# Paedo + Credo Courtship



## smhbbag

A long story, but I'll spare the details unless someone wants to hear them or thinks they need them in order to give a better answer. 

What are your thoughts on courtship (and thus, potential marriage) between a paedo and a credo? 

I'd like some insight from all angles - from fathers who may deal with this situation with their daughters, when a young man seeks to pursue their daughter but has differing convictions on Baptism....or from people who are currently married to someone with different views on Baptism, etc. 

For at least some background, she is Dutch Reformed and I am a Reformed Baptist. We have discussed this issue at length (just our conversations with each other alone on the issue are probably up to 10-12 hours at this point). Her dad is an incredibly faithful man of God and an elder at their church, and has led his family in godliness very well. LOL, I think I have a crush on her whole family  . Her brothers are great too, and are guarding her quite well I must say 

She and I have HUGE agreement on a looooong list of things, including: headship, parenting, birth control, wanting very large families, homeschooling, evangelism, eschatology, presuppositional apologetics, presbyterian church government, the Doctrines of Grace, a disdain for Dispensationalism and New Covenant Theology, politics (both leaning theonomic), Christian liberty, and a love of good eastern-NC style barbeque.

But we both know, despite our very obvious attraction and great respect for one another, baptism is not and never will be a small matter. Your thoughts??

Thanks in advance, everyone. 

[Edited on 6-26-2005 by smhbbag]


----------



## Texas Aggie

"Doctrine of baptisms" (Hebrews 6:2). I see baptism as plural in this verse. Now you can look at Ephesians 4:5 and see one baptism (this is probably the most important).

Two baptisms: one physical (outward appearance) for man & the devils to see. The other baptism is by the Spirit (at your regeneration). 

The one that saves is by the Spirit. You can get sprinkled or swim in a pool all day long and receive absolutely nothing. 

Move on to the meat and forget the milk. Leave the doctrine of baptisms behind and don't get hung up on the first principles of the doctrine of Christ (Hebrews 5 & 6). 

A man who fears God is key. My question to the young man would be "What do you do with the law?" If he replies "What law?" then I might be worried. Questions about baptism would be the very least of my concern.


----------



## RamistThomist

Would your children be baptized credo or paedo?


----------



## Texas Aggie

I suppose I would prefer to see credo for my children; however, paedo is just fine as well. The physical display of baptism is not as important to me as the spiritural aspect (other than the physical is a commandment from God to which I will obey).

My real hope and prayer lies with the Spirit and that my children are made partakers of the New Covenant.


----------



## Arch2k

I would just say that BECAUSE it is milk, that it is important. Is it wrong to be with her over this difference? I am not necessarily saying that. One thing to look at is that there is the opportunity for sin in the family right off the bat. What happens when you have children and they become 8 days old? To baptize or not to baptize, that is the question. Under your headship, the wife would be obligated to submit at this point, but at the same time, she would be in sin not to baptize her children.



> WCF, Chapter 28
> 
> 28:5 Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance (Luk_7:30 with Exo_4:24-26), yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it (Act_10:2, Act_10:4, Act_10:22, Act_10:31, Act_10:45, Act_10:47; Rom_4:11); or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated (Act_8:13, Act_8:23).



Also realize that two can not be perfectly joined in ALL beliefs, but should strive for perfection.



> Amo 3:3 Can two walke together, except they be agreed?



All the more so in a marriage relationship.

Don't take this as me advocating a particular position for your relationship, but just some principle's to think about.

Good providence!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by smhbbag_
> ...and a love of good eastern-NC style barbeque.
> [Edited on 6-26-2005 by smhbbag]



If you can overcome the BBQ battle, you can overcome most other difficulties!  Eastern-NC style 

Seriously, credo vs. paedo baptism for a couple is a very significant issue. It's _not_ the _most_ significant issue (the key Christian duty is to marry "in the Lord"), but it affects how you will both understand your childrens' relationship to the covenant and the covenant community, which are pretty major issues. 

Daniel Dafoe (Presbyterian) has this bit of counsel (arising from Amos 3.3) to women in his _Religious Courtship_:



> 1. Never to marry any Man, whatever his Person or Fortune might be, that did not, at least, profess to be a Religious Man.
> 
> 2. Never to marry any Man, how religious soever he may seem to be, if he was not of the same Principles and Opinion in Religion as themselves.



[Edited on 6-26-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## crhoades

Just convert to paedo and call it a day


----------



## smhbbag

> Would your children be baptized credo or paedo?



Our family would be credo, and the children baptized upon a profession of faith and repentance. I thought this would be assumed, sorry I wasn't clear.



> I would just say that BECAUSE it is milk, that it is important. Is it wrong to be with her over this difference? I am not necessarily saying that.



Certainly, no scriptural case can be made that it would be sin for us to marry. The question is how wise this decision may be, and whether we understand the tension or difficulty that may arise from our one difference (literally, this is it. certainly not belittling baptism, but every other issue it's like having a conversation with myself  )



> What happens when you have children and they become 8 days old? To baptize or not to baptize, that is the question. Under your headship, the wife would be obligated to submit at this point, but at the same time, she would be in sin not to baptize her children.



I do not think that she would be in sin to submit to my headship on that point. The way I see it, if the paedo's are correct, she is not bound to have her children baptized - *I* am bound to have _our_ children baptized. I will be the one who is accountable to God on this decision, and I certainly do not take that lightly. I do not see how my poor headship would be her sin. Obviously, I don't accept the premise that paedobaptism is either commanded or permissible, but the point remains.

Andrew, thanks for the citation of Dafoe - I've actually been reading that lately myself. While I always cringe when I hear Amos 3:3 cited for such a concept (a very common example of eisegesis), unity is indeed crucial for any in the church to 'walk together.' This certainly applies even moreso to married couples. 

This is why we have spent SO much time discussing every aspect of parenting that we can think of....and we are already of one mind in all of them. 

*What parenting issues do you think may arise from our differing view of children's covenantal status? What do you think we need to discuss? We have likely already covered it, but I definitely want to cover every base before I make the commitment to pursue her toward marriage. 

**Draught Horse - it seemed like the question you asked had a prepared response/rebuke/counsel after you got the answer you knew was coming....what is it?


----------



## Scott Bushey

My two cents: If a Presbyterian is able to ignore the covenant for the sake of a mate, they are not really Presbyterian; at least technically. My belief, the _yolking_ spoken of in scripture, is not limited to marrying unbelievers.


----------



## smhbbag

> My belief, the yolking spoken of in scripture, is not limited to marrying unbelievers.



Is there a textual argument for this assertion? Namely that there are further restrictions on who you can marry beyond not marrying an unbeliever? Can you objectively establish according to the Word, or by deduction from it, that a paedo cannot marry a credo? 

btw, Scott, check your U2U 

[Edited on 6-26-2005 by smhbbag]


----------



## Augusta

> _Originally posted by smhbbag_
> I do not think that she would be in sin to submit to my headship on that point. The way I see it, if the paedo's are correct, she is not bound to have her children baptized - *I* am bound to have _our_ children baptized. I will be the one who is accountable to God on this decision, and I certainly do not take that lightly. I do not see how my poor headship would be her sin. Obviously, I don't accept the premise that paedobaptism is either commanded or permissible, but the point remains.



Noah's family was saved by virtue of him. Achan's family died with him by virtue of him and his sin. Don't underestimate what your headship means. It may not be her direct sin just as Adam's wasn't ours, but we suffer with him and because of him. Just as Christ is our head and by virtue of Him what blessing we receive. And the reverse is true for those who are of their father Satan, what curses they receive. I thank God I am not a man and have to contend with those kinds of weighty things.


----------



## smhbbag

> Noah's family was saved by virtue of him. Achan's family died with him by virtue of him and his sin. Don't underestimate what your headship means. It may not be her direct sin just as Adam's wasn't ours, but we suffer with him and because of him



Most definitely. I absolutely recognize that my poor headship, if you assume withholding baptism from my infant is poor headship, can have a profoundly negative effect on my entire family. Absolutely. No question there - but the sin would be mine and mine alone. And I do recognize the weightiness of that.

[Edited on 6-26-2005 by smhbbag]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by smhbbag_
> 
> 
> 
> My belief, the yolking spoken of in scripture, is not limited to marrying unbelievers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a textual argument for this assertion? Namely that there are further restrictions on who you can marry beyond not marrying an unbeliever? Can you objectively establish according to the Word, or by deduction from it, that a paedo cannot marry a credo?
> 
> btw, Scott, check your U2U
> 
> [Edited on 6-26-2005 by smhbbag]
Click to expand...


