# A very sloppy debate on Padeo VS Credo



## Christopher88 (Mar 21, 2013)

I have written up, not edited the following. I would very much enjoy some feedback as I debate this issue with my self. Below are my drawn out thoughts and a very strong Credo position though I favor Padeo. 

Again this is not edited, but I am so excited about this I could not wait to post. I will clean it up before I post it to my blog. Hearing your thoughts I might add to it before posting the formal. 





> Why I am and am not a Reformed Baptist
> Last year in 2012 I was becoming more active in the Presbyterian belief, or should I say reformed doctrines of Christianity. On this day of March 2013, I will say I am reformed with agreement at large with the Westminster Confession and the three forms of unity. Yet there are two things I still struggle with as to why I have to consider if I can subscribe to the Westminster Confession in whole.
> These two issues are with Church Polity and Baptism. In part one of two in my why am and am not a reformed Baptist series, I am going to touch on this issue of baptism.
> Last year I was premature to accept the doctrine of the Presbyterians known as Padeo Baptism. (Please note, I still favor this doctrine as I see it matching up with scripture to a good degree but also contrary to scripture, in others words today I am credo, tomorrow I am Padeo. Thus why I have to study this more)
> ...


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Mar 21, 2013)

This is one argument that I found interesting concerning Jesus' Baptism, I know there are people on this board who would be far better suited to answer your questions and maybe they can point out if there's theological or logical fallacy in the following argument.

Under Mosaic Law Levitical Priests had to be 30 years old of age and go through ceremonial washing (baptism) before they could be ordain to the priestly ministry. 




> Numbers 4:1-4
> 1And the LORD spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying,
> 2Take the sum of the sons of Kohath from among the sons of Levi, after their families, by the house of their fathers,
> 3*From thirty years old and upward* even until fifty years old, all that enter into the host, to do the work in the tabernacle of the congregation.
> 4This shall be the service of the sons of Kohath in the tabernacle of the congregation, about the most holy things:





> Numbers 8:5-7
> 5And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
> 6*Take the Levites from among the children of Israel, and cleanse them*.
> 7And thus shalt thou do unto them, to cleanse them: *Sprinkle water of purifying upon them, and let them shave all their flesh, and let them wash their clothes, and so make themselves clean*.


 


> Hebrews 5:1-6
> 1For *every high priest* taken from among men *is ordained for men in things pertaining to God*, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:
> 2Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.
> 3And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.
> ...





We all know that Christ is our high priest. When Jesus was baptized he was still under the Old Covenant, therefore if he was to be ordain as a high priest he had to fulfill the ceremonial law of the Mosaic covenant. If he would have neglected to do so he would have sinned and would have disqualified him as a worthy messiah. Scriptures tells us that Jesus was approximately 30 years of age when he began his ministry and his baptism was the beginning of his ministry (Luke 3:23). This is the requirement Jesus was fulfilling when he replied to John.





> Matthew 3:14-15
> 14But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
> 15And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.





Now if we look at the response Jesus gave to the chief priest and the scribes when he was teaching in the temple this make much more sense. (Remember that the Temple was reserved to the ministering of the priests).



> Luke 20:1-8
> 1And it came to pass, that on one of those days, as *he taught the people in the temple*, and preached the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes came upon him with the elders,
> 2And spake unto him, saying, Tell us, *by what authority doest thou these things? or who is he that gave thee this authority?*
> 3And he answered and said unto them, I will also ask you one thing; and answer me:
> ...




Could it be that Jesus answered in this fashion to point to the baptism he received from John as his ordination into the priesthood since only ordain priest were allowed to minister in the temple?



Also remember that all of God's people are now called Priests, therefore it would make sense that the seal of the covenant is now represented by the same "baptism" priest under the Mosaic administration had to perform as a symbol of cleansing.


