Question for Paedos
- Thread starter Herald
- Start date
- Status
The real question is, Bill, when did you start dyeing your hair gray?
That is not gray hair. It's a lighting effect.
Adam - well said.
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
I chose option 3, but if credobaptists had a true/correct understanding of soteriology, wouldn't they then understand that passages like Romans 6:3-5 are symbolic? They would be able to use biblical exegesis to understand that it is symbolic based on what the rest of scripture says about being baptized into Christ, and realize that paedobaptism is how God intends the sacrament to be carried out.
Uh-huh, yup, you bet (wink, wink). Sure thing, Bill. I see you're in denial.
I am NOT in Egypt!
[bible]Romans 6:3-5[/bible]
Tom - this passage is not symbolic. The baptism being spoken of in Romans 6 is spiritual, not physical. In my humble opinion this passage is not a proof-text for either the credo or paedo position.
I find it hard to regard a fellow Christian as my brother or sister if they are set-in-stone Arminians. I do regard Baptists as my brothers and sisters if they are Calvinist and understand the utterly obvious message in the OT and NT that God chooses us. So, I think the issue of credo- and paedobaptism is serious, but not as serious as the heretical teaching that we can achieve salvation through means of works, where our "good" works determine our level of faith. Obviously, our faith determines our good works, and likewise our faith is the focus in padebaptism. I understand works as being a focus in credobaptism.
Davidius
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I meant symbolic in the way that we don't need to be dunked in water to "die" and emerge from the water to be brought into a new life with Christ.
Tom - I'm simply addressing the exegesis of the passage you cited.
What do you mean by a "set-in-stone Arminian?" Most free willies on the credo side would not fit the definition of Arminian, ala the Remonstrants. We are quick to use the Arminian label on anyone who is not a TULIP keeper. I recommend a study of historical Arminianism and then decide whether all of todays "Arminians" share the same theological boat.
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
Look at it this way, Tom. Since there is only one way of salvation, all so-called Arminians got saved the same way everybody is saved: they, being numbered among the elect, were regenerated by the Holy Spirit, making it possible for them to hear the gospel and obey it, God having granted them the faith with which to believe. They are saved because God saved them.
Now, they may not believe that or accept that, but that's how they were saved - whether they like it or not - since God saves sinners in only one way.
So, Tom, you see: a genuinely-saved Arminian is really a Calvinist in denial!
Davidius
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Ok, you guys have all been reformed a lot longer than I have. One thing I like about the Reformed camp is that we care about knowing what we believe and why we believe it, and we don't dogmatically force people to assent to something and keep them from asking questions. I, as the poll will attest, did not vote that Baptists are not saved (I'm also not the one who voted "I'm not sure"). However, this whole discussion raises a few questions in my mind.
Everyone seems to keep harping on the fact that "we don't need a perfect theology to be saved." Well, that's great, especially when we're talking about obscure issues like Eschatology and Lapsarianism. But aren't we talking about something of a little more imminence? Most Presbyterians I know would assert that a person who refuses to baptize their children is breaking a commandment of God first established in Genesis 17. What I'm saying is, this is not an issue like Postmillenialism vs. Amillenialism where no one would say (as far as I know) that the other side is in sin for holding to their position. And in a context such as that, I can certainly see how the "I'm glad we don't need a perfect theology to be saved" statement applies. But it seems to me that a Presbyterian who is being consistent has to say that a Baptist who refuses his entire life to baptize his offspring has lived in willful, conscious, unrepentant sin. Why, at this point, do we say that this sin is different from something like stealing, or adultery, especially considering the magnitude it must carry by being tied to the Covenant of Grace? No one would say to a professing Christian who lived in an adulterous relationship his entire life and never repented: "Well that's okay, I'm sure glad we don't need a perfect theology of sex to be saved." No, because that is an issue of sinning and not sinning, whereas those other kinds of lofty, less-imminent issues aren't.
So what makes the sin of not baptizing one's offspring different from other sins? I guess this is what I want to know. I can't say that Baptists aren't saved but I want to be able to defend it with good reason and not just because it would sound bad/mean to say that.