Just my opinion; for practical purposes solely. For instance, someone with a heart for oversea's missions should not marry someone whom does not.


----------



## smhbbag

except, Scott - I believe there is an absolute textual argument in favor of restricting marriage on that point. We marry, in large part, because we become better servants of God by that union. Our spouse aids us in holiness and service - and if they do not, we should not pursue marriage. I take this as a huge principle of I Cor. 7. Thus, I certainly agree with the restriction you listed.....but it's a pretty difficult proof to show that such a situation exists in the wrong application of baptism.

I am not impeding her central service to our Lord as a Christian wife: for her to love, honor and respect her husband, and for them to write the law on the hearts of their children, and raising them in faith and obedience. With this missionary, there is such a roadblock to his calling as a man. Here, I don't think there is.

[Edited on 6-26-2005 by smhbbag]


----------



## Puddleglum

Can she in good conscience submit to you and not have your children baptized? That's the first question, in my opinion (and something that she has to answer herself). 

Other things that come to mind: how do you view children of Christian parents? If she thinks that they're regenerate (like some Presbyterians) and you plan on telling them that they're going to Hell until they have a conversion experience or at least a period of change (like some Baptists), my opinion is that you'd be setting yourself up for some difficulties. 

I'm sending you an U2U, btw.


----------



## Scott

Jeremy: You should find a nice baptist girl. The conflict is immense. It influences how you view your children too. One parent will view (or want to view) them as in the covenant. Another views them as little pagans in need of conversion. 

Here are some sample problems:

[1] Do you teach your unconverted children to pray? It does not make sense to instruct unbelievers to pray to God, excepting a conversion prayer.
[2] If you do teach them to pray, do they pray in the name of Jesus (aside from a sinners' prayer, of course)? You would not teach pagans that.
[3] Do you teach them that God's loves them (apart from common grace)? You don't typically spread that message to heathen. 
[4] What moral system would you teach? The Ten Commandments and related principles were written to God's covenant bride, not unbelievers. The terms of the covenant are a form of marriage vow between God and His bride. If your child is outside God's bride, then he is not properly a part of these vows. At best, it would seem you could teach some form of natural theology or natural revelation. It does not make any more sense to tell a child outside the covenant to do follow God's scriptures (his covenant terms) than it does to tell a wife to follow the marital instructions of man who is not her husband. She has no covenant duty to men not her husband.

I have one set of baptist childrearing materials that teaches: children should pray only to God the Father, who is their judge. Uncoverted children should never pray in the name of Jesus, as they are not yet saved. (Why they would pray to God the Father, I don't know, as prayers that are not in the name of Jesus are ineffectual - but this is what the materials taught).

Besides, whatever your view of proper baptism, it in itself is essential. Failing to administer the covenant sign and seal was a death penalty crime in the OT. Gen. 17. I would suggest that you and your future spouse at least be in agreement on all moral matters that were so serious that they involved the death penalty. 

Just my two cents. 

Scott

[Edited on 6-27-2005 by Scott]


----------



## Me Died Blue

to Scott, except on #4, simply because we of course believe the moral law to be binding upon all men. In the Old Testament, it is true that the moral law was only revealed to God's covenant community, but that is no longer the case.


----------



## Michael Butterfield

". . . For whatsoever is not of faith is sin." Romans 14:23

It would seem to me that from the start this principle of scripture would forbid someone marrying a person with a differing view onf baptism. How can the young lady put off baptism for credo baptism by faith? Would it not then be sin? Submission does not trump the sin of not baptizing your children. It would be a sin to go against "faith," would it not?

I am teaching my own children (3 daughters and 1 son so far) that for a more informed and blessed maritial state that must marry only a paedo baptist, not so much becuase I have that much difference between me and a credo baptist, but for the sake of their unity and their faith. Again, the principle is that whatsoever is not of faith is sin. It would, under this principle, be a sin for them to marry a credo.


----------



## Michael Butterfield

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Jeremy: You should find a nice baptist girl. The conflict is immense. It influences how you view your children too. One parent will view (or want to view) them as in the covenant. Another views them as little pagans in need of conversion.
> 
> Here are some sample problems:
> 
> [1] Do you teach your unconverted children to pray? It does not make sense to instruct unbelievers to pray to God, excepting a conversion prayer.
> [2] If you do teach them to pray, do they pray in the name of Jesus (aside from a sinners' prayer, of course)? You would not teach pagans that.
> [3] Do you teach them that God's loves them (apart from common grace)? You don't typically spread that message to heathen.
> [4] What moral system would you teach? The Ten Commandments and related principles were written to God's covenant bride, not unbelievers. The terms of the covenant are a form of marriage vow between God and His bride. If your child is outside God's bride, then he is not properly a part of these vows. At best, it would seem you could teach some form of natural theology or natural revelation. It does not make any more sense to tell a child outside the covenant to do follow God's scriptures (his covenant terms) than it does to tell a wife to follow the marital instructions of man who is not her husband. She has no covenant duty to men not her husband.
> 
> I have one set of baptist childrearing materials that teaches: children should pray only to God the Father, who is their judge. Uncoverted children should never pray in the name of Jesus, as they are not yet saved. (Why they would pray to God the Father, I don't know, as prayers that are not in the name of Jesus are ineffectual - but this is what the materials taught).
> 
> Besides, whatever your view of proper baptism, it in itself is essential. Failing to administer the covenant sign and seal was a death penalty crime in the OT. Gen. 17. I would suggest that you and your future spouse at least be in agreement on all moral matters that were so serious that they involved the death penalty.
> 
> Just my two cents.
> 
> Scott
> 
> [Edited on 6-27-2005 by Scott]





Coupled with Scott's post, I would add that covenant discipline has a different emphasis and direction when there is a paedo view. I often, for example, use my childrens position in the covenant to deal with their own sins and in how I seek to impress upon them their special privilege of being covenant Children as tool of conviction. In addition, this is not a position with neutral consequences. It comes into child rearing and to add to Scott, it even affects how one conducts their family worship.


----------



## Texas Aggie

Marry the girl if you truly love her. Don't get hung-up on the Paedo vs. Credo baptism issue (unless you are just looking for an excuse to dump her and this is the only thing you can zone in on).

Let God take care of the situation. Baptism is a commandment from God. Go Paedo and show man and the devils that you intend to raise your child in the fear and admonition of the Lord. Go Credo later and let your child acknowledge repentance and faith towards God at regeneration (providing their name is even written in the Book of Life).

Give me a break. God saves, the water does not. Marry the girl, seems you have much in common and are equally yoked.


----------



## wsw201

Jeremy,

When you get married, you marry the whole family! Have you discussed this issue with her father?


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Texas Aggie_
> Let God take care of the situation. Baptism is a commandment from God. Go Paedo and show man and the devils that you intend to raise your child in the fear and admonition of the Lord. Go Credo later and let your child acknowledge repentance and faith towards God at regeneration (providing their name is even written in the Book of Life).
> 
> Give me a break. God saves, the water does not.



Matt, I would advise you do some further research on this issue before dismissing it as such. If it was not important, God would not have devoted time to commanding, explaining and illustrating it in His Word. By your statement above, you even seem to think that neither side can be wrong to an extent significant enough to render them in sin. Read this thread. While I take the opposite position on baptism as the thread's author, he and others do an excellent job illustrating the serious nature of the sacrament. Either we take God's commands seriously or we do not, and one of the easiest and most subtle ways of doing the latter is to deceive ourselves by picking and choosing which parts of His law we will emphasize based on how we personally feel about their importance.


----------



## Scott

"to Scott, except on #4, simply because we of course believe the moral law to be binding upon all men. In the Old Testament, it is true that the moral law was only revealed to God's covenant community, but that is no longer the case."

I agree that the moral law is revealed to all and was during all ages of history. The idea is that the Bible is special revelation, which is entrusted to the Church. Credos view children as outside the Church. The scriptures, our marriage papers to God, do not properly belong to children if Credos are right. 

Natural revelation reveals God's moral law to all men. Discernment of this is through natural theology and natural revelation, not God's special covenant with His bride. 

In any event, the commands are largely coextenisive, but you just get there in different ways.


----------



## Texas Aggie

Thanks Chris. I will take a look at the thread you provided.