__________________________________________________________________

Now for the Baptism being a covenant sign replacing Circumcision I believe there are in dept explanations for this on this board but to cut it short my simple understanding it that these are seals of the same covenant, one was pre-fullfillment (Christ Death and Resurrection being the fulfillment of the covenant) and Baptism is the post-fullfillment seal. Each represent realities of Christ's work of salvation for his people. Circumcision represent Christ shedding his blood on the cross as a ransom for us (removal of the sinful flesh) and Baptism represent the washing of regeneration of the spirit (quickening/Resurrection).


----------



## Christopher88 (Mar 21, 2013)

Etienne,
Your post was very helpful, thank you.
Pretty much tore most of the credo argument towards shreds, at least with my writings. 
Thanks so much for the great post.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Mar 21, 2013)

Sonny said:


> Etienne,
> Your post was very helpful, thank you.
> Pretty much tore most of the credo argument towards shreds, at least with my writings.
> Thanks so much for the great post.



You're welcome, I went through a similar dilemma in the past few years so I understand the confusion that can arise when studying this subject.


----------



## Phil D. (Mar 21, 2013)

Fogetaboutit said:


> This is one argument that I found interesting concerning Jesus' Baptism,



I have suggested such a viewpoint is dubious here.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Mar 21, 2013)

Phil D. said:


> Fogetaboutit said:
> 
> 
> > This is one argument that I found interesting concerning Jesus' Baptism,
> ...



Thanks for pointing me to that thread, this is the kind of criticism I was looking for. Although it's true Christ wasn't a Levite and his priesthood is after the order of Melchizedec and not Aaron, I'm not sure there are absolutely no link. The age argument aside I think the fact that priests had to go through ceremonial baptism is interesting. To my knowledge there is no link with ceremonial washing and the office of prophet in scriptures so what was Christ fulfilling by being baptized? (Matt 3:14-15) He certainly didn't need to be born again so what was his baptism pointing to in terms of fulfillment? So to say his baptism was solely his ordination as a prophet does not seem more logical than the later. Also Christ could not fulfill his office of King if he would have been a Levite since David was from the tribe of Judah, this is why his priesthood is from the order of Melchizedec, but to completely separate the levitical priesthood from Christ priesthood doesn't seem right either especially the office of High Priest since that office was a picture of Christ also. 

What would be your interpretation be for the way Jesus answered the priest and scribes by pointing to John baptism when they confronted him for teaching in the temple?


----------



## Peairtach (Mar 21, 2013)

Louis Berkhof suggests that Christ's participation in the signs and seals of the Covenant, were, for Him, helps in His task of fulfilling the Covenant of Redemption. See _Systematic Theology_, pp.268-269.

Your argument, Etienne, about Christ as priest is suggestive but of course it argues too much as there were other elements to the inauguration of the priesthood such as shaving and washing of clothes, etc. Baptism may pick up on the teaching of all the ceremonial washings of the OT, together with circumcision, but both Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists can see these things.

Christ was fulfilling all righteousness by being baptised by being a Christian, _the_ Christian for all true Christians, just as much as He was an Israelite, _the_ Israelite for all true Israelites.

It's interesting that the Baptistic scheme _does_ extend the sign of the Covenant - to women who profess faith. Under the Old Testament, women who professed faith did not have the inaugural Covenant sign.

At the same time the Baptist scheme _takes away_ the sign of the Covenant from the little boys of those who profess.

The Baptistic system gives with one hand and takes with the other.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Mar 21, 2013)

Peairtach said:


> Your argument, Etienne, about Christ as priest is suggestive but of course it argues too much as there were other elements to the inauguration of the priesthood such as shaving and washing of clothes, etc.



Good point, but there's still the answer that Christ gave to the Priests in the temple, Christ was challenged many times over his authority, why did he only answer in this manner while he was in the temple?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 21, 2013)

Chris,
Just some observations. I don't like to argue people into or out of their baptismal convictions, because there are deeper issues. I think positions on baptism properly grow out of those deeper things, and are consistent with them. Otherwise, it is too much grafting practice onto strange roots. Sometimes, if you are young enough in the faith, you can first see what is done (praxis) and then learn why it is done in the context. Otherwise, you should typically learn the grammar, then the logic; then the rhetoric will "flow."

