# Once credo, now paedo?



## MRC (Mar 17, 2010)

I was saved in my mid-twenties and, by default, ended up attending non-confessional, dispensational baptist churches. As such I was taught a credo understanding of baptism, without ever questioning it. Since becoming reformed I have thought I need to study paedobaptism due to its confession in reformed churches. If I only use one book to convince me of the paedobaptism perspective, which would it be? It would be nice if someone out there who converted from credo to paedo would offer some guidance as well, but I welcome input from all.


----------



## JoyFullMom (Mar 17, 2010)

My husband and I were both raised credo and are now paedo. We tried to understand paedobaptism on it's own for several years and truly just could not get it. When the RBC we were attending began teaching *New* Covenant Theology, we were bothered by it and were prompted to dive into our own study of Covenant Theology. It was during that study that the light bulb went on and paedobaptism just neatly slid into place for us. 

I know that is not really what you asked, but we already had struggled through the most recommended books on paedobaptism. A simple start for us for Covenant Theology was Covenants by O. Palmer Robertson. I believe we picked up "Why We Baptize Our Infants" by Bryan Chappell when we had our *aha* moment. 

I hope that helps.


----------



## raekwon (Mar 17, 2010)

Mike,

I plan on coming back to this post to offer some counsel (if, by that point, better counsel hasn't offered a better perspective, anyway), but I wanted to just quickly say that I actually grew up in the C&MA and am now a paedobaptist in the PCA. (So, our paths might be similar.)


----------



## Ivan (Mar 17, 2010)

MRC said:


> Since becoming reformed I have thought I need to study paedobaptism due to its confession in reformed churches.


 
I find this sentence both striking and odd. So you became reformed without a conviction about baptism?


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Mar 17, 2010)

This document from a Puritan's mind is a very good account of a knowledgable credo becoming paedo.

Link: My Retraction: A 15 year Reformed Baptist turns Paedo-Baptist

I was raised Baptist but fell away and later became Roman Catholic. I got my understanding that baptism = circumcision there. When God rescued me from my error and placed me back in a church that preaches salvation by grace through faith it was easy for me to accept the presbyterian point of view because it is generally the same as the RCC point of view except Presbyterians reject that regeneration is done at baptism but all of the covenant theology remains. However, if I just use scripture without external influence I can see the credo point of view as well, so I must admit that I am personally a bit disturbed. The only reason I adhere to Paedo baptism these days is because if baptism does indeed equal circumcision then it is a sin for us to not baptize our children, because we were commanded to baptize. If baptism is not circumcision and instead just a mark of the covenant for believers, then infant baptism would be a mistake. So, until I am convinced that baptism is not the same as circumcision I am paedo, but convince me of that and I will be looking for a Baptist church to join.


----------



## MLCOPE2 (Mar 17, 2010)

MRC said:


> If I only use one book to convince me of the paedobaptism perspective, which would it be?


 
The Bible.


----------



## MRC (Mar 17, 2010)

Ivan said:


> MRC said:
> 
> 
> > Since becoming reformed I have thought I need to study paedobaptism due to its confession in reformed churches.
> ...



I suppose I am currently experiencing conviction on the doctrine of baptism as a continuation of my "reformed indoctrination". Also keep in mind that the credobaptism perspective is affirmed by reformed baptists.


----------



## T.A.G. (Mar 17, 2010)

MLCOPE2 said:


> MRC said:
> 
> 
> > If I only use one book to convince me of the paedobaptism perspective, which would it be?
> ...


 
no he asked what book would give a good argument for paedobaptism not believers baptism


----------



## JoyFullMom (Mar 17, 2010)

raekwon said:


> Mike,
> 
> I plan on coming back to this post to offer some counsel (if, by that point, better counsel hasn't offered a better perspective, anyway), but I wanted to just quickly say that I actually grew up in the C&MA and am now a paedobaptist in the PCA. (So, our paths might be similar.)


 
I just thought I'd add, as a note of interest, my husband was also raised by C&MA missionary parents and is now a paedo in the OPC.