I am not saying this commandment is not important.... obviously it is and we can get too hung-up on the matter.

This issue is not important enough to throw away a possible wife (providing all the other ducks are aligned). God may reveal something to Jeremy or His possible wife later (or He may never). Baptism of their children would be the last issue on my mind... there are other greater concerns.

Leave the covenant status of children to God. You (as the parent) do as you are commanded by the law and Spirit.


----------



## Scott

Jeremy: I assume that the girl you are interested in was baptized as a baby. That could be a problem too. I expect if you are a consistent Credo you don't recognize her baptism as valid (i.e. you would be marrying someone who in your eyes has never been baptized). Further, Credo churches you would want to attend would likely not recognize her baptism as valid (some, like Phillip Way's or Doug Wilson's, might accommodate her), which would mean she would either have to violate her conscience and be rebaptized or never become a member (i.e. formally remain outside the visible church or remain a nominal member of her current church, which if you follow either the WCF or LCF is a very serious issue). 

There really are many nice baptist girls around. The issue of baptism is more important than most of the areas of agreement you listed (eschatology, apologetics, etc). 

My advice: become Dutch reformed through and through, including infant baptism (and I say this as a Scottish presbyterian).


----------



## Scott

"Leave the covenant status of children to God. You (as the parent) do as you are commanded by the law and Spirit."

This is a misapplication of the doctrine of predestination. God decrees not only the ends, but the means as well. One of the means to the end (salvation) is the nature of quality of parental supervision.


----------



## Me Died Blue

Furthermore, a significant part of what one believes he is commanded to do by the law and Spirit is directly affected by his view of the covenant status of children.


----------



## Larry Hughes

Rather unique timing. This is an interesting question, this post, as my wife were discussing this very thing this weekend, having two baby girls to raise. I said, I would definitely want true Christian (reformed) husbands for them "“ but what about the whole baptism issue even if a man (or woman) were reformed otherwise. 

It is a serious issue if one thinks it through. How could I as one who now affirms covenant baptism and covenant continuity allow for any of my daughters to marry and have children that would disdain this. It may sound harsh and a dividing wall but at the end of the day it really is a significant dividing wall that I cannot see away to "œget around". John Calvin married an Anabaptist but after teaching her covenant Christianity and her coming to that. 

This issue is especially perilous for a woman because she must come under the spiritual headship of the husband. Thus, for her it would be to reject what she affirms the Word of God teaches, either way "“ which we should not do unless we are rejecting our former position as in error (speaking neutrally).



> Is there a textual argument for this assertion? Namely that there are further restrictions on who you can marry beyond not marrying an unbeliever? Can you objectively establish according to the Word, or by deduction from it, that a paedo cannot marry a credo?



I don´t think one is going to be able to produce this from either camp. Logically this is impossible and both camps would have to agree. Why? For in REALITY the Bible really only teaches one or the other, therefore you will not be able to find a text relating to a believer credo or believer paedo. From either camps understanding of Scripture (keeping in mind from a pure neutral without siding perspective one position is in error) the Scripture does not speak of the other´s position as valid and the other´s position would be foreign to Scripture. Therefore, it would be hard to produce the text. Because it is not a matter of the children in such a marriage being holy (set aside) because of one believing parent "“ for in this case both are believers "“ one would just happen to really believe it while the other doesn´t.

Strictly speaking if the credo is going to be logically consistent with his/her theology on baptism he/she must view that his/her potential paedo spouse is not a member of his/her church nor really can be until he/she is rebaptized by immersion/post-regeneration (although some Baptist make exceptions to this by creating a manmade - kind of "œlesser member" membership, which kind of flies in the face of having two levels of Christians in a church like the issue at Corinth that Paul dealt with). One cannot divorce the membership issue here. 

And strictly speaking if the paedo is going to be consistent with his/her theology on baptism he/she must refuse such rebaptism as a sinful dispersion cast upon God´s promise contained in his/her sprinkling/paedeo baptism and an out right rejection of it. It would be one thing if one was already married and one spouse came to a different position, quite another to walk in with both eyes wide open. 

That alone causes problems. Future children compound this. Then, if the paedeo wife does not "œrebaptize", then has children and the children must wait for a profession of faith "“ they are going to eventually ask why their mom´s infant sprinkling is OK but not for them and why their dad says otherwise? Because one thing about kids that we adults could learn a thing or two, children don´t put on hypocrisy faces like we do, and are often times embarrassingly forth right and honest in there queries. Talk about some confusion.

Ldh

[Edited on 6-27-2005 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> John Calvin married an Anabaptist but after teaching her covenant Christianity and her coming to that.
> [Edited on 6-27-2005 by Larry Hughes]



The historical example of John Calvin and Idelette de Bure is a good one to consider.


----------



## biblelighthouse

I really appreciate this thread, including the great posts by Bushey, Roberts, Hughes, and others. I hadn't thought a lot about this aspect of the PB/CB question.

I have three young daughters, and I _definitely_ want to teach them from childhood that they need to marry paedobaptists when they grow up. I don't want their marriages & families to have to deal with so much unneccesary turmoil . . . life will be challenging enough without it!

I think the Amos quote is especially applicable: "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" 

Some differences between spouses are inevitable. But baptism is just TOO BIG of a deal to ignore. People should not intentionally enter a marriage with someone from the opposite side of the baptismal fence.

Thank you guys for writing what you did above, spelling out all of the problems that can be *certainly* expected in a credo/paedo marriage. You have helped me think this through more clearly. I agree with you.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> John Calvin married an Anabaptist but after teaching her covenant Christianity and her coming to that.
> [Edited on 6-27-2005 by Larry Hughes]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The historical example of John Calvin and Idelette de Bure is a good one to consider.
Click to expand...


Sounds like the situation with my girlfriend and myself.


----------



## Scott

I want to make clear that I think Baptists can be great and godly people. I don't have anything against baptists (and nobody here has suggested that they do either). My point is that spouses should be of one mind on essential issues like baptism. That is why I suggested that Jeremy find a nice baptist. There are plenty around. 

As Hebrews states, doctrines related to baptism are part of "core" Christianity. You should not be divided with your spouse on core issues. Heb 6:1-2 reads: "Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death,and of faith in God, instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment."

Whatever a couple's views on elementary issues like baptism are, they should be the same.

[Edited on 6-27-2005 by Scott]


----------



## smhbbag

> When you get married, you marry the whole family! Have you discussed this issue with her father?



I certainly have a high view of the union between families that occurs in marriage, and of her father's authority. I am currently discussing this with her brother-in-law (Westminster grad, I believe) and will be with her father shortly. The fact that I am going to these great lengths before pursuing her should be evidence enough that I know the weight of it.

This may turn out not to be an issue at all, actually. We spoke on the phone for a little over 2 hours last night just on this issue. She has been waffling and asking a lot of questions, and bottom line, she said "I'm definitely in limbo on it right now. I have no response to your arguments or those texts, and I don't think that I have any right to assume now that children of believers are NC members." Well, that's pretty much the whole debate right there.....but I encouraged her to wait until I had more lengthy discussions with her brothers and father on the matter, who will give much better defenses of their position (most likely). 

I definitely fired them up a bit when I said that Hebrews 10:26-30 offers a solid proof that NC membership solely for regenerates. She sent them a written exegesis I did on that text - it wasn't written solely for them. But it definitely got their blood going  Their chief proof-text was the very first one I wanted to use for my point. They were also caught a bit off-guard by the fact that I do hold to much of the same CT as they do - the CoG, CoW, CoR, unity of the Church in all ages and recognizing the incredible continuity between the covenants. We'll see how that talk goes later this week. 

Putting myself in her father's position.....I honestly don't think I would give a Credo the permission to pursue my daughter in courtship. If it was a paedo pursuing my daughter, I'd be just as hesitant. The issues are that important, and I am definitely beginning to see that more clearly.

As to "there are plenty of good baptist girls out there"...HAHAHAHAHA. Every single baptist girl I know shuns modesty, isn't passionate to study God's holy Word, is Arminian Dispensational Premill (even if they don't know that's what they are), has a low view of the value of true womanhood and the family, has a maximum on the number of kids she'd want, thinks public schools are fine and dandy, embraces seeker-sensitivity, has no humble or quiet spirit and is basically like a gold ring in a pig's snout. I know dozens of Baptist girls that are active in their local churches and ministries - and there are only a few (well, one, and she's very much taken) exceptions to this rule. It's depressing.

