from silence. In order to determine whether an argument from silence is fallacious or not, a burden of proof must be established. I would suggest that the burden of proof is squarely upon the Baptist who must show that God reduced the external status of covenant children from his children to the devil's children. Is that the glory of the New Covenant when God says that "all will know me"? Is the glory of the New Covenant that God would have us treat our children as outside Christ?

For what it's worth, here's a more extensive treatment of the subject: Reformed Apologist: A Primer on Covenant Theology & Baptism

Blessings,

Ron

 

[au5t1n]

Hi Austin,

Hi Ron! The rest of your post is addressed to steadfast7 (Dennis Oh). I'm paedo.

 

[Ron]

Hi Austin,

Hi Ron! The rest of your post is addressed to steadfast7 (Dennis Oh). I'm paedo.

Glad to hear it - I'll change it!

 

[au5t1n]

Hi Austin,

Hi Ron! The rest of your post is addressed to steadfast7 (Dennis Oh). I'm paedo.

Glad to hear it - I'll change it!

Thanks. By the way, I didn't mean to be rude in calling you by your first name. I'm accustomed to addressing people by their username, and yours just happened to be your first name. Sorry about that.

-----Added 11/3/2009 at 10:07:46 EST-----

On the other hand, I'm not sure I can pronounce DiGiacomo.

 

[steadfast7]

are there are any New Testament descriptions of baptism occurring apart from faith?

Hello Dennis,

To answer your question, NO. But there's more to the story. We don't know whether the household baptisms recorded in the NT included babies but what we do know is that the reason indexed for those baptism was not individual faith but rather household membership. When we come to Scripture with a covenant eye we say sure, household baptism makes perfect sense. In fact, would would expect to see household baptisms occuring. Accordingly, we take those household baptisms as corroborating evidence for the paedo position. (It's not the main argument mind you, but it does offer stong corroborating evidence; as does Samuel Miller's argument from church history.)

Yes, I fully grant the household baptism thing. I come from an Asian context where it is not unusual for the whole family to convert when the father converts, and children are raised as Christians. There's no contention there, but I don't think this fact necessarily negates the baptist position.

You asked a fair question and now will I. Can we find in Scripture one example of a person born into a covenant home who got baptized after confessing Christ? You grasp the point. Both questions (yours and mine) are intended to argue from silence. In order to determine whether an argument from silence is fallacious or not, a burden of proof must be established. I would suggest that the burden of proof is squarely upon the Baptist who must show that God reduced the external status of covenant children from his children to the devil's children. Is that the glory of the New Covenant when God says that "all will know me"? Is the glory of the New Covenant that God would have us treat our children as outside Christ?

In my understanding, I do not find any instance where baptism is separated from faith, unless one assumes that household baptism necessarily included children, which is hard to firmly argue for, given the use of oikos in NT narrative contexts. I'm not sure if any baptist would say that the children of believing parents belong to the devil. I'm sure there is some level of sanctification occurring (as in the case of an unbelieving spouse).

That's why it seems to me that the main problem comes down to the ambiguity of the term "oikos." Who precisely was included? Calvinists are known to protect the words "all" or "whole" from being used literally (in limited atonement passages, for example), but here it seems the rules have changed, wouldn't you say?

 

[steadfast7]

Where in Scripture do we see infants being described as "apart from faith"? They are raised in the faith. Obviously their mental faculties are undeveloped to a degree, and obviously they do not understand the gospel communicated through English (or whatever language) right out of the womb, but it seems a stretch to use that as a reason to describe them as being "apart from faith" when the Scripture everywhere includes them as belonging to the people of faith, if they are the offspring of believers.

Yes, agreed. Many infants are described as in the faith. My question was referring to baptism occurring apart from faith.

 

[au5t1n]

I have to agree with John Macarthur on this issue when I wonder how we can have a conversation about something that isn't even in the bible.... infant baptism. Any indication in the Bible about infant baptism must be inserted by the reader. I personally have wrestled with the issue but find myself firmly credo and for these sets of reasons.

