# Allurement of Paedobaptism/making a decision?



## Kim G (Sep 22, 2008)

Last night, my hubbie and I were discussing the allurement of paedobaptism. When someone comes from a independent fundy background and then learns some of the truths of the Reformed faith, it's easy to jump into everything without careful consideration. We love the idea of including children in the covenant community, and the continuation of a sign and seal from the old to the new testament. It's appealing. It's emotionally satisfying. I understand the scriptural arguments. However, I understand the scriptural arguments for credobaptism as well.

How is one to make a decision? I'm forever in fear of finding out I'm pregnant and not knowing whether to baptise my child.

When I read paedo literature, I'm convinced that paedo is right. When I read credo literature, I'm convinced that credo is right. Just the fact that the Puritan Board allows people of both convictions is a testimony that true, well-studied believers come to different conclusions. So, what do I do? Pick a position from a hat? Believe it or not, I'm (almost) serious about that.


----------



## staythecourse (Sep 22, 2008)

God bless your husband's and your journey in the decision


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Sep 22, 2008)

Kim G said:


> Last night, my hubbie and I were discussing the allurement of paedobaptism. When someone comes from a independent fundy background and then learns some of the truths of the Reformed faith, it's easy to jump into everything without careful consideration. We love the idea of including children in the covenant community, and the continuation of a sign and seal from the old to the new testament. It's appealing. It's emotionally satisfying. I understand the scriptural arguments. However, I understand the scriptural arguments for credobaptism as well.
> 
> How is one to make a decision? I'm forever in fear of finding out I'm pregnant and not knowing whether to baptise my child.
> 
> When I read paedo literature, I'm convinced that paedo is right. When I read credo literature, I'm convinced that credo is right. Just the fact that the Puritan Board allows people of both convictions is a testimony that true, well-studied believers come to different conclusions. So, what do I do? Pick a position from a hat? Believe it or not, I'm (almost) serious about that.



You aren't going to be comfortable choosing arbitrarily in my opinion. You need to keep on studying the Word and the arguments given, and saturate it all in prayer asking for the Lord's guidance. Your conscience must be secure in whatever decision you end up making. I'll pray for you guys.


----------



## py3ak (Sep 22, 2008)

I guess you could hope that your husband has an easier time deciding when it's time! 

Your experience is the opposite of mine: credo literature always pushes me over the edge, and paedo literature consistently pushes me back.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 22, 2008)

What ever side you come down on theologically, God knows who his Covenant Children are. May you live out your faith in His providence and love.


----------



## DMcFadden (Sep 22, 2008)

Kim you state the issue beautifully. Yes, it is a painful choice between what "seems" so logically coherent and elegant, and what you were raised to believe. At this point, I am still reading and asking the Lord to use the means of some of the best books representing each position to bring me to a point of conviction.


----------



## Christusregnat (Sep 22, 2008)

Kim G said:


> Last night, my hubbie and I were discussing the allurement of paedobaptism. When someone comes from a independent fundy background and then learns some of the truths of the Reformed faith, it's easy to jump into everything without careful consideration. We love the idea of including children in the covenant community, and the continuation of a sign and seal from the old to the new testament. It's appealing. It's emotionally satisfying. I understand the scriptural arguments. However, I understand the scriptural arguments for credobaptism as well.
> 
> How is one to make a decision? I'm forever in fear of finding out I'm pregnant and not knowing whether to baptise my child.
> 
> When I read paedo literature, I'm convinced that paedo is right. When I read credo literature, I'm convinced that credo is right. Just the fact that the Puritan Board allows people of both convictions is a testimony that true, well-studied believers come to different conclusions. So, what do I do? Pick a position from a hat? Believe it or not, I'm (almost) serious about that.



Kim,

A very tough place to be in. My transfer to the paedo side came after being saturated in biblical law for a year or two, and then reading a paedo book with the intent of refuting it. I couldn't, and so I had to admit that I was wrong. 

However, each person's experience is different, and God will guide you.

As for the allurements of the paedo position, certainly there are many. However, as you've alluded to, only the Scriptural arguments ought to win the day. That said, if you are every convinced of the paedo position, it will be like when you became a Calvinist: the thing you once thought the bible could _*never*_ teach, you begin to see in every place you look. You'll read (especially) the NT like a new book.