----------



## Ivan (Mar 17, 2010)

MRC said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> > MRC said:
> ...



Okay, I'll keep that in mind.


----------



## CharlieJ (Mar 17, 2010)

I went from Baptist to Presbyterian, and found that there are two types of books out there on the paedo side. The first type are basically positive constructions of the doctrine that also take some time to address polemical issues. You definitely need to read one of these to get a big picture view. I would suggest Pierre Marcel's _The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism_. Secondly, maybe John Murray's _Christian Baptism_.

The second type are a bit more polemically bent, written especially to convince a credobaptist. Of these, I might recommend Doug Wilson's _To a Thousand Generations_ and _Children of the Promise_ by Robert Booth. 

If you're _seriously_ considering this issue, you can't just pick one book and decide to rest on that. I spent over a year researching this issue, including about 20 books, dozens of journal articles and sections of systematic theologies, personal talks with pastors and professors on both sides, and a full-Bible read-through devoted specifically to this topic. If it's worth looking into at all, it's worth looking into thoroughly. You don't have to have an answer by next week.


----------



## Ivan (Mar 17, 2010)

CharlieJ said:


> I went from Baptist to Presbyterian, and found that there are two types of books out there on the paedo side. The first type are basically positive constructions of the doctrine that also take some time to address polemical issues. You definitely need to read one of these to get a big picture view. I would suggest Pierre Marcel's _The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism_. Secondly, maybe John Murray's _Christian Baptism_.
> 
> The second type are a bit more polemically bent, written especially to convince a credobaptist. Of these, I might recommend Doug Wilson's _To a Thousand Generations_ and _Children of the Promise_ by Robert Booth.
> 
> If you're _seriously_ considering this issue, you can't just pick one book and decide to rest on that. I spent over a year researching this issue, including about 20 books, dozens of journal articles and sections of systematic theologies, personal talks with pastors and professors on both sides, and a full-Bible read-through devoted specifically to this topic. If it's worth looking into at all, it's worth looking into thoroughly. You don't have to have an answer by next week.


 
Sounds like a lot of work.


----------



## MRC (Mar 17, 2010)

> So, until I am convinced that baptism is not the same as circumcision I am paedo, but convince me of that and I will be looking for a Baptist church to join.



I recently read a blurb that Michael Horton wrote about what conviced him to covert from credo to paedo. It was the comment about circumcision finding antitype in baptism (if I am using the terminology correctly) that gave me pause for thought. I agree, if this is true I need to consider paedobaptism. This is what is prompting my desire to study the doctrine of baptism.

---------- Post added at 02:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:41 PM ----------




Ivan said:


> MRC said:
> 
> 
> > Ivan said:
> ...


 
Sorry, I think I missunderstood your original comment. Were you asking me why baptism was not part of my "conversion" to reformed theolgy? Is so, I simply took it for granted that paedobaptism was incorrect given my spiritual upbringing.


----------



## Ivan (Mar 17, 2010)

MRC said:


> > So, until I am convinced that baptism is not the same as circumcision I am paedo, but convince me of that and I will be looking for a Baptist church to join.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I was just joshin'. God bless your convictions to the glory of God.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Mar 17, 2010)

MRC said:


> > So, until I am convinced that baptism is not the same as circumcision I am paedo, but convince me of that and I will be looking for a Baptist church to join.
> 
> 
> 
> I recently read a blurb that Michael Horton wrote about what conviced him to covert from credo to paedo. It was the comment about circumcision finding antitype in baptism (if I am using the terminology correctly) that gave me pause for thought. I agree, if this is true I need to consider paedobaptism. This is what is prompting my desire to study the doctrine of baptism..




That article I posted from Puritan's mind is insightful. But I am personally a bit confused about the doctrine of baptism because I really can see how both views can be based in scripture. I have not seen a satisfactory argument that refutes the teaching that baptism and circumcision are the same thing so I remain paedo. But if I ever do become convinced I would go with God and find a Church I believed was most faithful to the truth of scripture.