Everyone seems to keep harping on the fact that "we don't need a perfect theology to be saved." Well, that's great, especially when we're talking about obscure issues like Eschatology and Lapsarianism. But aren't we talking about something of a little more imminence? Most Presbyterians I know would assert that a person who refuses to baptize their children is breaking a commandment of God first established in Genesis 17. What I'm saying is, this is not an issue like Postmillenialism vs. Amillenialism where no one would say (as far as I know) that the other side is in sin for holding to their position. And in a context such as that, I can certainly see how the "I'm glad we don't need a perfect theology to be saved" statement applies. But it seems to me that a Presbyterian who is being consistent has to say that a Baptist who refuses his entire life to baptize his offspring has lived in willful, conscious, unrepentant sin. Why, at this point, do we say that this sin is different from something like stealing, or adultery, especially considering the magnitude it must carry by being tied to the Covenant of Grace? No one would say to a professing Christian who lived in an adulterous relationship his entire life and never repented: "Well that's okay, I'm sure glad we don't need a perfect theology of sex to be saved." No, because that is an issue of sinning and not sinning, whereas those other kinds of lofty, less-imminent issues aren't.
So what makes the sin of not baptizing one's offspring different from other sins? I guess this is what I want to know. I can't say that Baptists aren't saved but I want to be able to defend it with good reason and not just because it would sound bad/mean to say that.
I refer to Christians who believe they reach out to God and include God in their lives, based on a decision they made on their own behalf. Reaching out, meaning God won't accept them until they accept God. And set in stone, being they hear why they are wrong but they don't believe it, because they can't understand how God could cause them to reach out--they believe they do it on their own.
A special thank you for reminding me to research historical Arminianism to compare it with the different modern-day Arminianism. I saw that distinction pointed out last month on the PB (maybe you were the person who wrote about it?
)
Theoretical
Puritan Board Professor
It would be an extremely helpful thing to flesh out, and honestly the inverse could be seen as true as well for all of us paedos except those who are converts (and even then maybe not if baptizo is a hang-up).
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
David:
Let me give a try. Maybe it'll help and maybe it won't.
This is different because Baptists are not deliberately breaking the commandment of God. They are not Baptist because they want to disobey a part of the Bible, but because they believe that part differently.
Why there is a roadblock there we can't seem to figure out. To me it's pretty simple, but to a dyed-in-the-wool Baptist it's pretty simple the other way around. Where I run into problems is in two areas: first, that there are a number of Baptists who are really good Christians, and even good Christian leaders. Their Biblical knowledge is very much worth listening to. So I do not doubt that they are sincere, and so are not deliberately trying to go against the Bible. They honestly believe their view on baptism, and do so because they believe the Bible.
The second problem is that I don't find a comparably better respect for the Word of God among Presbyterians. Though they might be right about baptism, they are much more wrong about other things than a lot of Baptists I know. If you're talking about integrity in the Word, you have to talk about more than just baptism. When we're not talking about baptism on the PB, Presbyterians have nothing on Baptists, nor the other way around. We're pretty even.
So though I might disagree with Baptists about baptism, and though I would disagree more with some Presbyterians about other things, I have to admit that the desire for the Word is not a lot different between the two. They both love the Lord, and both are trying to follow Him according to His Word.
I've added a few posts here and there to see if I could maybe make a difference to the discussions about baptism. Maybe it helped, and maybe it didn't. But I don't doubt that they are justified by Christ the same as I am. I wonder to myself what it is that I am being so stubborn about in my lack of understanding. Christ does not welcome me because I'm better than Baptists, I know that.
One thing that I've noticed over the years is that the Credos and Paedos need each other, just so that they don't go off the deep end and get snobbish with their beliefs. I know that the Paedo view is right, but also that a lot of Paedos don't know what they're talking about when it comes to baptism; not any more than Baptists do. And I found out that I don't know near as much as I could know. I was born knowing the old form for baptism from the Synod of Dordt. And now, 54 years later, I'm still just getting past scratching the surface of what that document reveals. I read along every time it is read every time another child gets baptized, and I am awed even more than before. And I come to realize that my own best defence of Paedo baptism was a very, very poor attempt in comparison. But I can't forget that it was the Credos that brought some of the issues to my attention in their debating this topic. I needed them. And I think we all do.
Maybe that's why there are Credos. And for Credos, maybe that's why there are Paedos. Just to keep us on the straight and narrow. Just to keep us from getting snobby about OUR theological knowledge. The theological novice is no less saved than the theologically mature. And sometimes we forget to be humble.
CalvinandHodges
Puritan Board Junior
Greetings:
As I understand it: A person is saved based only on a correct Soteriology. Whether he/she is a credo or paedo Baptist is immaterial.
-CH
As I understand it: A person is saved based only on a correct Soteriology. Whether he/she is a credo or paedo Baptist is immaterial.