Cheers,


----------



## a mere housewife (Sep 22, 2008)

I feel the same as Ruben. When I read baptist arguments my mind starts sputtering 'But . . . but . . . but . . .'; when I read paedobaptist arguments the same thing happens. I am kept in a stasis by the negative magnetic force of both sides  And I can see the strong arguments, when put well as they often are, for both sides, too. The credo-only position is default for me, as there is no doubt that professors were baptized. I think paedos often overlook that many of us are not just trying to construct some sort of position with which to oppose theirs out of a void but are rather relying on what is crystal clear in default of being able to clearly see our way to their position: there is indisputable biblical evidence for credo baptism, which paedos also accept. No doubt it is the less 'poetically appealing' option. But I know people who have gotten into trouble when they started doing theology by poetic appeal. I know that if I had an infant I would _want _to baptise him/her. If I had a baby and knew it were dying, I almost certainly would beg to have him/her baptised because there would be no time to wait and allow that to happen as they made profession of faith (I believe even as a credo that children are included in the administration of the NC based on the passage in 1 Cor--though I have a slight question about the unbelieving spouse seemingly being included there too: I'm not sure one can pivot so much difference on a tense as is posited between status of unbelieving spouse/children in that passage--I'm just not convinced that mere inclusion is the basis of the New Testament administration of baptism: just as not all members of the NC take communion). R pointed out that there would be an element of superstition in that and of course he is right: however as you say these decisions are never made in a void of how we actually feel/view/interact with children: that is just part of our common humanity.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Sep 22, 2008)

This may push you over the edge, but here it is anyway. I've been deeply in study in this area for some time. While I am still credo I am MUCH more sympathetic to my Presbyterian brethren. The following 23 messages are extremely engaging and thought provolking. They are anything but boring.

SermonAudio.com - Orthodox Presbyterian Church Franklin Sq


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 22, 2008)

a mere housewife said:


> I feel the same as Ruben. When I read baptist arguments my mind starts sputtering 'But . . . but . . . but . . .'; when I read paedobaptist arguments the same thing happens. I am kept in a stasis by the negative magnetic force of both sides  And I can see the strong arguments, when put well as they often are, for both sides, too. The credo-only position is default for me, as there is no doubt that professors were baptized. I think paedos often overlook that many of us are not just trying to construct some sort of position with which to oppose theirs out of a void but are rather relying on what is crystal clear in default of being able to clearly see our way to their position: there is indisputable biblical evidence for credo baptism, which paedos also accept. No doubt it is the less 'poetically appealing' option. But I know people who have gotten into trouble when they started doing theology by poetic appeal. I know that if I had an infant I would _want _to baptise him/her. If I had a baby and knew it were dying, I almost certainly would beg to have him/her baptised because there would be no time to wait and allow that to happen as they made profession of faith (I believe even as a credo that children are included in the administration of the NC based on the passage in 1 Cor--though I have a slight question about the unbelieving spouse seemingly being included there too: I'm not sure one can pivot so much difference on a tense as is posited between status of unbelieving spouse/children in that passage--I'm just not convinced that mere inclusion is the basis of the New Testament administration of baptism: just as not all members of the NC take communion). R pointed out that there would be an element of superstition in that and of course he is right: however as you say these decisions are never made in a void of how we actually feel/view/interact with children: that is just part of our common humanity.



As we've discussed personally, my main problem with the _confessional_ credo-Baptist view on this point is what it does to discipleship and the nature of the Sacraments. I think there are many credo-Baptists that sort of "have their cake and eat it too" by accepting that Hebrews militates against a view that the New Covenant is inviolable - that real warnings are given to the New Covenant community as well as real entreaties that we strive together lest any be found to be unbelieving. In other words, there are several here who hold to a paedo- view of the Covenant as to the nature of disciples but want to assert that we wait until confirmatory fruit to baptize. It's sort of an amalgam.

I would concern myself less with the issue of timing of Baptism if I didn't see that the program of trying to establish an ideal New Covenant community did injury to this "fearing together" that marks the visible communion of Saints throughout the Scriptures.

I believe we each need to come to a point of cognitive rest and I don't want to belittle anyone into being paedobaptist. I simply lament the impoverishment that the ordinances put in place and actually undermine the confidence that is found when we see God as the Actor in the Sacraments instead of us. We are beggars for grace and the Sacraments reinforce this notion whereas an ordinance view demands that men look back at the earnestness within to determine efficacy.


----------



## Mushroom (Sep 22, 2008)

I came out of credo- to paedo-baptism as a part and parcel of my conversion from arminianism. While it was a Reformed Baptist Pastor who first exposed me to the doctrines of God's sovereignty, the process entailed my looking hard and long at my individualistic and autonomous views of soteriology. When I finally became fully convinced that there was no decision that my wicked heart could make that could be reliable enough upon which to entrust my very salvation, I began to see that it, and all of the promises pertaining to the faith, were unilateral. Though I was unfaithful in every way, He was faithful in all of His. He saved me not at all because of anything I had done, all of that would have earned me hell, but because He had sovereignly determined to do so. From that perspective, covenant theology made pristine sense, while my old credo view stank of the arrogance of individualistic autonomy.

But that's just been my experience.


----------



## Scott1 (Sep 22, 2008)

You must be convinced that it is the truth given by God speaking through His Word. 