----------



## MRC (Mar 17, 2010)

JoyFullMom said:


> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> > Mike,
> ...


 
Sure wish the OPC would come plant a church up here!!


----------



## Kiffin (Mar 17, 2010)

MRC said:


> > So, until I am convinced that baptism is not the same as circumcision I am paedo, but convince me of that and I will be looking for a Baptist church to join.
> 
> 
> 
> I recently read a blurb that Michael Horton wrote about what conviced him to covert from credo to paedo. It was the comment about circumcision finding antitype in baptism (if I am using the terminology correctly) that gave me pause for thought. I agree, if this is true I need to consider paedobaptism. This is what is prompting my desire to study the doctrine of baptism.



The whole type/antitype stuff almost convinced me of the paedo position. But for me, I think that the view that Old Testament physical circumsion typified the circumcision of the heart (regeneration) is a stronger argument. Well, at least for now..


----------



## MLCOPE2 (Mar 17, 2010)

T.A.G. said:


> MLCOPE2 said:
> 
> 
> > MRC said:
> ...


----------



## MRC (Mar 17, 2010)

Kiffin said:


> MRC said:
> 
> 
> > > So, until I am convinced that baptism is not the same as circumcision I am paedo, but convince me of that and I will be looking for a Baptist church to join.
> ...



My understanding is that circumcision was a sign of membership in the covenant community for Israel even though they were still justified by faith in Christ as per the covenant of grace. Would this not mean that regeneration was not tied to circumcision, strictly speaking, but to the covenant of works for Israel? With this understanding circumcision finds its fulfillment in Christ where our hearts are circumcised as a sign that we are Christ's. Would this then not lead us to seeing baptism as the outward sign of covenant membership (grace) just like circumcision was for Israel?

I am just learning at this point, so take my thoughts with a grain of salt.


----------



## Poimen (Mar 17, 2010)

Mike: 

Since you are looking for resources on paedobaptism... here is Dennis Johnson's explanation of how his convictions changed from credo to paedo: Infant Baptism: How My Mind Has Changed

Also, a fairly comprehensive list of books on the subject (from both sides of the fence), is available in this thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/infant-baptism-bibliography-24631/

If I was going to recommend a book to read on the subject of infant baptism, I would get Rev. Danny Hyde's book entitled "Jesus Loves the Little Children"


----------



## Kiffin (Mar 17, 2010)

I know you're asking for paedo resources but i'm going to link you a credo resource by Tom Nettles Baptists and the Ordinances, Thomas Nettles | The Reformed Reader


----------



## lynnie (Mar 17, 2010)

I would buy this for sure, we heard rave reviews.

Westminster Bookstore - Reformed Books - Low Prices - Flat Fee UPS Shipping - 9780830838561 - Baptism: Three Views (Paperback) by David F. Wright


Baptism: Three Views (Paperback)
View Larger Image

Read inside (PDFs): Sample Pages


Publisher: InterVarsity Press
Author: Wright, David F.; Ware, Bruce A; Ferguson, Sinclair B.; Lane, Anthony N. S.
ISBN-10: 0830838562 | ISBN-13: 9780830838561
Binding: Paperback
List Price: $16.00 
Westminster Bookstore: $10.56 - 34% Off 




Publisher's Description: The Christian church confesses "one baptism." But the church's answers to how, whom and when to baptize, and even what it means or does, are famously varied. This book provides a forum for thoughtful proponents of three principal evangelical views to state their case, respond to the others, and then provide a summary response and statement. Sinclair Ferguson sets out the case for infant baptism, Bruce Ware presents the case for believers' baptism, and Anthony Lane argues for a mixed practice.

As with any good conversation on a controversial topic, this book raises critical issues, challenges preconceptions and discloses the soft points in each view. Evangelicals who wish to understand better their own church's practice or that of their neighbor, or who perhaps are uncertain of their own views, will value this incisive book.