Sorry for the outburst, but it really is my first reaction . I've always told my buddies that my best bet was to find a strong Presbyterian girl and then get her on the right page on baptism. That statement was always just a joke, but then it started to come true.

[Edited on 6-28-2005 by smhbbag]


----------



## govols

Jeremy,

When you go to the bigger churches you find that kind of stuff with the girls dressing and acting immodestly. I think the fathers should be taken out behind the wood shed myself but that's a different thread.

My church belongs to the SBConvention but we hold to the Doctrines of Grace. We are Credos (Weirdos here on the PB - J/K) and we are even Futuristic Premillists. The young ladies in our church are very modest because their parents teach their children God's Word and they, especially their moms, are modest. About 95% of our children are home schooled exclusively. My wife and I have agreed to "stop" with 4 children for now but if God wants us to have more children then more children will be born to us.

But I just can't handle slaw on my BBQ ! Of course, I like Kraut on my Brats and I live in GA. They consider me weird but I am a Scots - Irish - German - American but I don't drink - go figure.


----------



## Scott

> She has been waffling and asking a lot of questions, and bottom line, she said "I'm definitely in limbo on it right now. I have no response to your arguments or those texts, and I don't think that I have any right to assume now that children of believers are NC members."



This is another problem - the corruption of covenant members (her). You are undoing the work her parents and family instilled in her and, if you succeed, you will place an obstacle between her and her family. 

As for good baptist girls, you might check out churches and organizations (eg. conferences) that are affiliated with the Founders Conference of the Southern Baptist Convention. There are many good people there, men and women. I am sure that there are many fathers who would be willing to die to have their daughter marry a person like you. 

Also, if the absence of morality in baptist circles is so widespread that you realize you must seek a mate in presbyterian and reformed circles, perhaps that should give you cause to consider the whether these problems are associated with baptist views.


----------



## Scott

"My church belongs to the SBConvention but we hold to the Doctrines of Grace."

Yes, I too know many good and godly women who are baptists, all of whom are or would make excellent wives.


----------



## Puritanhead

You can compromise and methodize them or more aptly presbyterianize them-- and sprinkle a little water on 'em when they're young, and then give them a real full-submersion believer's baptism in a river upon confession of faith just like Jesus and other credo-baptists have.
:bigsmile::bigsmile:


----------



## Scott

This reflects the inherently schismatic nature of baptist views.


----------



## Larry Hughes

Scott,

I agree, the inherent schismatic break is always from that side. "If you'll just do it our way then we can fully accept you." But it is always played as if the other side is the schismatic arguing an non-essential doctrine. Very ironic.

I also agree with Scott and don´t want to give the impression of viewing a credo follower (which includes other non-baptist), much like my former self, as any less a Christian. God forbid! The sermons that enrapture my soul as to the Gospel the most come basically from three Luther, Calvin and Spurgeon. Three different groups but all one voice and powerfully clear on justification, Law and Gospel (lamentably missing very much today in all denominations). Likewise there are far too many in ALL the denominations that have lost the central tenant of the Reformation and the Scriptures "“ namely justification. Odd how that is where the battle always is.

It is hard and painful to see this dividing wall (baptism), yet I´ve not been able myself to resolve it. Because there is implication in the theology of baptism. In one sense baptism can become an idol and a bad debate, but in another sense it really is an essential debate.

In terms of marriage it would be next to impossible for a credo and paedeo to be married and retain their views without just ignoring the glaring differences.

Until she is married to another man given by her father she is under her father's spiritual care and guard. Perhaps, Jeremy, you should discuss this with her father and not through her.

Larry


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> 
> Until she is married to another man given by her father she is under her father's spiritual care and guard. Perhaps, Jeremy, you should discuss this with her father and not through her.


----------



## satz

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> 
> Until she is married to another man given by her father she is under her father's spiritual care and guard. Perhaps, Jeremy, you should discuss this with her father and not through her.
Click to expand...


hmmm...i have to confess i don't really understand this.

I do agree she is under her father's authority...but her, or anyone else's belief on baptism should be based on what she thinks the bible says about it...her father's opinion doesn't really factor at all...

I don't really see what discussions with the parents could do to solve this problem...regardless of their response, they cannot force her to change her view on baptism.


----------



## smhbbag

Larry Hughes:


> Until she is married to another man given by her father she is under her father's spiritual care and guard. Perhaps, Jeremy, you should discuss this with her father and not through her.



I've tried to be very conscious of this, but because of various providential circumstances - discussing it with her father is not nearly as easy as with her or her brothers. As I mentioned, I will be discussing it with him, and I'm expecting that from this point on, the majority of my interaction on this issue will be with her brother-in-law and father. 

Scott:


> This is another problem - the corruption of covenant members (her). You are undoing the work her parents and family instilled in her and, if you succeed, you will place an obstacle between her and her family.




Once we really got down to some tough issues and texts, and I was really pressing her on some points (nicely! I do have a vested interest here  ), I definitely felt a bit uneasy about doing this without having her male family members, especially her father, present. This man is most certainly worthy of my greatest respect, and the last thing I want to do is to undermine his authority and role. I've come to see that if I go about this respectfully and properly - involving her parents and brothers - and they go unconvinced by my arguments but she is.....that divide in their family comes from the Word, not me. Believe it or not, it was discussion over this issue that first really got us to know each other, initiated mostly by her. I am definitely not on a crusade or in some sort of Credobaptist "Cage Stage." I only hope that her family sees that. I have way too few strong Reformed friends to go burning bridges by inciting people and starting debates  



> As for good baptist girls, you might check out churches and organizations (eg. conferences) that are affiliated with the Founders Conference of the Southern Baptist Convention. There are many good people there, men and women. I am sure that there are many fathers who would be willing to die to have their daughter marry a person like you.



You have no idea how much that last line was encouraging to me. Thank you brother for the reassurance. I suppose my immedate, local circle just doesn't give me a broader perspective on the quality of women (and fathers) that may be out there.

Second, I am in a Founders church, and the elders, along with most of the congregation, are strongly Reformed. My pastor (Dr. Andrew Davis) has preached at Founders Conferences in the past, and after 5 years preparing the congregation with a God-centered worldview by preaching Gen. 1-12, Romans 1-8 and Phillippians....he just finished up Romans 9 from the pulpit. Most of the regular members are great and Reformed. Just not the young people. The 'college ministry' (I hate those) is particularly Warren-esque. I looked long and hard for a local body here, and this is by far the best I could do. The preaching is unbeatable, but the rest definitely leaves something to be desired.

[Edited on 6-28-2005 by smhbbag]


----------



## Scott

"I agree, the inherent schismatic break is always from that side. "If you'll just do it our way then we can fully accept you." But it is always played as if the other side is the schismatic arguing an non-essential doctrine."

Let me clarify. I am suggesting that the credo doctrine is schismatic in that refusal to recognize infant baptism disrupts the unity of the visible church. Baptism marks the entrance into the visible church. To deny someone's baptism (say a person baptized as an infant) is to deny their position in the visible church.


----------



## Scott

Jeremy: I bet there is a network for like minded young people to meet (even if they are not in the same area). If not there should be.


----------



## wsw201

> I've come to see that if I go about this respectfully and properly - involving her parents and brothers - and they go unconvinced by my arguments but she is.....that divide in their family comes from the Word, not me.



I wouldn't be so sure that it would simply be the word. I think there would be more to it than that. If she is serious about you (as you are about her) that will come into play. Love can make you do some strange things. Plus, she may not be as well grounded in the sacramentology of the Dutch Reformed faith as to be able to understand all the ins and outs of your agruement as the brother-in-law or her father is. Unfortunately, a lot of women are not as "into" theology as they should be.

Also, you will have to face the issue that Scott brought up earlier and that is that a Baptist Church will not accept her baptism and will require her to be "baptized" under believers baptism if she wants to join the church. Does she understand this?


----------



## smhbbag

> Also, you will have to face the issue that Scott brought up earlier and that is that a Baptist Church will not accept her baptism and will require her to be "baptized" under believers baptism if she wants to join the church. Does she understand this?



I often hear this said about Baptist churches, but I've never seen it. I'm sure it's like this some places, but just for an example, I'm pretty sure Pastor Way's church does not demand a credo-baptism for membership. Yet, I certainly do think that she should be baptized as a believer, and have made that clear to her.