For me, "Calvinism" came much earlier than covenant theology. Within covenant theology, I came early to accept infant baptism, but was persuaded at about the level of 51/49%, something like a preponderance of Scriptural evidence. Not a clear and convincing case. The "acceptance" came when I understood that those who infant baptized also baptized adults on profession of faith. I could accept that there was more than one purpose for baptism.

Later, I came to understand how baptism "initiated" a child into the covenant community and I saw how seriously that was taken by covenant parents and even the covenant community (visible church). These folks really emphasized raising children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord with an expectation (Not a guarantee) that if they did their part as parents and the church supported them, the child would one day become a Christian.

About two years ago, as I began to understand dispensationalism versus covenant theology much more clearly, the whole idea of a continuous church became stronger. God has always had a plan to redeem his creation, from every tribe, nation, kindred and tongue through Jesus, and that from the very beginning. As children had special place and were marked out in relationship in Israel, so in the Church today. In several places in the New Testament, baptism is spoken of as circumcision.

It hasn't affected my thinking much along the way but I can only note with some comfort that so much of Christendom historically did baptize infants- Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians and the Roman Church. That doesn't make it necessary biblical but there would need to have been a lot of Christians wrong over an awful long period of time to at least not consider that the practice may be biblical.

Providentially, I was infant baptized as a Methodist (yes, Methodist's infant baptize) but later migrated through churches that taught believer's only baptism. Little did I know that what began as a "sign and seal" of the covenant has proven God's faithfulness to me, leading me eventually to Reformed Theology and a comfortable belief in both infant and adult baptisms.


----------



## Ivan (Sep 22, 2008)

This is an issue that comes and goes and is debated endlessly here at the PB. We may discuss or argue until we are blue in the faces. We may belittle or bless in our attempts to convince, but when the end comes and we are no longer in this world the issue as to when and how a person should be baptized with be of naught. This life is a vapor, a wisp of wind and all the arguments we can muster will ultimately mean nothing...nothing. We who trust in Christ are brothers and sisters, not only in this world but also in the next. 

Kim, read the Bible, meditate upon it, pray and be lead by the Holy Spirit. Make a decision or not. But in all of it, be blessed in our LORD and Savior, Jesus Christ.


----------



## JBaldwin (Sep 22, 2008)

I am one of the weirdos in the bunch who came to paedo baptism before I came to any form of Calvinism. The challenge I was given--go through the Scriptures and see what it says about the Spirit, sprinkling, circumcision, etc. I wasn't halfway through the OT before I became a paedo baptist. Go figure. I was a credo my entire life. I was so much a credo, I was baptized a second time, because I was afraid I wasn't really converted the first time I was baptized. 

One thought I had as I was reading the OP, if you ever become a paedo, don't ever rest in that for the salvation of your children. It is no guarantee.


----------



## staythecourse (Sep 22, 2008)

I agree with what pastor Ivan has said. All of us would agree to thoughtful meditation, test your presuppositions and see if they are sound and from that will spring your conclusion and then the God-blessed decision.

If you became pregnant, gave birth, and stayed credo for 4 years and then were convinced paedo is correct, God knows our infirmities and will still be with you and the child as they will be sanctified by two believing parents.


----------



## MW (Sep 22, 2008)

I find no allurement in the paedo arguments. The position is fraught with so many practical problems that my first instinct is to be done with it and seek out a purer church than God has been pleased to establish on earth. But then I realise that such a church by nature cannot effectively minister God's covenant blessings in the midst of the sin-sodden world in which I live, and this causes me to be thankful -- not that His grace escapes the problems of life, but that it confronts and conquers those problems.


----------



## DMcFadden (Sep 22, 2008)

Blueridge Believer said:


> This may push you over the edge, but here it is anyway. I've been deeply in study in this area for some time. While I am still credo I am MUCH more sympathetic to my Presbyterian brethren. The following 23 messages are extremely engaging and thought provolking. They are anything but boring.
> 
> SermonAudio.com - Orthodox Presbyterian Church Franklin Sq



I also agree with Ivan that as passionately as we might debate this issue, we stand joined in the company of the redeemed, brothers and sisters for eternity. 

Still, there is nothing wrong in attempting to be as faithfully correct in our understanding of God's word as possible. And, Blueridge Believer is ABSOLUTELY correct about the Shishko MP3s. I am still mulling over the implications of his points several weeks after listening to them.


----------



## JBaldwin (Sep 22, 2008)

Kim, as I read over my last post, I realized that it sounded like I think I am right. While I firmly hold to the position of paedo baptism, I would agree with those who say that it is one of those issues that is so hotly debated, that I suspect we will only know when we see the Lord who was right.


----------



## staythecourse (Sep 22, 2008)

> I believe we each need to come to a point of cognitive rest and I don't want to belittle anyone into being paedobaptist. I simply lament the impoverishment that the ordinances put in place and actually undermine the confidence that is found when we see God as the Actor in the Sacraments instead of us. We are beggars for grace and the Sacraments reinforce this notion whereas an ordinance view demands that men look back at the earnestness within to determine efficacy.