Table of Contents 
Introduction: Daniel G. Reid 

Believers' Baptism View: Bruce A. Ware 
Infant Baptism Response 
Dual-Practice Baptism Response 
Believers' Baptism Concluding Response 
Infant Baptism View: Sinclair B. Ferguson 
Believers' Baptism Response 
Dual-Practice Baptism Response 
Infant Baptism Concluding Response 
Dual-Practice Baptism View: Anthony N. S. Lane 
Believers' Baptism Response 
Infant Baptism Response 
Dual-Practice Baptism Concluding Response 
Contributors 
Scripture Index 

200 Pages
Published September 2009

About the Editor: David F. Wright (1937-2008) was professor of patristic and Reformation Christianity at New College, University of Edinburgh. He wrote a number of books on both historical and theological topics.

About the Contributors:

Sinclair B. Ferguson is senior minister at First Presbyterian Church in Columbia, South Carolina, and serves as professor of systematic theology at Redeemer Seminary in Dallas, Texas and is Distinguished Visiting Professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary, Glenside, PA.

Bruce A. Ware is professor of Christian theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He has written numerous journal articles, book chapters, book reviews, and has authored God's Lesser Glory, God's Greater Glory, and Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Anthony N. S. Lane is professor of historical theology and director of research at the London School of Theology. He is the author of A Concise History of Christian Thought, John Calvin: Student of the Church Fathers, and Justification by Faith in Catholic-Protestant Dialogue and compiled The Lion Christian Classics Collection. A world-class Calvin scholar, he abridged the Institutes into a popular student edition and also edited the translation of Calvin's Bondage and Liberation of the Will.

**********

Personally I have joined the paedo-credo camp, that "Defenders of the dual-practice view don’t refuse to take a stand. On the contrary, they take their stand on the position that infant baptism is neither required (as paedobaptists hold) nor forbidden (as credobaptists hold)" ( JT blog post). I've heard all the arguements on both sides, been in two PCA churches and in Reformed Baptist, and at this point I'm in that third group, that both sides have a solid biblical and historical basis, and neither is wrong, and both are OK. You ought to at least be aware that the third position exists.

This is a must read for all Baptists thinking about paedo: Indifferentism and Rigorism

Poythress is a prof at WTS, and now a paedo but used to be credo. This excellent essay presents the position that when a child shows evidence of a tender heart for the Lord, which can be as young as 2! or 3 or definitely 4 or 5, it is incumbent on baptists to recognize the regenerated heart and baptize the child. You don't wait until 12 or 14 or 16 when the kid loves the Lord at a young age. A must read; it is so well thought out. You might call it a fourth view of baptism.


----------



## Jack K (Mar 17, 2010)

lynnie said:


> I would buy this for sure, we heard rave reviews.
> 
> Westminster Bookstore - Reformed Books - Low Prices - Flat Fee UPS Shipping - 9780830838561 - Baptism: Three Views (Paperback) by David F. Wright
> 
> ...






lynnie said:


> Personally I have joined the paedo-credo camp, that "Defenders of the dual-practice view don’t refuse to take a stand. On the contrary, they take their stand on the position that infant baptism is neither required (as paedobaptists hold) nor forbidden (as credobaptists hold)" ( JT blog post). I've heard all the arguements on both sides, been in two PCA churches and in Reformed Baptist, and at this point I'm in that third group, that both sides have a solid biblical and historical basis, and neither is wrong, and both are OK. You ought to at least be aware that the third position exists.
> 
> This is a must read for all Baptists thinking about paedo: Indifferentism and Rigorism
> 
> Poythress is a prof at WTS, and now a paedo but used to be credo. This excellent essay presents the position that when a child shows evidence of a tender heart for the Lord, which can be as young as 2! or 3 or definitely 4 or 5, it is incumbent on baptists to recognize the regenerated heart and baptize the child. You don't wait until 12 or 14 or 16 when the kid loves the Lord at a young age. A must read; it is so well thought out. You might call it a fourth view of baptism.