Regardless of how long you've identified as a Presbyterian, you should work at grasping this faith at the roots, trying to see how a practice like infant-baptism is the result of theological reflection, not simply a practice in search of a justification. You might still reject it, because you yourself realize you have a deep commitment to an alternative hermeneutic, or way of reading Scripture. You should follow Presbyterian practice out of conviction, not simply because it is safer not to change something before you have good grounds. But most of all, you should understand how to think theology and interpret the Bible in an historic, Reformed manner, if you mean to hold the Presbyterian faith.

1) It seems you equate OldTestament-Abraham-Moses in a more or less undifferentiated manner, a monolithic treatment if you will. This leads to a kind-of "leap" when we get to Jesus and the NT and the New Covenant. Covenant Theology in its classic form treats OT revelation as _progressive_ and _programmatic_. That is to say, under this view, what came before Christ has elements of seed/flower and stage development.

Today, it seems to me that you currently envision the advent of Christ (and baptism as one of its emblems) as something of a theological or covenant reboot. Perhaps, by analogy, something akin to a new "operating system," fairly radical, even *quantum leap*. Yes, there must be some points of connection between the ages, or else the people you mean to convert first (Jews) would be simply lost _because of_ the transition. And the people you hope to convert (Gentiles) really don't need much reference to the OT except for a handful of stepping-stones through antiquity and prophetic confirmation.

My guess is that if this continues to be your hermeneutical approach, you will always be a bit of a reluctant Presbyterian, or you will switch to being a TULIP Baptist.


2) You speak of "OT baptism" being for cleansing of sin (more or less coordinate with sacrificial lambs), and you seem to be putting John the Baptist's work in that vein _up to_ his baptism of Jesus, when that purpose is rebooted in Christ. My question to you is: what about the Savior's identification with the sinners he's come to save? Sure, he doesn't need personal cleansing, but he "became sin" for us. I just don't apprehend the same notion as you that "a powerful spritual marking" is the essence of baptism; at least I don't see it as any more or less powerful or spiritual than circumcision.


3) Jesus is the new Mediator and Head of a new family. But this recognition leaves unaddressed the question of how scripturally and spiritually to regard the physical children of believers. To whom do they belong, and what saith the Scriptures? Most of the time, children (as children) find themselves in initial conditions over which they have no control. It seems to me the proposal that the NT gives us a radically new way of thinking about family solidarity in terms of the church-community goes against the grain, even against the very language. As if currently "children" are always and only those who, having attained sufficient maturity, choose their own family.

It is true that some children do make a "choice" in those things, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. But a significant number of them "choose" by embracing what is in essence their birthright. Why--if a new "nation" or "family" is the ordinary way the NT speaks about the New Covenant people of God--should this new community be conceived exclusively of people who have chosen membership in it? Why is affinity with Christ more like joining a club, party, or other organization than it is an actual family, if there is no place whatever for genealogy? It is as though we may only speak of this "family" always and only one generation deep, never even to the point of children. One cannot ever be a child, in fact, but only a bride. In fact, this is how you speak towards the end.

There have always been those who have sought membership in the covenant community (OT or NT) from the outside, just like people choose or change their secular allegiances or connections. But you don't become an "American" solely by naturalization and an oath of allegiance; often it is by embracing the birthright and "making it real." Doesn't this notion of embracing something you didn't earn or deserve but have by "birthright" (which is pure Providence) have overtones of sovereign election and grace?


----------



## Peairtach (Mar 21, 2013)

Fogetaboutit said:


> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> > Your argument, Etienne, about Christ as priest is suggestive but of course it argues too much as there were other elements to the inauguration of the priesthood such as shaving and washing of clothes, etc.
> ...



Touche.

As I say, you'd also have to study the other OT washings with water (baptisms), to see what they also teach about Christian baptism in the round, and how it fulfills them. This priestly one is an important one, and I'd never thought of Christ's question to the chief priests in that context.