Thanks Rich, that's helps me understand where you are coming should I see you in another heated paedo debate.

I should listen to that orthodox Presb. series. 23 sermons staggers me though.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 23, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> I find no allurement in the paedo arguments. The position is fraught with so many practical problems that my first instinct is to be done with it and seek out a purer church than God has been pleased to establish on earth. But then I realise that such a church by nature cannot effectively minister God's covenant blessings in the midst of the sin-sodden world in which I live, and this causes me to be thankful -- not that His grace escapes the problems of life, but that it confronts and conquers those problems.



Beautiful...

I'm pretty tired this am after a long day of travel yesterday and this revived my heart.

I think this expresses why my sinful heart _needs_ the paedo position to be true. Were the Church to consist of the ideal in this life I might surely despair, often, that I don't belong among it. Was my faith genuine when I was baptized? Is it genuine when my sins are so egregious that I cannot deceive myself into the self-righteous thinking that we're all prone to?

I need not concern myself when or if ideal discipleship began. The Promise was established by two immutable things outside of myself and, Today, if I hear His voice, I do not shrink away but I believe, and I know that Promise is established, regardless of the sinfulness of those announcing the promise, or the sinfulness of my own heart that first heard it.


----------



## Kim G (Sep 23, 2008)

I want to thank everyone for their help. I'm carefully considering everything that is being said. Hubby and I would appreciate your prayers, too.


----------



## Ivan (Sep 23, 2008)

Kim G said:


> I want to thank everyone for their help. I'm carefully considering everything that is being said. Hubby and I would appreciate your prayers, too.



Praying for you both, Kim. May God bless your journey. Regardless as to where it leads, cling to Christ.


----------



## charliejunfan (Sep 23, 2008)

This debate has been going on since the time of Christ so.....obviously this alone doesn't prove infant baptism as the biblical position but this is rather an argument and truth that cannot be so adamantly read as "professor only" romans2:25-29 (circumcision was done before faith which is what circumcision represented, we know this because the law is fulfilled by faith, the circumcision done by Christ, colossians2:11) and then colossians 2:11 shows us the relationship between circumcision and baptism, they are both, as physical ordinances, the reflections of spiritual things which may or may not be true for each individual that that ordinance is applied to. Baptism is a sign and symbol of the baptism with Christ in his death and resurrection which you partake in by faith, and like circumcision it is not really ever baptism unless faith happens at some point in the persons life to whom it was applied.
Note* In no way is this saying that baptism "confers" grace onto the partaker but rather baptism is an encouragement to the believer in that they are unified by that symbol to the whole believing covenant community which by the way unbelieving adults and their children are not a part of, thus only believer's children should be baptized lest that child grows up and professes themself. Physical baptism neither regenerates or saves, it is simply a symbol of being baptized into Christ as savior by faith alone. I had been baptist for 20 years and have read some of the best books written by those who think infant baptism illegitamit such as Wayne Grudem, Paul K. Jewet and Fred Malone(all of these men are Reformed Baptists who use the same Covenant way of interpretation as Reformed infant Baptists), but the more i read and meditate scripture, the more evident infant baptism of believer's children as an ordinance becomes.

Here are some of the best resources i have found on the subject of Infant Baptism from the Reformed(Presbyterian) perspective.
1. http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?sourceonly=true&currSection= sermonssource&keyword=opcli&subsetcat=series&subsetitem=Christian+Baptism
2. Westminster Seminary California clark
3. INFANT BAPTISM: How My Mind Has Changed
4. http://members.aol.com/RSIWORSHIP/scriptural.html
5.(this convinced me)Index of /Baptism OwenJohnInfantBaptism.htm
Debates
6.Paedo-Credo Baptism Debate: Dr. Robert Strimple and Dr. Fred Malone « In Thy Light dr-robert-strimple-and-dr-fred-malone/ (if you scroll down on this page it will also say James White vs. Bill Shishko on baptism)

And here is an argument that is classically paedo but it just seems so undeniable to me, in the old testament you have HOUSEHOLD circumcision, in the new testament you have HOUSEHOLD baptism, in the old testament the children were HOLY, in the new testament the children of believers are HOLY--1Corinthians7:13-14 Using the Analogy of Faith see http://www.equip.org/atf/cf/{9C4EE03A-F988-4091-84BD-F8E70A3B0215} /JAI010.pdf I think these similarities are undeniable. 

and remember that infant baptism has to be a legitimate one since circumcision was still circumcision but still, at the same time, was really only circumcision when that person had faith which is the circumcision of the heart or regeneration, also remember that Abraham had faith then was circumcised(believer baptism) but right after this was told to circumcise his infant who couldn't possibly show faith(infant baptism), for a Reformed baptist to be consistant he would have to say that if an infant dies this means he was not possibly one of God's elect.