1. Infant baptism is no where mentioned in the New Testament. Anyone who wishes to see it there must first insert something there.
2. Circumcision and baptism are not exact signs of one another. Circumsion was a sign of the need for cleansing, not a sign of faith in God. Baptism is a sign that "We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life."-Romans 6:4.
3. Another thing that made me settle the baptism issue is the fact that the Israel of God is made up only of regenerate believers. Now, I know some are thinking that there are going to be people who profess and who are baptized but who yet are not regenerated, and I will give you that point. But, that is no excuse for giving the sign of faith to those who have not visibly repented and expressed faith in Jesus Christ. The Church of God is no longer under the umbrella of the ethnic state of Israel, but is being ruled by Jesus Christ, and therefore we should understand that the state of Israel was a foreshadowing of the true Israel of God, those who are the true sons of Abraham who are Jews inwardly.

Welcome to the PB! Be aware that this is a paedobaptist-only forum and you might get in trouble for advocating credobaptism on here.

Also, you should spend some time reading through the Baptism forum archives. Many of the points you bring up are addressed there, and even if you remain credo, you should see that the issue is not as simple as you are trying to make it. I have found the Baptism archives extremely useful for learning about both sides. Happy searching.

-----Added 11/3/2009 at 10:27:55 EST-----

Where in Scripture do we see infants being described as "apart from faith"? They are raised in the faith. Obviously their mental faculties are undeveloped to a degree, and obviously they do not understand the gospel communicated through English (or whatever language) right out of the womb, but it seems a stretch to use that as a reason to describe them as being "apart from faith" when the Scripture everywhere includes them as belonging to the people of faith, if they are the offspring of believers.

Yes, agreed. Many infants are described as in the faith. My question was referring to baptism occurring apart from faith.

But that's just the problem. Where do you get the idea that an infant of a believer is baptized "apart from faith"? You will not find the Scripture speaking of believers' children this way.

 

[steadfast7]

But that's just the problem. Where do you get the idea that an infant of a believer is baptized "apart from faith"? You will not find the Scripture speaking of believers' children this way.

I've always understood that for paedos, the infant is baptized on account of the parents' faith, not his/her own faith. Or, am I wrong on this? When I say baptism and faith as inseparable, I'm assuming that the faith is a confessed and intelligent assent done by the person being baptized.

 

[au5t1n]

But that's just the problem. Where do you get the idea that an infant of a believer is baptized "apart from faith"? You will not find the Scripture speaking of believers' children this way.

I've always understood that for paedos, the infant is baptized on account of the parents' faith, not his/her own faith. Or, am I wrong on this? When I say baptism and faith as inseparable, I'm assuming that the faith is a confessed and intelligent assent done by the person being baptized.

You will find various views here even among the paedos on the spiritual state of believers' infants. If the word faith is defined as requiring the ability to articulate the gospel in a language, then you are right, the infant doesn't have that. But baptism is primarily a picture of cleansing of sin, and that pertains as much to infants as to anyone.

 

[Ron]

I do not find any instance where baptism is separated from faith, unless one assumes that household baptism necessarily included children, which is hard to firmly argue for, given the use of oikos in NT narrative contexts.

Again, you are offering the same argument from silence that I already addressed. Moreover, Romans 4:11 teaches that the sign of circumcision (which was given to infants) was a seal of the righteousness one has by faith. This sign and seal was given to infants yet without them having first believed. Accordingly, it is false that a sign that points to the seal of faith is not intelligible when placed upon infants. How much more the case with a sign that points to union with Christ, which an infant may have through regeneration?!

"I'm not sure if any baptist would say that the children of believing parents belong to the devil."