-CH
Davidius
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
John,
Thank you for writing all that. You mentioned that your contributions to discussions on baptism may have helped or they may not have. Well, I can say that your posts in discussions on baptism and other sensitive issues have been greatly helpful to me in adding to my knowledge but even more in being an example of kindness and Christian charity. I haven't been on the board for very long but I've already run into issues where I've said things I wish I hadn't. Your posts are always refreshing in this regard and I appreciate the model you set for younger guys like myself.
Overall, I very much understand what you're saying here. I have greatly benefited from reading the work of some godly Baptists since I started to study Reformed theology, and many baptists on this board have also been great guys to get to know and read. But I still feel a little awkward about this whole issue, for the specific reason concerning sin that I mentioned. Can baptists be members of presbyterian churches without coming under discipline? Can Presbyterians be members of Baptist churches without the same happening? I just have trouble, not following with what you're saying about not needing to be theologically mature to be saved, but what the implications are of acknowledging that neglecting infant baptism is sin (if you're a paedo) or, on the other hand, that practicing it is sin (if you're a credo). It just seems like there has to be some difference in the way we approach this from the way we approach topics like the ones I mentioned above (eschatology, lapsarianism, etc.)
Last edited:
Gentlemen: I have been disagreed with before on what I believe, but I still hold to it. I do not see it as a matter of sin. I see it as making the best of limited understanding. Credos hold to believers baptism because, in our understanding of God's word, it is the biblical method of baptism. Paedos hold to infant baptism because, in their understanding, it is the biblical method of baptism. Both groups are convinced in their own minds that their baptismal position is an accurate reflection of the biblical commandment.
I suppose this argument may be used on any doctrinal issue, but it is not that simple. There are only a few sacraments of the church (ordinances, if some of my Baptist brethren are hung up on the word). Adam was spot on when he said it is a hermeneutical issue. It is. Since both hermeneutical systems elevate Christ and embrace the doctrines of grace, I do not see the baptism issue as one of sin. I do however, see it as a matter to break fellowship over within the context of a local church. A church that is split over baptism will have chaos. It is best to separate. The PB is a different dynamic. It is not a local church. We have the liberty of coming and going as we please without damaging the church.
I've articulated this position before with few PB members agreeing with me. That's fine. But it's worth revisiting.
I suppose this argument may be used on any doctrinal issue, but it is not that simple. There are only a few sacraments of the church (ordinances, if some of my Baptist brethren are hung up on the word). Adam was spot on when he said it is a hermeneutical issue. It is. Since both hermeneutical systems elevate Christ and embrace the doctrines of grace, I do not see the baptism issue as one of sin. I do however, see it as a matter to break fellowship over within the context of a local church. A church that is split over baptism will have chaos. It is best to separate. The PB is a different dynamic. It is not a local church. We have the liberty of coming and going as we please without damaging the church.
I've articulated this position before with few PB members agreeing with me. That's fine. But it's worth revisiting.
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
David and Bill:
I understand what both of you are saying. I agree that there is always in the background the insinuation of sin on the part of the person holding the other view.
But if we just go with the idea that this is a hermeneutical problem for now, then it may be helpful just to point out that we first have to be concerned about our own hermeneutical shortcomings before we start lobbing missiles of hermeneutical error at the other view. This lack of humility is more of a problem, then, than the difference in baptism itself, it seems to me.
From some of the things that I've read in discussions here on the PB, some people who accuse the other side of error are not a whole lot less in error in the way they present or represent the issue. So we're cut off at the pass before we really get going in any serious way. It has been shown that the obstacles between the two views are not insurmountable, but some peoples' attitudes are.
Again, I would feel more at home in a Baptist church which practices the RPW, though perhaps not acknowledging that that is what it is, than in a church that stands very strongly on the RPW, but only in order to flagrantly break it by adding rules and regulations. I would be more at home in a Baptist church that practices oversight of the ministry of the Word than a church that opens her pulpits to men preaching their opinions as Bible doctrine.
To me these things are like a child of mine that comes to me complaining of being hit by his sibling, excusing himself for having hit him in return. I always am more strict with the one who returns the hit than with the original offence because it is always a worse offence to repay evil for evil, and to do so knowingly. If someone makes himself a champion of something, then to be the guilty party on that issue is simply inexcusable. I can see people being simply wrong about some things, but to stand on them, to claim to know them, and then to be the ones in error on those things, that's much worse than simply being wrong.
I've been one to hold to the view that where Pentecostals make their error is right on the thing they are standing on, Pentecost. Where Baptists make their error is right on the thing they stand on, baptism. Where Presuppositionalist make their error is on the very thing they stand on, presuppositions. It's all very elementary, but it helps to have a simple and firm foundation.