I close with Dr. Strimple's words," the argument the baptist is using could have been the exact argument used against circumcision." why didnt abraham argue with God over giving the covenant sign to his seed when clearly the infant could not show faith, and faith after all is always what circumcision represented!

I hope this helps, God bless.....and....I love all the Reformed Baptists on here as well....just sayin.....


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Sep 23, 2008)

I might have gone about it the wrong way, but I never felt like I had to resolve the issue once and for all in my own mind. I agree (and many credos do, also) with the way paedos disciple their children. I was raised Southern Baptist, and I've seen the pitfalls of that approach. If I ever am blessed with children, I want them to grow up in a church that does a better job than most Baptist churches -- and these churches are often paedo. I studied the arguments for paedobaptism and felt (as you seem to) that they really made sense of Scripture. But ultimately, the decision was that I wanted to be a part of a paedo community, and I could in good conscience submit to the teaching of paedobaptism.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Sep 23, 2008)

Praying for you,

As someone who has been in both camps (and in my "journey" landed squarely in the Paedo-Baptist one). I commend your desire to flesh out the issues before comming to a conclusion.

God's guidence be with you in your quest for knowledge and wisdom regarding this.

Grace and Peace,

Don.


----------



## nicnap (Sep 23, 2008)

MrMerlin777 said:


> Praying for you,
> 
> As someone who has been in both camps (and in my "journey" landed squarely in the Paedo-Baptist one). I commend your desire to flesh out the issues before comming to a conclusion.
> 
> ...


----------



## nicnap (Sep 23, 2008)

Well, except for the part that said, Don.


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 23, 2008)

Note: Much of the following is aimed at anyone in this dilemma, not just Kim G. Some of what I have written may or may not apply to her, but may apply to others. This post is also not meant as an apology for the SBC, I have merely used it as an example and for purposes of comparison. 

Take it from someone who struggled with this issue off and on for about 4 years. I don't think you should pick a position from a hat. I think often people make a decision based on other factors, as has been noted in this thread. There is a tendency in these situations for some of us to get to the end of our rope and say "That's the last straw, I'm outta here!" and climb over the fence to what appears to be greener pastures. For some, the pastures are indeed greener. However, sometimes climbing over that fence doesn't turn out to be the right move after all. I now believe that because I didn't think there were any suitable baptistic churches where I was living at the time (something I've subsequently learned was a false assumption) I wanted the paedo position to be true and convinced myself that it was because I was tired of what had become an agonizing search that had consumed me for approximately 2 years. I also liked the separatistic stance of the OPC. I knew they didn't tolerate charismatic worship practices, that the word would be faithfully preached every Lord's Day and that they wouldn't cooperate with ministries that taught error. But as anyone who has followed this forum over the past several months knows, my switch to paedo lasted for less than three years and I have now reverted to basically all of my previously held theological positions, although I am still uncertain on eschatology. 

As with the testimony of a former Southern Baptist pastor turned PCA that I read recently, too often I see a false dichotomy set up between the SBC and the PCA or maybe IFB and the PCA with others, as if the kind of Baptist church that they were in was the only option. There are plenty of Calvinistic Baptist churches that are part of FIRE, ARBCA or who are independent who do not have the problems that are typically mentioned with more Arminian Baptist churches. Now, just like there are many parts of the country that have no sound Reformed church, there are areas that do not have a good Calvinistic Baptist church either. (The impression that I get is that Greenville, S.C. probably has better choices than most areas outside of the major metros in this regard.) My advice to anyone in this situation is to look before you leap and don't do anything unless you are as sure as you can be doctrinally or simply feel that you cannot continue for even a little while longer in your current church for one reason or another. 

A related tendency is to magnify the errors in the Baptist churches and minimize them with the PCA or other reformed church under consideration. Some are completely ignorant of the controversies like the FV, and just assume that what is advocated on forums like the PB is representative of Reformed churches. When you look deeper into some PCA churches and in some cases, whole presbyteries, you'll find that some of them are in just about as much need of "reform" as is the SBC. (This may or may not apply to other NAPARC churches, or may be applicable to a lesser degree.) There have been several instances in which I've corresponded with people from Baptist backgrounds who visited PCA churches assuming they would find worship practices like those that are advocated on the PB and being surprised to find something else entirely, whether it be "7-11" praise choruses, some kind of emergent church, or something that resembles Anglican worship. Now obviously there are many PCA churches that do worship according the the RPW, although it's not the unaccompanied EP expression of it. But in some areas it may be hard to find one. 