You have to remember, too, that theologically-speaking Christ was representing us unto God from the moment of the incarnation, in His active and passive righteousness. He was a prophet, priest and king from day one.


----------



## Miss Marple (Mar 21, 2013)

At the minnow risks slipping into a pool with giant sea creatures, may I posit that while Jesus was baptized at age 30, he was circumcised on the 8th day.

The sign of covenant inclusion in the Old Testament was circumcision; administered to 8 day old male children of Jews, OR, to a man of any age converting to Judaism.

The sign of covenant inclusion now, so paedo's believe, is baptism; administered to babies of Christians, OR to a person of any age converting to Christianity.

Thus I don't find Jesus' baptism at age 30 to be an argument for credo baptism only. He was circumcised as an infant.

(swims away)


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Mar 22, 2013)

My biggest hangups over the Credo vs. Paedo argument are firstly that in Jeremiah the New Covenant is described as being "not like the old". The Paedo-Baptist view of CT (to me) seems to make the New Covenant essentially identical to the Old except for the sign and seal being replaced. Secondly, the issue of "who exactly IS a "member" of the New Covenant?" PB views of CT seem to make a three-fold distinction in humanity in general, and two classes of Covenant members. You have essentially non-members, regenerate members, and non-regenerate members. I have never heard an argument that convinces me that there's any room for Covenant members that are not regenerate.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Mar 22, 2013)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> My biggest hangups over the Credo vs. Paedo argument are firstly that in Jeremiah the New Covenant is described as being "not like the old". The Paedo-Baptist view of CT (to me) seems to make the New Covenant essentially identical to the Old except for the sign and seal being replaced.



It is the same covenant but it is not like it used to be, a caterpillar is not like it used to be when it becomes a butterfly but it's still the same caterpillar. If you believe the New Covenant is not the same you have to explain all of the references to the believers being heirs to the Abrahamic covenant, and them being grafted in to the "Olive Tree" of Israel.




SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Secondly, the issue of "who exactly IS a "member" of the New Covenant?" PB views of CT seem to make a three-fold distinction in humanity in general, and two classes of Covenant members. You have essentially non-members, regenerate members, and non-regenerate members. I have never heard an argument that convinces me that there's any room for Covenant members that are not regenerate.



Paedo baptists do not assume that covenant children are not regenerate, it's the credo baptist who makes that assumptions, so to say we believe in a three-fold distinction is somewhat simplistic and somewhat of a straw man argument. We certainly accept the possibility that they aren't yet regenerated but we trust that God will in time (or maybe he already did) regenerate them via the covenant means of grace, preaching of the word of God, discipleship at home etc. We acknowledge that God usually saves the children of covenant parents through their ministering to their children and being obedient to their duties as parents. This is one way in which parents are accountable to God, faith without works is dead remember. This is not a rule but a promise and that is why we hold to it by faith and we do not see this as fatalists would. Credo baptist have the same problem, it's an illusion to believe you only have a "regenerate" membership, like the paedo baptist you hope that the members are regenerate but you certainly cannot confirm it.


----------



## Christopher88 (Mar 22, 2013)

Lots has been said since my last post. 
Rev. Bruce,
I have your read post first so I will respond first to you; 
You have posed wonderful thoughts and I thank you kindly for your time in writing to me. I am going to look over your questions and really think them over. I love the Presbyterian faith and want to understand her in deep ways. This is why my recent threads are on both polity and sacraments, to learn from educated men such as your self.

While I do not have much of a response right now, I do thank you for your writing as I read it to learn. 

May I ask you another question that I reflected on in my initial post; Why does the new testament say repent then baptize if it is proper to baptize before repentance? Is it simply because of that time not having children who were baptized to carry on the family?


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Mar 22, 2013)

Sonny said:


> May I ask you another question that I reflected on in my initial post; Why does the new testament say repent then baptize if it is proper to baptize before repentance? Is it simply because of that time not having children who were baptized to carry on the family?