I was just fortunate that way, growing up in a church that was not just new, but new to this continent, new to the language, new to a new life, new to a new world. It had only the foundations at first, and that was what was preached and practiced. It was a far different world than what we live in now, just a half century removed. I was fortunate to have been in a somewhat cloistered atmosphere, being grounded in the fundamentals of Reformed theology, before any other thing came into the picture, because my original church had no time or room for anything other than the fundamentals at that time. It is difficult to describe to you the cultural influences of a people who have fled their own culture, who are rebuilding a whole way of life, not just bringing their culture with them. We weren't just Dutch immigrants; that grossly misrepresents who these people were and what they were doing. I can see this as a very good way to rebuild the churches again.
If we're going to tackle some of the issues that face us, and do so as brothers, then I believe that our different views, if we hold them as correctable only to truth, and are willing to be corrected by truth, are valuable assets to tackling them. We are much better equipped in that way than any other generation before us. We are taking a rich thing to the table, not stumbling blocks. It is my conviction that we need to know what the solid foundations are, and that we build on these. And if we realize that we have nothing to lose but our own errors, then we can put these things on the table and have a truly beneficial discussion. We won't be interested in changing each others's minds, but in make each other better Christians.
It would be expected of me, for example, to make better Baptists out of the Baptists, and that I be willing to be made a better Presbyterian by my Baptist brothers. And we know that being a better Baptist may eventually mean becoming Presbyterian, or becoming a better Presbyterian may eventually mean becoming Baptist. We're not afraid of the truth, or to be led into the truth. We have to rely on the Spirit to lead us, and then we will not fail. It is when we become adamant that other things take priority over the Spirit and the Word that we run into trouble.
Anyways, that's my thoughts on this.
Larry Hughes
Puritan Board Sophomore
Most definitely, unequivocally YES they are. I'm not sure I know, have known or met any in person, online or other wise who would say no, excepting cults which would say the same of any Christian.
non dignus
Puritan Board Sophomore
'Creedo or Speedos, you guys are barely covered.
Last edited:
reformedman
Puritan Board Freshman
I think the credobaptist has to be defined a little more, because even though I am a baptist (I believe that the ordinance of baptism is for believers only), that I don't think that all credos agree with my view. Since this topic has to do with the ordinance of baptism, and looking at this in a legal broad sense, a credo can be not saved even though he has the correct view of baptism. So if he believes in believers baptism but is a devil worshipper, then hmmm maybe not. Obviously jk.
All I mean to say is, as everyone else has said above, this doctrine does not define the proof of salvation for the inidividual.
********edit**********
Oops I just noticed, this poll was addressed to Paedos only. Sorry.
I wholeheartedly agree with John V. As I have said before, even Presbyterians must admit that their arguments in favor of paedobaptism are not as clear as their other prebyterian distinctives. (DoG, RPW, Male Headship etc) The fact that I am not compelled by the paedo argument is either a mark of my own limited intelligence, a mark of the weakness of the argument itself, or a mark of my stubbornness and disobedience. As to the first and second, there is a great possibility. Of the third, I can assure you that it is not so.
My question would be how many of the people sitting in Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican churches understand their own paedobaptist argument? At least the credo argument is something that is clearly demonstrated in the NT. Even paedos agree that we should baptize adults if they profess faith and repentance. Right?
One other thing. All the arguing in the world does not accomplish anything outside of charity. The way some paedos argue so vehemently it makes me wonder who they are trying to convince!
My question would be how many of the people sitting in Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican churches understand their own paedobaptist argument? At least the credo argument is something that is clearly demonstrated in the NT. Even paedos agree that we should baptize adults if they profess faith and repentance. Right?
One other thing. All the arguing in the world does not accomplish anything outside of charity. The way some paedos argue so vehemently it makes me wonder who they are trying to convince!
A5pointer
Puritan Board Sophomore
I can't believe what I am reading here. For clarification does the poll mean by "credo" one who holds to it as a correct view of baptism or one who has been baptised credo? The poll might say "does baptism and or view of baptism save anybody"? I answer no. I am surprised this thread has not been answered this way. And by the way the view that Arminians are not brothers should be questioned. Very scarey.
MrMerlin777
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I voted for choice one.
All who trust in Christ for their salvation are saved.
One may not have all of the "I's dotted and T's crossed" theologically but still believe on Christ and be saved.
One can have a ton of "correct theological knowledge" and still depart into Hell on the judgment day.
All who trust in Christ for their salvation are saved.
One may not have all of the "I's dotted and T's crossed" theologically but still believe on Christ and be saved.
One can have a ton of "correct theological knowledge" and still depart into Hell on the judgment day.
- Status