> I wouldn't be so sure that it would simply be the word. I think there would be more to it than that. If she is serious about you (as you are about her) that will come into play. Love can make you do some strange things. Plus, she may not be as well grounded in the sacramentology of the Dutch Reformed faith as to be able to understand all the ins and outs of your agruement as the brother-in-law or her father is.



This has definitely crossed my mind, and I was careful of it. She is quite able to express and define her Covenant Theology, and give basic defenses of the concepts and proof-text a bit....but as far as real exegetical defenses - she's never really had to do so. Thus, when I questioned her more thoroughly on the texts she used, she didn't have all that much to go on. This is whyI mentioned earlier that when she said she was beginning to be convinced of my argumention, I encouraged her to wait until I'd discussed it more thoroughly with her father/B-I-L. Then, she could glean a lot from our discussion and not be so hasty in the way she approached it. She's certainly "into" theology - but her main studies and interests have not been exegetical defenses of infants in the NC . All of her friends are Reformed paedo's, so that's pretty understandable. 

[Edited on 6-28-2005 by smhbbag]

[Edited on 6-28-2005 by smhbbag]


----------



## Dan....

I'll throw in  (and two cent is proabably more than it's worth) :

I would consider my family greatly blessed should my recently baptized daughter (whom I intend to have catachised in Reformed theology) grow up and marry a godly Reformed-Baptist man who will in turn instruct their children to fear the Lord.

...there are a lot worse things to worry about in prospective husbands....

Jeremy,

So long as you have the blessing of her father and so long as she is not uncomfortable submitting to your authority, I don't see why this should be a great issue. Ultimately, as the head of your house, you are the one responsible before God as to whether or when your children are baptized.


[Edited on 6-28-2005 by Dan....]


----------



## Puritanhead

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> Scott,
> 
> I agree, the inherent schismatic break is always from that side. "If you'll just do it our way then we can fully accept you." But it is always played as if the other side is the schismatic arguing an non-essential doctrine. Very ironic.



_"If you'll just do it our way then we can fully accept you." _

As if it don't hear that sentiment from Presbyterians. You guys crack me up!

_But it is always played as if the other side is the schismatic arguing an non-essential doctrine. Very ironic_

Well if you read pass the tongue-in-cheek part, you would see my not seeing it as non-essential... hence not compromising on believer's baptism.:bigsmile:


----------



## Scott

> I do agree she is under her father's authority...but her, or anyone else's belief on baptism should be based on what she thinks the bible says about it...her father's opinion doesn't really factor at all...



Mark: This is a bit individualistic. Consider Proverbs 1:8-9: "Listen, my son, to your father's instruction and do not forsake your mother's teaching. They will be a garland to grace your head and a chain to adorn your neck." 

Jeremy is encouraging the girl to forsake her father's and mother's teaching, when Proverbs says that she has a duty to embrace this teaching.

Scott


----------



## Scott

> I often hear this said about Baptist churches, but I've never seen it. I'm sure it's like this some places, but just for an example, I'm pretty sure Pastor Way's church does not demand a credo-baptism for membership.



I have a Southern Baptist background and my experience is that this requirement is the norm and that infant baptisms are rejected. Pastor Way's church is unusual in this respect and you should not expect to find one like it in the various locales you may find yourself moving to during your life. What does your present church do?


----------



## smhbbag

> Jeremy is encouraging the girl to forsake her father's and mother's teaching, when Proverbs says that she has a duty to embrace this teaching.



You say this as if I am not being completely forthright with her father and mother - they know my intentions, and I am not doing this "under the table" or in a deceitful way. Her duty first and foremost is to Christ and His Word, and to put anything else on that plane, including her parents, is blasphemous. Absolutely, she should honor and respect them, and embrace their leadership in the Scriptures. And it is quite clear that I have encouraged her NOT to forsake her parent's teaching until she has a much firmer grasp of the issues and until I have longer discussions with her family on it. This way she can glean much more, and not reject her parent's teaching without great care, consideration and genuine conviction. But if that happens, she is duty-bound to reject the teaching of her parents if/when the Word of God tells her they are wrong. 

Shall I refuse to share the Doctrines of Grace with my friends who have Arminian parents?


----------



## Scott

Jeremy: The Proverbs don't segregate out whether a child's rejection of her parents' teaching is open or hidden. 

You are taking an individualistic view on this. Examine the Proverbs on the duty of children to embrace parental instruction. When do you believe exceptions apply? If it is anytime that an individual's private interpetation of scripture applies (such as your private interpretation of the meaning of baptism), this is quite a large exception, as all manner of errors have been introduced in the name of the scriptures. 

You are doing well to involve her father as you have.


----------



## Larry Hughes

Jeremy,

No doubt this is a tough one, my heart does go out to you, truly. Don't underestimate honest prayer about the truth regarding the issues at hand, including baptism itself - and seeking more light. 

That's as neutral as I can put it without having to bear the ire of either side on this issue. It is a funny danger to be in - that is talk of baptism. If you try to examine from as pure a neutral stance in order to avoid conflict over this issue and just examine it - your compromising both. And if you take a position, either way, your causing conflict with the opposite side.

If the Lord has really pitched your hearts together, then it will work out. I don't mean that in a flippant romantic way but knowing the sovereignty of God for such things including our spouses.

It is great that your talking with her father - very very admirable of you and I personally admire that - not much of that around now days!

May our Lord Christ Light and Bless Your Way,

Larry


----------



## satz

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> 
> 
> 
> I do agree she is under her father's authority...but her, or anyone else's belief on baptism should be based on what she thinks the bible says about it...her father's opinion doesn't really factor at all...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark: This is a bit individualistic. Consider Proverbs 1:8-9: "Listen, my son, to your father's instruction and do not forsake your mother's teaching. They will be a garland to grace your head and a chain to adorn your neck."
> 
> Jeremy is encouraging the girl to forsake her father's and mother's teaching, when Proverbs says that she has a duty to embrace this teaching.
> 
> Scott
Click to expand...


Scott, this is my opinion and i am open to correction;

The duty of children to embrace their parents teaching does not apply when the parents teaching is opposed to the bible.

While children are always to honour their parents, if their parents are not teaching according to the scriptures, they are to forsake that part of the teachings.

I am not very sure what you mean by 'individualistic'... could u explain?

I know a prospective husband should honour the woman's parents in most aspects of their courtship, but with regards to doctrine, what is true is true, regardless of her parents stand.

It was mentioned in this thread that prehaps it would be better to go for a Presbyterian girl, but if one truely believes in baptist teaching, then he or she wouldn't think that anyone else has the 'right' to be presbyterian..( or vice versa ) he would try to convert the other party regardless of whether marriage was an issue.

I understand your concern that someone should not be going about trying to change another's doctrine 'under the noses' of her parents...
but on the other hand i find it hard to accept that you need her parent's involvment to tell her the truth from God's word. ( I am talking strictly about courtship here...so i am not making any comments on which side is right regarding baptism). Also, the bible says we are to marry in the Lord..it never says their entire family must be in agreement with us as well.


----------



## Larry Hughes

> but on the other hand i find it hard to accept that you need her parent's involvment to tell her the truth from God's word.



Then you ignore raising up our children in the fear and admonition of the Lord completely. We are not talking about a pagan with a converting child to the faith here, but an inter Christian issue. This may be a shock to many Americanized Christians, though you live in Australia, but the youth director is not the spiritual leader of a child. A child is under the care of their Christian parent for their Christian upbringing. IF her parents are covenantal then the believers only position is the antibiblical position. Hence, they cannot just turn her over to what amounts to in their eyes a sinful view of the sacrament. And to be fair the vice versa would be true if the parents were baptistic.

By individualistic biblically he means non- or anti- covenantal, a.k.a philosophically relativistic.

Ldh


----------



## Puddleglum

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> A child is under the care of their Christian parent for their Christian upbringing. IF her parents are covenantal then the believers only position is the antibiblical position. Hence, they cannot just turn her over to what amounts to in their eyes a sinful view of the sacrament. And to be fair the vice versa would be true if the parents were baptistic.



Larry,

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that if my (to use me as an example) parents are credo, it's wrong for me to switch to paedo. But that if my parents were paedo, it would be wrong for me to switch to credo. 