Also, keep in mind that the SBC is basically a mainline denomination that has been in existence since 1845. (The McFadderator will disagree with this since it doesn't meet the definition he was taught at Fuller and in the ABCUSA, namely that a "mainline" church had to be part of the NCC and WCC, etc.) In many cases, especially if viewed historically, it would be more accurate to compare the SBC to the PCUSA. There were many churches and people that left the SBC as well over the years thinking it was too liberal. The PCA was formed in 1973 because the old PCUS was deemed to be sold out to a neoorthodox position and irrecoverable. By contrast, beginning in 1979 there was a "Conservative Resurgence" in the SBC that was able to begin to right the ship. (Of course much work remains to be done--it's not enough to be merely "conservative.") So it's not surprising that a denomination that is only 35 years old would seem healthier in many respects than the SBC, which has only recently abandoned liberalism and neo-orthodoxy. (Of course, if one's non negotiables is that the denomination confess the doctrines of grace, then the SBC or any other denomination that fails to do so is not the place for you, but FIRE, ARBCA or an independent church might be.) 

I ask, are things healthier now at the SBC seminaries, or at many of the seminaries like Covenant, RTS-Orlando, WTS that supply Reformed ministers to the churches? Of course there are exceptions like MARS, GPTS, the other RTS campuses and WSCAL. However, I submit that at a minimum things are moving in the right direction at many if not all of the SBC seminaries, although perhaps not fast enough for some, and faster at some of the schools than others. As you can see from the archives here, the Warfield list and other websites, there are serious concerns for some time that several of the Reformed schools are moving in the wrong direction. 

I'll note that my experience is different than many here in that I didn't grow up in any kind of Baptist church at all, but instead had a liberal Methodist upbringing that derided Baptists as well as just about any other expression of certitude about what the Bible teaches. The kinds of Baptist churches that many have run away from here have never even been a consideration for me since I have been basically Calvinistic since my conversion.


----------



## Kim G (Sep 23, 2008)

Pilgrim said:


> I think often people make a decision based on other factors, as has been noted in this thread. Too often we get to the end of our rope and say "that's it, I'm outta here!" and climb over the fence to what appears to be greener pastures. For some, the pastures are indeed greener. However, sometimes climbing over that fence doesn't turn out to be the right move after all. I now believe that because I didn't think there were any suitable baptistic churches where I was living at the time (something I've subsequently learned was a false assumption) *I wanted the paedo position to be true and convinced myself that it was *because I was tired of what had become an agonizing search that had consumed me for approximately 2 years. I also liked the separatistic stance of the OPC. I knew they didn't tolerate charismatic worship practices, that the word would be faithfully preached every Lord's Day and that they wouldn't cooperate with ministries that taught error. But as anyone who has followed this forum over the past several months knows, *my switch to paedo lasted for less than two years *and I have now reverted to basically all of my previously held theological positions, although I am still uncertain on eschatology.


That is my fear and the reason for my hesitation. Perhaps it's also pride. "What if I make the wrong decision? What will people say?" Wow, I didn't know I had that much pride in me! I don't usually care what people think. Lord, save me from pride.


----------



## Scott1 (Sep 23, 2008)

Also, remember that most Reformed Churches are not going to require you to have this decided to be a member, far less a "regular attendar."

Many people take some time to try and absorb the parameters of the church's teaching before becoming a member (I did). In most Reformed churches due in part to the understanding of God's sovereignty, there's not much pressure to "make a decision" for Christ (or by implication "paedo" v "credo."). One does need to have an informed basis for his salvation to become a (communing) member, at least in the PCA, but beyond that the vow even for membership is to study the church's doctrine in peace.

You're right to take membership seriously and I even think a member would need to be "trending" toward basic practices (eg paedobaptism) of the church but it is a "slow (deliberative) train a comin' " and I think Reformed churches, particularly, would actually encourage the careful consideration you are giving this.


----------



## Ivan (Sep 23, 2008)

Pilgrim said:


> I ask, are things healthier now at the SBC seminaries, or at many of the seminaries like Covenant, RTS-Orlando, WTS that supply Reformed ministers to the churches?



Overall, things are healthier at SBC seminaries. I don't really know that much about Midwestern, Golden Gate, and New Orleans. They are certainly more conservative, but much needs to be done yet at these seminaries, in my opinion. 

Southeastern appears to be improving (it certainly is conservative, as all the SBC semanaries are) and Danny Akins is doing a good job as president, although not much in the way of moving toward the DoG in any measurable way. Akins is willing to listen and "share the stage" with Founder types within the SBC.

Southwestern has a few professors that can be considered Calvinistic, but there is room for a great deal of improvement. I think Paige Patterson says what sells in a given context. I've heard that he has said horrible things about Calvinists, but then can be tame as a dove when with Dr. Mohler. I think a lot needs to change at Southwestern on a number of fronts. However, compared to the days I attended Southwestern it is much more conservative these days. When I attended between '78 and '81, Southwestern was the most conservative of SBC seminaries with New Orleans close behind, which really isn't saying much. Southwestern could really use someone like Dr. Mohler to guide it in the right direction.