I know many baptists who think so. In fact, I know a Reformed Baptist whose husband graduated from Westminster-west with an M. Div. who believes that their miscarried child must certainly be in hell because God never brought the child to a saving knowledge of Christ. In any case, even if no Baptist would say that they don't regard their children as belonging to the devil, they treat them as such at least in one respect - by not permitting them to receive the sign of entrance into the church.

The bottom line is, when did God abrogate the covenant status of those born of one professing parent?

Ron

 

[steadfast7]

But that's just the problem. Where do you get the idea that an infant of a believer is baptized "apart from faith"? You will not find the Scripture speaking of believers' children this way.

I've always understood that for paedos, the infant is baptized on account of the parents' faith, not his/her own faith. Or, am I wrong on this? When I say baptism and faith as inseparable, I'm assuming that the faith is a confessed and intelligent assent done by the person being baptized.

You will find various views here even among the paedos on the spiritual state of believers' infants. If the word faith is defined as requiring the ability to articulate the gospel in a language, then you are right, the infant doesn't have that. But baptism is primarily a picture of cleansing of sin, and that pertains as much to infants as to anyone.

Thanks for the clarification.
As a picture primarily of cleansing sin, I see this as further inseparably linked with identification and union with Christ, atonement, election, gospel assent. If an infant without faith is pronounced as cleansed from sin, how does it affect the "golden chain" and ordo salutis?

 

[au5t1n]

I've always understood that for paedos, the infant is baptized on account of the parents' faith, not his/her own faith. Or, am I wrong on this? When I say baptism and faith as inseparable, I'm assuming that the faith is a confessed and intelligent assent done by the person being baptized.

You will find various views here even among the paedos on the spiritual state of believers' infants. If the word faith is defined as requiring the ability to articulate the gospel in a language, then you are right, the infant doesn't have that. But baptism is primarily a picture of cleansing of sin, and that pertains as much to infants as to anyone.

Thanks for the clarification.
As a picture primarily of cleansing sin, I see this as further inseparably linked with identification and union with Christ, atonement, election, gospel assent. If an infant without faith is pronounced as cleansed from sin, how does it affect the "golden chain" and ordo salutis?

Indeed, it is linked with all of those things. We do not know who is elect or regenerate, but we are confident that those who profess faith and their children who are raised in the faith, are indeed truly in the faith. We can't presume to know who is/is not definitely regenerate, even among adults. I recommend you search the baptism forums because your questions are answered on old threads better than I can answer, although I try. I'm not saying don't keep asking me; I'm just saying you might find surfing the old threads helpful as a...supplement.

 

[steadfast7]

Again, you are offering the same argument from silence that I already addressed. Moreover, Romans 4:11 teaches that the sign of circumcision (which was given to infants) was a seal of the righteousness one has by faith. This sign and seal was given to infants yet without them having first believed. Accordingly, it is false that a sign that points to the seal of faith is not intelligible when placed upon infants. How much more the case with a sign that points to union with Christ, which an infant may have through regeneration?!

Thanks for the Rom 4:11 verse. hadn't considered that one yet. But, interestingly, noting the context, it seems to support credo rather than paedo:

11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them,

12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised.

See, though circumcision is applied to infants, Paul is not here speaking of infants, but of Abraham who was circumcised after exercising faith. It seems that true fidelity and continuity with the Abrahamic covenant would mean practicing what Abraham did (believe and was circumcised), rather than practicing what was done to his children (circumcision at infancy). I'm probably being heretical or something, so I'll cut the proposal right about -

 

[Ron]

Thanks for the Rom 4:11 verse. hadn't considered that one yet. But, interestingly, noting the context, it seems to support credo rather than paedo:

11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them,

12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised.