The problem I see with that, is that there's only one biblical view (I'm not going to add my 2-cents about which one it is right now). So, if the paedo side is correct, but my parents are credo, then whatever I do, I'm wrong - because I either keep a wrong belief to agree with my parents, or I disagree with my parents (which you seem to be saying is wrong) to hold to a correct belief. 

That doesn't seem quite right. 

Where does the church fit into this? (I realize this probably won't help Jeremy out!) I would think that the elders have more authority over me than my parents (at least in some ways). So if I'm in a paedo church with credo parents - who do I agree with? I'm either going to disagree with the church (which I would think would be at least as bad as disagreeing with my parents) or I disagree with my parents. 

Isn't there a point where a person has to take responsibility for their own actions - and beliefs? If a child is now an adult, they're obviously responsible for their own actions; and I would hope that the same would apply to their beliefs. 

No-one's perfect - including our parents. While I'm not going to be perfect, either - if I see something wrong in what my parents do or believe, isn't it good to not imitate that?


----------



## satz

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> 
> 
> 
> but on the other hand i find it hard to accept that you need her parent's involvment to tell her the truth from God's word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you ignore raising up our children in the fear and admonition of the Lord completely. We are not talking about a pagan with a converting child to the faith here, but an inter Christian issue. This may be a shock to many Americanized Christians, though you live in Australia, but the youth director is not the spiritual leader of a child. A child is under the care of their Christian parent for their Christian upbringing. IF her parents are covenantal then the believers only position is the antibiblical position. Hence, they cannot just turn her over to what amounts to in their eyes a sinful view of the sacrament. And to be fair the vice versa would be true if the parents were baptistic.
> 
> By individualistic biblically he means non- or anti- covenantal, a.k.a philosophically relativistic.
> 
> Ldh
Click to expand...


Larry, I don't quite understand how anything i said is inconsistent with a parent's duty to bring up their children. I was speaking from the perspective of a friend of the child, not the parents. In any case, i don't think any child is obliged in any way to hold to their parents teachings if those teachings are unbiblical. Obviously a child should consider very carefully and soberly before coming to such a conclusion though.

I don't see that it matters if the family is christian or not. No christian needs parental permission to hold to the truth...neither does any christian need the permission of a persons parents to try to persuade that person of the truth.

Just my views...no offense is meant


----------



## wsw201

Jeremy,

Regarding the issue that a child should follow the teaching of their parents is true, but at some point the child has to be responsible for what they believe. Since this young lady is obviously old enough to get married, she is old enough to make up her own mind. As far as the parents are concerned, if they raised her in the Church and taught her the Reformed faith, she shouldn't stray from it, but it appears she is waivering. 

I brought up the issue of talking to her parents so you could avoid possible confusion and conflict with them later and I think this is a very prudent move on your part to talk with her father and other family members. But if you do marry her and she becomes a Baptist, don't think that will be the end of it. As an Elder I have had to deal with parents whose daughters married Baptists boys and became Baptists. They put up a good front but in the end they were not happy about it. They felt that they had messed up somewhere along the way. 

So be prepared for the worst but hope for the best!


----------



## Romans922

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> Jeremy,
> 
> Regarding the issue that a child should follow the teaching of their parents is true, but at some point the child has to be responsible for what they believe. Since this young lady is obviously old enough to get married, she is old enough to make up her own mind. As far as the parents are concerned, if they raised her in the Church and taught her the Reformed faith, she shouldn't stray from it, but it appears she is waivering.
> 
> I brought up the issue of talking to her parents so you could avoid possible confusion and conflict with them later and I think this is a very prudent move on your part to talk with her father and other family members. But if you do marry her and she becomes a Baptist, don't think that will be the end of it. As an Elder I have had to deal with parents whose daughters married Baptists boys and became Baptists. They put up a good front but in the end they were not happy about it. They felt that they had messed up somewhere along the way.
> 
> So be prepared for the worst but hope for the best!



Adding on, I shouldnt follow everything my parents taught me. They were Roman Catholic. Yes, we need to obey our parents, and we also need to think for ourselves, and use the brain God gave us, with counsel of elders. By the way, (as an aside) you both in the end should be paedo.


----------



## pastorway

a few random thoughts:

1. you are all making more of this than it needs to be. The doctrine of baptism in not the END ALL doctrine that we all must agree on for fellowship, love, marriage, or service to Christ. 

2. the parties involved should guard their hearts and minds so as not to be tempted to change theoligical views in order to agree. You want to agree with the ones you love, but your conscience should be held captive to the Word of God, and not the theology of a prospective spouse.

3. a few IFS - IF her father agrees to the courtship and marriage, and IF you get married, and IF she is willinng to submit to your headship, and IF you are a loving husband dutifully fulfilling your God given role, THEN you have NOTHING to worry about. GO FOR IT.

4. As Dan stated quite rightly, 



> I would consider my family greatly blessed should my recently baptized daughter (whom I intend to have catachised in Reformed theology) grow up and marry a godly Reformed-Baptist man who will in turn instruct their children to fear the Lord.
> 
> ...there are a lot worse things to worry about in prospective husbands....
> 
> Jeremy,
> 
> So long as you have the blessing of her father and so long as she is not uncomfortable submitting to your authority, I don't see why this should be a great issue. Ultimately, as the head of your house, you are the one responsible before God as to whether or when your children are baptized.



I would say the same were it my daughter and a Presbyterian suitor.

The Bible limits Christian marriage to just that - CHRISTIAN. Marry in the Lord. If this is the wife God has for you then all of this will work out and you will find marriage (and God willing, children) incredibly fulfilling and satisfying. Don't be in a hurry to change views. Don't think that this is an issue that will cuase GREAT turmoil in your marriage. Seek to understand God's roles for husbands and wives, and seek with all your hearts to fulfill those roles, keep Christ first in your home, and the secondary issues of disagreement will fade away - not just the doctrinal stuff.

Husbands and Wives do not have to agree on EVERYTHING - how boring would that be?? But they do have to know their roles and fulfill them in love to their mate and to Christ.

Phillip


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> I want to make clear that I think Baptists can be great and godly people. I don't have anything against baptists (and nobody here has suggested that they do either). My point is that spouses should be of one mind on essential issues like baptism. That is why I suggested that Jeremy find a nice baptist. There are plenty around.
> 
> As Hebrews states, doctrines related to baptism are part of "core" Christianity. You should not be divided with your spouse on core issues. Heb 6:1-2 reads: "Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death,and of faith in God, instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment."
> 
> Whatever a couple's views on elementary issues like baptism are, they should be the same.
> 
> [Edited on 6-27-2005 by Scott]



Is baptism _elementary_? Scott, I know you did not mean to degrade the sacrament. From a covenantal perspective, it is at the forefront, i.e. Gods command, and points to the covenant that all Presbyterians hold dear proven in their obedience in placing the sign on their infant children. Baptism is the sign of the covenant. The WCF calls it _ a great sin_ to withold it from our children. If the wife to be has no conviction to this doctrine, problem solved. Most Presbyterians that I know do not have the correct understanding of this doctrine either; no conviction, even though they subscribe to the WCF. 

If it was my daughter, and she lived in my house, obviously I have failed to a degree as she has no idea of her own baptism and what it means. If she does understand, she will NOT settle for anything less than what God has commanded.

~A suggestion to all the single people out there: Your wife should come from like-minded churches. You should preferably find your wife while in service to the Lord; you all serving elbow to elbow. You should know her walk. You should know how she interacts with her family; how she treats the brethren. If she comes from a theologically different understanding, how well do you really know her; I mean, obviously, you attend different churches! 

Whetever the case, again, if there is no conviction there, htere is no conviction there.

[Edited on 6-30-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## pastorway

You guys make it sound like a sin to marry a person who varies from you on secondary theological matters, but the truth of the matter is that the person GOD HAS CHOSEN for us to marry often comes from a different background!!

Let's not make the requirements for who to marry so narrow that we have to open up the Puritan Board Monastery and Abbey.

Phillip


----------



## wsw201

Philip,

I don't think baptism is a secondary issue since the vast majority of Baptist Churches will not accept a person as a member (much less a believer) unless they have been baptized under believers baptism and they will also require immersion (no sprinkling allowed). From a Baptist perspective, it sounds rather primary.


----------



## Puddleglum

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ~A suggestion to all the single people out there: Your wife should come from like-minded churches. You should preferably find your wife while in service to the Lord; you all serving elbow to elbow. You should know her walk. You should know how she interacts with her family; how she treats the brethren. If she comes from a theologically different understanding, how well do you really know her; I mean, obviously, you attend different churches!