I don't know if you were asking this question directly to Rev. Buchanan or not but we have to remember that Baptism is not reserved to covenant children, if somebody converts to Christianity as an adult he/she would need to be baptized as well, repentance (or at least credible profession) would precede in this case, same thing could be said of circumcision in the old covenant.


----------



## Christopher88 (Mar 22, 2013)

Etienne,
Thank you for the answer. Well I have a lot to read and reflect over. It appears the Credo argument is a fairly beaten one. I am interested to hear more from Mr. Cornell, being as how he is baptist.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 22, 2013)

Sonny said:


> Rev. Bruce,
> ..........
> May I ask you another question that I reflected on in my initial post; Why does the new testament say repent then baptize if it is proper to baptize before repentance? Is it simply because of that time not having children who were baptized to carry on the family?



Chris,
You're apparently a thoughtful guy, and I commend your diligence. Besides the PB, don't forget to use your pastor and close friends, who know you well.

In answer to your question, I'd say there's a slight reading-in to the words of Act.2:38, if you absolutize the order. I don't disagree with the relative logic of the human actions, but in terms of Peter's point, he's not preaching "order" there. Peter is coordinating repentance and baptism, and the point is that the two belong together. If he had said, "Repent, *then* be baptized," one would have a stronger argument that--at least on this occasion--Peter was laying down a particular order as a kind of normative expectation.

It's possible to construct a similarly weak argument in the reverse order: baptism followed by repentance. Take Mt.3:11, where we have "baptism UNTO [or FOR] repentance." There, the preposition between the terms is eis (into); and a surface treatment of the verse produces the understanding that baptism is somehow productive of repentance. I'm not commending this argument, but merely showing that a dependence on word order, and a simplistic or univocal meaning of terms, cannot support the weight of argument needed to answer objections to it based on more robust linguistic awareness.

Some do extrapolate, even from the less-strong language found in the order, and declare it to belong without exception in every instance and to all reputed parties. However if there is other evidence that in the case of minor children (and potentially some servants or the like) baptism belongs to them prior to self-attested faith (which is everywhere tied to repentance), then any absolutizing of Peter's preached words proclaimed to a particular audience (a majority of whom were adult males) needs to be tempered by the considerations of both that context and the full range of teaching on the subject. Any particular statement is governed by general rules, and rare is the case that even an exceptional testament shall dictate a serious revision of or wholesale accomodation by tested principles ("the exception proves [tests] the rule").

So, to summarize: the kai (and) between "repent" and "be baptized" in Act.2:38 has no necessary sequential or causal force, particularly as the terms are being coordinated. There is no obvious "lag" between the immediacy of the command to "repent" at the preaching of the law imposing guilt, and the immediate testimony of new ownership by or allegiance to the resurrected Messiah. There is a linguistic and a logistical order to what Peter says, especially considering the audience.

Inasmuch as external baptism has a signifying relationship to baptism of the Spirit, and as we hold to the priority of the Spirit's acts to our own; the command to "Repent!"--insofar as it procured the response of faith--was itself accompanied (or preceded) by the pouring of Holy Spirit's baptism and his regenerating effects on those in whom the response of repentance and faith (conversion) was genuine, and they obtained eternal salvation. Baptism-Invisible accompanied the audible Word-Repent, producing repentance and faith. Things that go together, existentially. We don't put our stock in temporal orders, especially if we are persuaded such can vary depending on the circumstance.

Our aim, as Presbyterians, is not above all to limit (as far as human agency can accomplish) the number of those baptized by water to the number of those previously baptized by the Spirit. Rather, it is to witness to the existence of a church--a people devoted to God, with all that they are _and have_, including children. This should (by the appropriate and discriminate practice of baptism by divine institution) ordinarily be an approximation of that Spiritual truth. Who knows, many times, when our children have actually experienced conversion? The aim is simply to do as instructed, letting the "lining up" of external and internal witnesses take its historic course, the one or the other preceding in time.