 
Well, I recently read the "Three Views" book and thought Sinclair Ferguson's argument was uncharacteristically weak and gave me no new insight. Doug Wilson and Robert Booth are far more compelling, I'd say. And do read the Poythress article Lynnie just mentioned. I first encountered it only a few months ago, and I think it's as good as anything I've read on the topic. Very challenging to credobaptists who haven't thought things through, yet gracious. And a short, easy read.


----------



## MRC (Mar 17, 2010)

> ...when a child shows evidence of a tender heart for the Lord, which can be as young as 2! or 3 or definitely 4 or 5, it is incumbent on baptists to recognize the regenerated heart and baptize the child. You don't wait until 12 or 14 or 16 when the kid loves the Lord at a young age. A must read; it is so well thought out. You might call it a fourth view of baptism.



This is basically my default view generated from the scriptures without ready be "aware" that I was thinking about baptism. Being in a credo-baptist church now I am finding I have a difficulty as my 3.5 year old is starting to "show signs of a tender heart towards the Lord" and I know I will be viewed as a bit "odd" for wanting to baptize my boy when he is so young. He is interested in talking about God and praying to the Lord at bed time, meals, etc. Soon I am planning on daily catechizing him, as I have already started teaching him about Jesus as Saviour for our sins. The credo in me is looking for a confession of faith, but maybe I am being convicted scripturally that this is not necessary. 

Oh, the humility of raising God's children in a way that brings Him glory! I pray that He would be pleased with my heart-attitude and graciously regenerate and sanctify my kids hearts in spite of me!!


----------



## dudley (Mar 17, 2010)

R. Scott Clark has a new book "Recovering the Reformed Confession A Reformed Defense of Paedobaptism"

It is very good. I was baptised as an infant in the Roman catholic church. I received baptism as an adult in the Baptist fold by immersion. I am now a Presbyterian and a Paedobaptist. I found the book very helpful. He discusses the rc view , the Baptist, the Lutheran and the Presbyterian view all very well.


----------



## puritanhope (Mar 17, 2010)

Personally, I wouldn't spend time focusing on the issue of baptism _unless it is a pressing issue_. I'd spend my time studying the LBC and WCF because the issue of credo-paedo is really an issue of systematic theology more than it is of baptism.


----------



## dudley (Mar 18, 2010)

puritanhope said:


> Personally, I wouldn't spend time focusing on the issue of baptism _unless it is a pressing issue_. I'd spend my time studying the LBC and WCF because the issue of credo-paedo is really an issue of systematic theology more than it is of baptism.


 
Your position is also very true... I am thinking you might be correct on this issue.


----------



## reformedminister (Mar 18, 2010)

I used to be credo also. Before I took my first pastorate in the United Methodist Church, I studied this subject immensely since the UMC practiced covenant baptism. The end result is that I became a believer of paedo baptism.


----------



## larryjf (Mar 18, 2010)

I'm a credo-turned-paedo.
These two books have good sections on paedobaptism...
Amazon.com: Back to Basics: Rediscovering the Richness of the Reformed Faith (9780875522166): Douglas J. Wilson, Douglas M. Jones, Roger Wagner, David G. Hagopian: Books
Amazon.com: Westminster Confession of Faith: For Study Classes (9780875525938): G. I. Williamson: Books


Michael Horton summarized it well when he wrote:


> We should baptize our children because...
> 1. God has brought us into a covenant of grace and although not all members of this covenant will persevere (i.e., they are not elect), they enjoy special privileges of belonging to the covenant people of God. This was true of Israel (the church in the Old Testament), and the New Testament simply applies this to the New Testament church (Hebrews, esp. 4:1-11 and 6:4-12; Deut. 4:20 and 28:9 with 1 Pet. 2:9,10; Gal. 6:16; Hos. 2:23 and Is. 10:22 with Rom. 9:24-28). Also the parable of the Vine and the Branches. 2 ways of being in Christ: visibly and invisibly.
> 2. Even though bringing someone under the protection of God's covenantal faithfulness does not guarantee that every member possesses true, persevering faith (Heb. 4:1-11), but that does not mean that it is unimportant as to whether a person is in Christ and his covenant of grace.
> 3. Children were included in the covenant of grace in the Old Testament, through the sacrament of circumcision, and in the New Covenant (called the "better covenant"), God has not changed in his good intentions toward our children (Ac. 2:38-39) and circumcision has been replaced with baptism (Col. 2:11-12). Therefore, our children must be brought into the covenant of grace and united to Christ through baptism as the people of God in former times were brought into the covenant through circumcision.
> ...