As a single person, thanks for the suggestion. One question . . . what if you have a theologically different understanding than the church you belong to - i.e. you're credo in a paedo church (or vice versa)? (My experience has been that this isn't that uncommon). Then most, if not all, of the potential mates at your church are going to disagree with you . . .


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Puddleglum_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ~A suggestion to all the single people out there: Your wife should come from like-minded churches. You should preferably find your wife while in service to the Lord; you all serving elbow to elbow. You should know her walk. You should know how she interacts with her family; how she treats the brethren. If she comes from a theologically different understanding, how well do you really know her; I mean, obviously, you attend different churches!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a single person, thanks for the suggestion. One question . . . what if you have a theologically different understanding than the church you belong to - i.e. you're credo in a paedo church (or vice versa)? (My experience has been that this isn't that uncommon). Then most, if not all, of the potential mates at your church are going to disagree with you . . .
Click to expand...


Let me clearify. I would never intentionally look for a mate that wasn't of a paedo or like-minded conviction. If in fact God did something in regards to a credo believer (like he did in Calvin's life), If it didn't matter to the mate and she agreed to baptise the children; no problem. If she disagreed, we are not equally yoked! I could never sacrifice Gods covenant for a mate. As I have said, the WCF calls it a great sin:

V. *Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,*[13] yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it;[14] or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[15]

13. Gen. 17:14; Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38; see Luke 7:30
14. Rom. 4:11; Acts 10:2, 4, 22, 31, 45, 47
15. Acts 8:13, 23

Zipporah called Moses husband of blood for not circumcising his child!

Exo 4:25 And Zipporah took a stone and cut off her son's foreskin, and caused it to touch his feet. And she said, You are a bridegroom of blood to me. 

More importantly:

Gen 17:10 This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your seed after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised. 
Gen 17:11 And you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin. And it shall be a token of the covenant between Me and you. 
Gen 17:14 And an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, his soul shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant. 

My last two cents:
If the mate (the woman) is subjecting herself to the man as federal head, she should submit to his credentials for leadership; keeping to the idea that what he brings to the table is biblical (or for that matter, if she does not trust him in this regard, she should not marry such a man). In this, if the man is credo, she should be credo, if paedo, be paedo. 

Before Tina and I weremarried, she was still Arminian minded. I knew she was my wife when she came to the understanding of the D's OG.

[Edited on 6-30-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Ex Nihilo

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> My last two cents:
> If the mate (the woman) is subjecting herself to the man as federal head, she should submit to his credentials for leadership; keeping to the idea that what he brings to the table is biblical (or for that matter, if she does not trust him in this regard, she should not marry such a man). In this, if the man is credo, she should be credo, if paedo, be paedo.
> [Edited on 6-30-2005 by Scott Bushey]



Indeed. That's why I see this as an even more serious issue for single women. A man can always try to teach and convince the woman. If I found a nice young credo man who was susceptible to my convincing, I don't think I could look to him as a spiritual head.


----------



## Scott

"As an Elder I have had to deal with parents whose daughters married Baptists boys and became Baptists. They put up a good front but in the end they were not happy about it. They felt that they had messed up somewhere along the way."

Wayne: I have had this experience too with other people. I have seen situations like this shame the father, especially ones who hold officer positions. And not just from padeo to credo but from credo to paedo. In my experience, the reactions of credo parents to the baptisms of their grandbabies can be extreme.

[Edited on 6-30-2005 by Scott]


----------



## Scott

"Is baptism elementary? Scott, I know you did not mean to degrade the sacrament."

Scott B: I think we may be saying the same thing. By "elementary" I mean foundational, or one of the most important matters. The Hebrews passage I cited places it with other fundamental doctrines.


----------



## Scott

On the parental authority issue, think of it this way. From a paedo father's perspective, a credo's attempt to persuade the daughter to reject's the father's teaching is wrong. From the father's perspective, the party that is presently foreign to the family (the suitor) is trying to persaude the daughter to violate the relevant instructions from Proverbs (which likewise necessarily involves a rejection of the father's authority).

Of course the credo suitor thinks his interpretation of baptism is right. And of course the padeo father thinks his interpretation of baptism is right. It is a truism that everybody thinks their private interpretations of scriptures are right (or else they would not hold them). So, who is charged with authority to teach and instruct children in biblical doctrine? The parents and the church are primary and authoritative, although others have lesser supportive roles.

The suitor is not an authority in the daughter's life. The father is. When there is a debatable issue of scripture, the daughter should look to the father not the suitor, who has no formal or authortative relation to the family yet. 

I am not saying that the lines are clear and bright - few lines of authority are. 

Scott


----------



## Puddleglum

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Let me clearify. I would never intentionally look for a mate that wasn't of a paedo or like-minded conviction. If in fact God did something in regards to a credo believer (like he did in Calvin's life), If it didn't matter to the mate and she agreed to baptise the children; no problem. If she disagreed, we are not equally yoked!
> . . .
> 
> If the mate (the woman) is subjecting herself to the man as federal head, she should submit to his credentials for leadership; keeping to the idea that what he brings to the table is biblical (or for that matter, if she does not trust him in this regard, she should not marry such a man). In this, if the man is credo, she should be credo, if paedo, be paedo.



Okay.  The headship thing makes sense . . . if the woman can submit to the man, then it isn't an issue; if she can't, then there's a problem. (If she can submit, while disagreeing, I'm wondering how strong her convictions are? She may end up agreeing anyways). So in that regards, this whole issue is more one that women have to struggle with than men . . .


----------



## Puddleglum

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> On the parental authority issue, think of it this way. From a paedo father's perspective, a credo's attempt to persuade the daughter to reject's the father's teaching is wrong.



Okay, I can sort-of see that. 



> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Of course the credo suitor thinks his interpretation of baptism is right. And of course the padeo father thinks his interpretation of baptism is right. It is a truism that everybody thinks their private interpretations of scriptures are right (or else they would not hold them). So, who is charged with authority to teach and instruct children in biblical doctrine? The parents and the church are primary and authoritative, although others have lesser supportive roles.



Agreed - parents are given the authority to teach their children; the church also has authority. 



> _Originally posted by Scott_
> The suitor is not an authority in the daughter's life. The father is. When there is a debatable issue of scripture, the daughter should look to the father not the suitor, who has no formal or authortative relation to the family yet.



How long do you think parents have authority over their children's lives? I recognize that the command to honor our parents is good for forever, but, isn't there a decline in parental authority? Do parents still have authority over adult children? 

If a person becomes convinced that their parents are wrong - don't they have a responsibility NOT to imitate their parents? (Though there does seem to be some danger in this case of changing just to please the significant other). 



> _Originally posted by Scott_
> I am not saying that the lines are clear and bright - few lines of authority are.



True.


----------



## Scott

"How long do you think parents have authority over their children's lives? I recognize that the command to honor our parents is good for forever, but, isn't there a decline in parental authority? Do parents still have authority over adult children?"

Well, one point would be marriage. For example, Numbers 30 provides that a woman's authority to contract is limited by her father unless she is married, in which case it is her husband. We had similar laws like this in the United States until the 1960s or so. Anyway, we see the transition of authority with marriage.


----------



## Augusta

With girls they are under their father's authority until they are given to a husband. This is still part of the marriage ceremony today. The father "gives away" the bride to the future husband. We (women) are never left without someone who is our head. That headship is passed to our husband. 

That is why you see some fathers here who take this very seriously. It is very nice to see. Today fathers just give their daughters away to whomever the daughter chooses. Which is usually a bad choice.  Young women are not the best at picking life mates. Their criteria is usually how cute they are.


----------



## Scott

"If a person becomes convinced that their parents are wrong - don't they have a responsibility NOT to imitate their parents? (Though there does seem to be some danger in this case of changing just to please the significant other)."

As I mentioned the lines are fuzzy. Certainly with respect to unbelieving parents there is an absolute duty to reject parental teachings about unbelief in God. With respect to believing parents, I expect that there are a number of factors that should be taken into account, such as age, wisdom of the parent, wisdom of the child, the amount of study, the source of ideas, etc.


----------



## Scott

"That is why you see some fathers here who take this very seriously. It is very nice to see. Today fathers just give their daughters away to whomever the daughter chooses. Which is usually a bad choice. Young women are not the best at picking life mates. Their criteria is usually how cute they are."