Southern...ah, Southern! In the years of the 60's to the early to mid 90's, Southern Seminary was the most liberal seminary within the SBC...by far! What has happened since Dr. Mohler came there is nothing short of a miracle. Dr. Mohler went there as a young man (in his 30's) and withstood absolutely horrible attacks from the liberal professors. He did what needed to be done. Not only is he a scholar, he is also a very brave man. Southern Seminary's dramatic turnaround should be the blueprint for all our seminaries.

There is much talk now within the SBC about a Great Commission Resurgence. Where we once had to change the course of the SBC because of liberalism, many believe we need to save the SBC again by being more evangelistic and missional. To my SBC ears that sounds very strange. I thought that was what we were, but such thinking I believe supports the idea that the SBC can in some ways be considered mainline.


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 23, 2008)

Kim G said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> > I think often people make a decision based on other factors, as has been noted in this thread. Too often we get to the end of our rope and say "that's it, I'm outta here!" and climb over the fence to what appears to be greener pastures. For some, the pastures are indeed greener. However, sometimes climbing over that fence doesn't turn out to be the right move after all. I now believe that because I didn't think there were any suitable baptistic churches where I was living at the time (something I've subsequently learned was a false assumption) *I wanted the paedo position to be true and convinced myself that it was *because I was tired of what had become an agonizing search that had consumed me for approximately 2 years. I also liked the separatistic stance of the OPC. I knew they didn't tolerate charismatic worship practices, that the word would be faithfully preached every Lord's Day and that they wouldn't cooperate with ministries that taught error. But as anyone who has followed this forum over the past several months knows, *my switch to paedo lasted for less than two years *and I have now reverted to basically all of my previously held theological positions, although I am still uncertain on eschatology.
> ...



I edited my post. Now that I think about it, I was paedo for about 2 1/2 years, from just before I joined the PB until just before I posted in April or May of this year about my change back to baptistic views. But whether it's 1 1/2 years or 2 1/2 doesn't really make that big of a difference. But I do think you do make a good point about pride. 

I really had no family considerations when it came to these kinds of decisions since I had left the church I was raised in several years ago. If anything switching to paedo was seen more positively than being a Baptist with some in my family, but it really wasn't a big deal one way or another. Although I denounced paedobaptism in a prolonged debate here (it was by far the most noteworthy thing I've ever done on the PB judging from the response I got both within the forums and privately) I am still open to being persuaded that paedobaptism is biblical. I'm sure that even today I could listen to some sermons or read some material presenting the best arguments for it and come away "almost persuaded." I had previously posted things here and on my blog denouncing Baptist views in equally strong terms, which is one reason why I felt it necessary to post here about my change in views and engage in a prolonged debate that I really didn't have time for. The idea that after all of this that I would appear foolish and waffling were I to ever switch again is not lost on me. You know, "He was Baptist last year and Presbyterian this year, what will it be next year?" I had a former pastor basically tell me this years ago when I left his Arminian church for a Calvinistic one. The idea was basically that he had known a lot of young men who seemed to be ever searching and never reaching a knowledge of the truth. (This is a man who wasn't in 100% agreement with his denomination but remained evidently because he agreed with their position more than any of the alternatives.) What he had in mind in particular were friends that had gotten involved in the charismatic movement and chased after every fad that came along, but overall I think he makes a good point that has a broader application. We need to be open minded and be willing to reconsider our views from time to time but it will be difficult for us to ever be of service if our mind doesn't "close" on some pivotal issues unless we are part of a very broad church, which I would think would be quite unpalatable for most of us on the PB. 

A change like this is going to be costly on some level if you have any kind of substantial roots in the church you leave, whether it is some ministry/service opportunity, friends, family etc. With my decision to seek membership in a Baptist church instead, I gave up some opportunities for service in the PCA church we had been attending here and planning to join prior to my switch earlier this year. We were also becoming close friends with the pastor and his family and were friendly with a number of other people in the church. The friendship with the pastor and his wife remains but obviously we see them much less often now. I'm sure that some at the OPC church I joined a couple of years ago are disappointed with my decision, the elders in particular. Now approximately 6 months later we still haven't made a definite decision to join the Baptist church we have been attending but it does seem that we are very close to doing so. (Some of this is due to some extenuating circumstances, including health.)


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 23, 2008)

Here is Donald Whitney on the allurement of Presbyterian churches: 



> The only other religious bodies I remotely considered were conservative, confessionally-oriented Presbyterians. Their overall appeal, and one that I've seen become irresistible for many former Baptists, was what I've come to call a "Presbyterian ethos." The cherishing of a theological heritage, the concern for defining and defending the truth, the serious-mindedness about the things of God, the love of learning, the blending of head and heart in ministry, and a cultural sophistication that characterizes so many of these brothers was powerfully attractive to me


. 