See, though circumcision is applied to infants, Paul is not here speaking of infants, but of Abraham who was circumcised after exercising faith. It seems that true fidelity and continuity with the Abrahamic covenant would mean practicing what Abraham did (believe and was circumcised), rather than practicing what was done to his children (circumcision at infancy). I'm probably being heretical or something, so I'll cut the proposal right about -

You are willing to acknowledge that circumcision was applied to infants and that it was a sign and seal of righteousness through faith when applied to Abraham. Yet you seem reluctant to concede that the sign and seal of circumcision when applied to infants had the exact same meaning. Please tell me then, what did circumcision mean when applied to infants? It meant the same thing - it is God's sign and God's seal - whether God gave increase to the one who would bear the sign or not.

Ron

 

[Contra_Mundum]

steadfast,
For your conclusion to have merit, you must propose a different, objective meaning for circumcision respecting Abraham than what it means for everyone else who received it--both Ishmael and Isaac, Jacob and Esau, David and Absolom--indeed every male among pre-Messiah Israel.

In fact, this is precisely the proposal that some non-Reformed (but somewhat covenant-minded) baptists have made--teaching that God actually makes two covenants with Abraham, a gracious one and a secular, non-spiritual one. Thus, circumcision is made to do double-duty for Abraham, being to him (alone) a testimony to his faith; but to everyone inclusive, nothing but a badge of national exclusivity.


________________________________

Moderation

And since this thread has been hopelessly intertwined with credo-answers in the paedo-only fourm (there were two threads, one in credo-answers, one in paedo-answers) I am moving it to the general "baptism" forum.

 

[steadfast7]

You are willing to acknowledge that circumcision was applied to infants and that it was a sign and seal of righteousness through faith when applied to Abraham. Yet you seem reluctant to concede that the sign and seal of circumcision when applied to infants had the exact same meaning. Please tell me then, what did circumcision mean when applied to infants? It meant the same thing - it is God's sign and God's seal - whether God gave increase to the one who would bear the sign or not.

I remember reading one of Rev. Buchanan's posts that one of the meanings of circumcision was to point to the Messiah, which was why it was applied to males. Do paedos generally believe this? It was news to me.

Having not yet gone in-depth on this topic, I'm inclined for now to view circumcision as a sign of justifying faith (it seems this way from the text). It follows then, that circumcision applied to male infants is meant to point to Abraham and his faith, through which justification is made for true Israel.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The question I once answered--with respect to "why males ONLY" received the sign of the covenant in the OT--I gave as, that such limitation was an explicit pointer to the gender of the promised Messiah.

I don't think this is controversial among us, although I imagine that for many of either side in the debate, little thought has ever been given as to answering "why?". Don't nearly all aspects of our religious devotion point to Christ in some way? It was no different in the Old Testament.

For our part we seldom ask such questions (since the NT is better, of course a sign is given that is applicable to and so visually includes women); and Baptists aren't given to trying to understand a paedo-position from the inside (any more than we typically are of a contrary position).

Nor do I think that a single aspect of the sign exhausts the meaning of it.

 

[steadfast7]

steadfast,
For your conclusion to have merit, you must propose a different, objective meaning for circumcision respecting Abraham than what it means for everyone else who received it--both Ishmael and Isaac, Jacob and Esau, David and Absolom--indeed every male among pre-Messiah Israel.

In fact, this is precisely the proposal that some non-Reformed (but somewhat covenant-minded) baptists have made--teaching that God actually makes two covenants with Abraham, a gracious one and a secular, non-spiritual one. Thus, circumcision is made to do double-duty for Abraham, being to him (alone) a testimony to his faith; but to everyone inclusive, nothing but a badge of national exclusivity.

Thanks for moving the thread and for your response.
That's an interesting Baptist argument - you wouldn't to know any authors that have written on it, I wouldn't mind taking a look. I'm assuming it's not a popular argument.

however, we do know that the NT links Abraham's circumcision with his faith, and also that Paul seemed to have a dual view of circumcision - on the one hand he repudiated it from the Judaizers, and on the other he wanted Timothy get receive it. Hmm, might it also link into the debate of limited atonement: was not two kinds of grace dispensed on the cross, one for the elect and the other for the world? No need to get to get into that, I guess. But it might be an interesting study.