I'm certainly not going to concede to our Baptist brethren, with their preferred method of ostensibly stricter care in whom-to-baptize, that such a method has improved the preservation of the integrity of the visible church. A survey of Baptistery in the USA will show as widespread defection from the faith and doctrinal abberation as can be found within non-Baptist churches. Neither insistence on one baptismal mode, nor limiting the approved subjects to credible professors, has been an effectual bulwark against declension. Objectively, the Baptist Church is not a "purer" church.


----------



## Gage Browning (Mar 22, 2013)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> My biggest hangups over the Credo vs. Paedo argument are firstly that in Jeremiah the New Covenant is described as being "not like the old". The Paedo-Baptist view of CT (to me) seems to make the New Covenant essentially identical to the Old except for the sign and seal being replaced. .





SeanPatrickCornell said:


> My biggest hangups over the Credo vs. Paedo argument are firstly that in Jeremiah the New Covenant is described as being "not like the old". The Paedo-Baptist view of CT (to me) seems to make the New Covenant essentially identical to the Old except for the sign and seal being replaced. Secondly, the issue of "who exactly IS a "member" of the New Covenant?" PB views of CT seem to make a three-fold distinction in humanity in general, and two classes of Covenant members. You have essentially non-members, regenerate members, and non-regenerate members. I have never heard an argument that convinces me that there's any room for Covenant members that are not regenerate.



I understand your point Sean- it is a point often used. The one thing though I would say, is that you also have to grapple with Jer. 32:40 and Gen 17:7 and the everlasting"ness" of the covenant. So while you say "new" means "different and completely different" (My understanding of your position) you must then describe your thoughts as they intertwine with the everlasting"ness" of the Covenant. The "Everlasting" Covenant is by definition "eternal" so in my humble opinion...cannot be utterly different.
I heard one of RC Sproul's students describe it once by saying, "New and Renewed"..."New and Improved"...and then his illustration was "once I went on a tremendous fishing trip with his friends...and when he came home his wife said you are a "new" man. Not new meaning different obviously..he was the same guy. But new meaning "refreshed and renewed." Something like that might flesh out the meaning a little more. I'm sure there are some Pastor's on the board who might describe it better than I. Just a couple of quick thoughts.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Mar 22, 2013)

Thanks for that reply, Gage. I should clarify, I don't see the New Covenant as "totally different", but rather sometimes wonder to _what degree_ it's different. I think adherents to the NCT position go too far, but that traditional PB adherents of CT don't go far enough. That's why I am a Baptist, I guess. I feel like it's kind of a "just right" balance of "New" and "Continuous".


----------



## Gage Browning (Mar 23, 2013)

Thanks Sean. That's where we disagree. I see the Covenant as "everlasting" Jer. 32, Gen 17, and cannot be "different" not in it's essence. Maybe an "new administration of the one covenant of grace" is how I would describe it.


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Mar 23, 2013)

Gage Browning said:


> I see the Covenant as "everlasting" Jer. 32, Gen 17, and cannot be "different"


 Exactly. How can an everlasting Covenant be done away with?


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Mar 24, 2013)

How can it be "new" and "not like the old" if it's "everlasting"? That's what's got me confused. In part its "everlasting", and in part its "new" and "not like the old".

The only way I can personally reconcile this is if we understand the "everlasting covenant" to be the "new covenant" and not the old.

I've read lots on the topic and it still hasn't cleared it up well for me.


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Mar 24, 2013)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> How can it be "new" and "not like the old" if it's "everlasting"?



Etienne used a caterpillar analogy which would explain it. Another analogy would be that of an acorn that grows into a huge tree. The tree is the fulfillment of what that acorn pointed to. There are differences in the way it looks, but ultimately it is organically tied to the acorn and is not of a different substance.


----------



## Peairtach (Mar 24, 2013)

The Mosaic period was also the childhood administration of the covenant, with picture-book law (ceremonial) and childhood-disciplinary law (the temporary aspects of the judicial law).

The inclusion of children in the covenant was established before Moses, as was the fact that boys had the sign of covenant applied to them along with professing adult males. These aspects of the covenant transcend the Mosaic dispensation.


----------