----------



## MRC (Mar 18, 2010)

puritanhope said:


> Personally, I wouldn't spend time focusing on the issue of baptism _unless it is a pressing issue_. I'd spend my time studying the LBC and WCF because the issue of credo-paedo is really an issue of systematic theology more than it is of baptism.


 
I am learning that paedobaptism _is_ a pressing issue if one desires to truly understand and hold to historic, confessional Christianity. As I do I need to work through this issue as my credo stance, if I am honest, has been entirely due to accepting teaching from dispensational teachers (which I have been convicted is a virtually heretical teaching).


----------



## TexanRose (Mar 18, 2010)

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

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

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


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 18, 2010)

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


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Mar 22, 2010)

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

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

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




Ivan said:


> MRC said:
> 
> 
> > Since becoming reformed I have thought I need to study paedobaptism due to its confession in reformed churches.
> ...


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

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




Kiffin said:


> MRC said:
> 
> 
> > > So, until I am convinced that baptism is not the same as circumcision I am paedo, but convince me of that and I will be looking for a Baptist church to join.
> ...


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


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Mar 22, 2010)

reformedminister said:


> I used to be credo also. Before I took my first pastorate in the United Methodist Church, I studied this subject immensely since the UMC practiced covenant baptism. The end result is that I became a believer of paedo baptism.


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


----------



## py3ak (Mar 22, 2010)

Jack K said:


> lynnie said:
> 
> 
> > I would buy this for sure, we heard rave reviews.
> ...


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


----------



## Kiffin (Mar 22, 2010)

Willem van Oranje said:


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



From Baptists and the Ordinances by Tom Nettles 



> First, Baptists do recognize a relationship between Circumcision and Baptism. Colossians 2:11-13 establishes this relationship. But to insist that a direct analogy exists in which Baptism fulfills Circumcision (or replaces it) has no warrant from the New Testament. Circumcision typifies, not Baptism, but regeneration (v. 11). As Paul emphatically states in Galatians, "For in Christ Jesus neither Circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature" (Gal. 6:15). Circumcision foreshadowed by type the specific work of Christ, by his Spirit, in the "removal of the body of flesh" (Col. 2:11).
> 
> Baptism includes a picture of fulfilled Circumcision, the quickening of the sinner while he is dead in trespasses and sins, but it includes much more. While the removal of death by the power of life makes Baptism an apt image for this fulfilled Circumcision, Baptism opens one's view to the much fuller intent of Christ's historical work. Baptism expands the focus, not only on the inner life of the sinner, but on Christ's historical work by which life, forgiveness, and righteousness come. The "faith according to the operation of God" (v. 12 translated by Conybeare "faith wrought in you by God") refers to the quickening work of the Spirit raising sinners from death to life by which we are granted the faith which unites us to Christ. Baptism assumes spiritual Circumcision as one aspect of the complete salvation purchased by the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.
> 
> ...



Sorry for the long quote...


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Mar 22, 2010)

Here are some online and published resources:

Online Resources on Infant-Baptism 

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

Abraham was Not Moses


----------



## Grafted In (Mar 22, 2010)

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


----------



## Kiffin (Mar 22, 2010)

Grafted In said:


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



haha..

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


----------



## Simply_Nikki (Mar 22, 2010)

MRC said:


> If I only use one book to convince me of the paedobaptism perspective, which would it be? It would be nice if someone out there who converted from credo to paedo would offer some guidance as well, but I welcome input from all.



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


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Mar 23, 2010)

Kiffin said:


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



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

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

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

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

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


----------



## louis_jp (Mar 23, 2010)

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

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


----------



## Marrow Man (Mar 23, 2010)

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

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


----------