There is allot to be said for arranged marriages, although I don't see it as workable in our culture since virtually nobody practices it. I recently read an article about some Indians (from India, not Native Americans) who practice it with great success.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> With girls they are under their father's authority until they are given to a husband. This is still part of the marriage ceremony today. The father "gives away" the bride to the future husband. We (women) are never left without someone who is our head. That headship is passed to our husband.
> 
> That is why you see some fathers here who take this very seriously. It is very nice to see. Today fathers just give their daughters away to whomever the daughter chooses. Which is usually a bad choice.  Young women are not the best at picking life mates. Their criteria is usually how cute they are.



 



> _Originally posted by Scott_
> 
> There is allot to be said for arranged marriages, although I don't see it as workable in our culture since virtually nobody practices it. I recently read an article about some Indians (from India, not Native Americans) who practice it with great success.



It is workable in McKinney, TX. I go to McKinney Bible Church, and my brothers and sisters in Christ are just amazing in this way. 

(However, I would not _quite_ call it an "arranged marriage", since the daughter _does_ get to have input on the decision. The dads don't make their daughters marry if they don't want to do so.  )

The daughters do not just run around with whomever they want. When a young man is interested in a young lady, he approaches her dad. If he approves of the potential union, then the young man is given the blessing to pursue the young lady. But if the girl's dad rejects the suitor, then the young man is not permitted to pursue her.

There have been quite a few honorable weddings and blessed marriages in our congregation over the past several years.

Praise the Lord!


----------



## Larry Hughes

Jeremy,

Just find a nice Jewish girl.

Just trying to lighten things up a bit.

Later,

Larry


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> Jeremy,
> 
> Just find a nice Jewish girl.
> 
> Just trying to lighten things up a bit.
> 
> Later,
> 
> Larry


----------



## kevin.carroll

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> "As an Elder I have had to deal with parents whose daughters married Baptists boys and became Baptists. They put up a good front but in the end they were not happy about it. They felt that they had messed up somewhere along the way."
> 
> Wayne: I have had this experience too with other people. I have seen situations like this shame the father, especially ones who hold officer positions. And not just from padeo to credo but from credo to paedo. In my experience, the reactions of credo parents to the baptisms of their grandbabies can be extreme.
> 
> [Edited on 6-30-2005 by Scott]



I guess diving in late is better than not diving in at all. This is a HUGE problem in rural areas. While I was in Washington last week I met Trent Lott and he even kidded with me about the difficulties in being a Baptist (him) marrying a Presbyterian (her). Frankly, I lay the blame squarely at the feet of the teaching elders in not inculcating their concregations with the whats and whys of covenant theology.


----------



## pastorway

to clarify, being unequally yoked is to be married to a non-believer. 

It is not to be married to someone that you at times disagree with, even on tough theological topics! Otherwise we are all unequally yoked.

And the wrong idea might be misread into this discussion that a couple is not REALLY married until they agree in all major areas of theology, and that simply is not true. You can be REALLY married to a non-believer, you know! The Bible gives us instructions for what to do if we find ourselves in that situation.

Phillip


----------



## smhbbag

****UPDATE****

Just thought I'd give you guys an update (haha, not that I'm that active around here, although I lurk every day).

Well, I had some more conversations with her father on this topic, and continued to get to know her family better. To make a long story short, I asked for his permission to pursue her toward marriage, and he gave a hearty "yes." Needless to say, she gave the same answer he did  We've been courting for two months at this point, and things are going unbelievably well. But I'll spare you all the sappy details 

As for the paedobaptism issue, I have discussed this on 5 or 6 occasions with her, and frankly, the 'debate' started to take a much different tone after we were together. I just can't (and don't want to!) 'argue' with her in the same way I can with my best guy friends. So, after making much progress in those 5 or 6 discussions, we decided we would put the issue to rest until a much later date. We haven't had a *direct* discussion on it in about a month. 

We've instead poured that time into going through Galatians verse by verse, and now we're well into Ephesians, and it has been quite fruitful. Although I do keep it at a relatively surface level, because I am quite aware of the dangers of establishing too much emotional/spiritual intimacy at this time. I'm not her covenant head....yet. But it has been wonderful to lead her through those scriptures. 

I believe I mentioned that before I asked for courtship, she had been thrust into a 'middle-ground' not really knowing what to think, namely because she knew of no textual rebuttal to some of the arguments I'd brought up. When asking for courtship, the first thing I brought up was the fact that if she said 'yes,' she's essentially agreeing to be bound my by conscience on the matter after (Lord-willing) the marriage. Submission on this issue would not be an option, but a duty. She said that, while she had some misgivings about the whole thing, she said that she could, with joy and confidence, place herself under my spiritual headship. So, we began....

She has recently told me that she is now "98% Baptist," and that really the only things holding her back were 1) her strong paedo family tradition and 2) just an emotional discomfort that is inevitable during any major shift in doctrine. But, #2 was mostly resolved when there was a paedobaptism at her church, and she "will never be able to look at it the same way again." Evidently, she's been continuing to pour over the issue in her personal prayer and study time, even while we haven't discussed it at all for a month or so. And by all scriptural measures, she's now a Baptist. 

Now, dealing with her family's reaction to this change will not be easy - especially considering my GREAT love, respect and admiration of the godly heritage they have established over many generations. Pray for peace on that front. I'm confident it will be ok though - they know me and my heart, and that I'm not looking for another paedo notch in my belt. I can only hope that the respect I've gained from them thus far can help carry us through the difficulty that may come from it.

Just thought of this thread a while ago, and thought I'd update you guys. Man, I do love the PB  For those curious, a picture of us is on my xanga - http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=smhbbag


[Edited on 9-21-2005 by smhbbag]


----------



## Puddleglum

Thanks for the update. Will be praying for the situation . . . oh, and about that picture - she's a lot better looking than you.  (No offense meant . . . )


----------



## smhbbag

heh heh, oh I'm well aware 

But praise the Lord she'll deny it all day long! Somehow she still thinks she got the better end of this deal.

And thank you so much for your prayers. Seriously. 

[Edited on 9-21-2005 by smhbbag]


----------



## Poimen

I wish no pain or heartache to Jeremy but I am compelled to give a hearty amen to what both Scotts are saying. As a pastor of a Dutch Reformed church I would feel quite responsible if one of the girls in the church married a Baptist minded boy. This is a confessional issue and thus one of integrity and unity for our church. And I second the thought that the father would really be the one responsible for such an instance: where are his priorities?

*Heidelberg Catechism*

Q74: Are infants also to be baptized?

A74: Yes, for since they, as well as their parents, belong to the covenant and people of God, and through the blood of Christ both redemption from sin and the Holy Ghost, who works faith, are promised to them no less than to their parents, they are also by Baptism, as a sign of the covenant, to be ingrafted into the Christian Church, and distinguished from the children of unbelievers, as was done in the Old Testament by circumcision, in place of which in the New Testament Baptism is appointed.

[Edited on 9-21-2005 by poimen]


----------



## rgrove

Well, Baptismal issues aside... Now that I've seen the pictures, how in the world did you land a looker like that!?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> I wish no pain or heartache to Jeremy but I am compelled to give a hearty
> amen to what both Scotts are saying. As a pastor of a Dutch Reformed church I would feel quite responsible if one of the girls in the church married a Baptist minded boy. This is a confessional issue and thus one of integrity and unity for our church. And I second the thought that the father would really be the one responsible for such an instance: where are his priorities?
> 
> *Heidelberg Catechism*
> 
> Q74: Are infants also to be baptized?
> 
> A74: Yes, for since they, as well as their parents, belong to the covenant and people of God, and through the blood of Christ both redemption from sin and the Holy Ghost, who works faith, are promised to them no less than to their parents, they are also by Baptism, as a sign of the covenant, to be ingrafted into the Christian Church, and distinguished from the children of unbelievers, as was done in the Old Testament by circumcision, in place of which in the New Testament Baptism is appointed.



Presbyterian is as Presbyterian does.............


----------



## pastorway

PRAISE the LORD that you are setting such an example in Christian courtship! PRAISE the LORD that you and your future wife are so committed to the Word of God and doing things HIS way. PRAISE the LORD that her father has given a hearty approval to the relationship. PRAISE the LORD that you were and are patient and motivated by love for God, her family, and her. PRAISE the LORD that I can rejoice with you as you rejoice!

Phillip


----------