I think the article as a whole is good to read, as is the entire book _Why I am a Baptist_ edited by Tom Nettles and Russell Moore. Whitney is a Calvinistic Baptist who evidently gave some consideration to confessional Presbyterianism but ultimately decided to remain Southern Baptist. The book doesn't have much in the way of argumentation regarding the baptism issue, but several of the contributors did seriously consider Presbyterianism at some point and a couple were Presbyterian for a time. Perhaps most remarkably, even Paige Patterson, a non Calvinist who has expressed concern about at least some aspects of the increasing Calvinistic influence in the SBC notes in his contribution that the Reformed arguments are "remarkably tight" and that there are some things about the Reformed that he finds attractive even now.


----------



## DMcFadden (Sep 23, 2008)

Pilgrim said:


> Also, keep in mind that the SBC is basically a mainline denomination that has been in existence since 1845. (The McFadderator will disagree with this since it doesn't meet the definition he was taught at Fuller and in the ABCUSA, namely that a "mainline" church had to be part of the NCC and WCC, etc.) In many cases, especially if viewed historically, it would be more accurate to compare the SBC to the PCUSA.



Actually, I can't remember anything from Fuller about "mainline" definitions, although there is some resonance with the NCC/WCC point you make.

My comments on mainline denominations is determined by two things: 
1. The "dictionary" definition of a mainline denomination



> The largest U.S. mainline churches are sometimes referred to as the Seven Sisters of American Protestantism. The term was apparently coined by William Hutchison[17] in reference to the major liberal groups of American Baptists, Disciples of Christ, Congregationalists / United Church of Christ, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists, and Presbyterians during the period between 1900 and 1960.
> Hutchison, William, Between the Times: The Travail of the Protestant Establishment in America, 1900-1960 (1989), Cambridge U. Press, ISBN 0-521-40601-3.



Other denominations, although considered mainline, are typically smaller than the "Seven Sisters." To my knowledge (willing to be corrected here, Chris if you have some data) the SBC has NEVER been counted as mainline by historians, sociologists of religion, or by church people.

An article in USA Today, noted, 


> "Mainline" is shorthand among historians, statisticians and theologians for the Protestant faiths of the Founding Fathers, housed in landmark churches on downtown corners, still preaching the social justice teachings that have shaped many political, academic and philanthropic leaders to this day.
> (_USA Today[/1], 11/1/06)_


_

2. The fact that Southern Baptist Scholars have typically differentiated themselves from BOTH the term "evangelical" and the term "mainline." 

Typical of statements in church history books, learned commentaries by sociologists of religion, etc. are comments differentiating the two: "The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), which is considered more theologically conservative than mainline churches."

As to the rest of your post, as usual I find you to be incredibly on target and helpful. In my own struggle over this issue, my experience parallels Kim's. Shifting to a more fully Reformed position makes things like infant baptism make a lot more sense. Intellectual coherence, elegance of logic, and the attractions of the paedo view of discipleship, however, are not decisive. One can create an intellectually elegant system that is perfect other than not being true! Plus, Baptist churches are not necessarily all that much better than Presbyterian churches (as a class).

I am still in the mulling it over phase. Have not jumped the fence yet._


----------



## Iconoclast (Sep 23, 2008)

Blueridge Believer said:


> This may push you over the edge, but here it is anyway. I've been deeply in study in this area for some time. While I am still credo I am MUCH more sympathetic to my Presbyterian brethren. The following 23 messages are extremely engaging and thought provolking. They are anything but boring.
> 
> SermonAudio.com - Orthodox Presbyterian Church Franklin Sq





Blueridge Believer said:


> This may push you over the edge, but here it is anyway. I've been deeply in study in this area for some time. While I am still credo I am MUCH more sympathetic to my Presbyterian brethren. The following 23 messages are extremely engaging and thought provolking. They are anything but boring.
> 
> SermonAudio.com - Orthodox Presbyterian Church Franklin Sq



Blueridge, 
These 23 messages were taken from a classroom setting I believe. Pastor Shishko did a very good job of showing how God has always worked in believing households. Most of these teachings are good for any believer to hear. Pastor Shishko is at his best dealing with pastoral concerns and oversight of the families under His watch and oversight.
Keep in mind that he and his statements went unchallenged as it was primarily lecture material.
I have listened through them just prior to the debate he had. He addressed many topics, but there were many crucial issues that went unmentioned and un- touched in these lectures. If I can find the time, I will listen to them again, and try to outline all 23 of them and give points of reference, and suggest areas that seem defective.
That being said, I have to acknowledge that He did a really good job of presenting a wide range and scope of teaching on areas that each parent should have already taken to heart. 
Pastor Shishko has been faithful in his ministry for many years and one thing that no one can deny is that he is still passionate for the truth of God, and does not shrink back from any area of teaching or deviation from scripture. We can all be thankful to God that he works in many faithful pastors still


----------



## Ivan (Sep 23, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> 2. The fact that Southern Baptist Scholars have typically differentiated themselves from BOTH the term "evangelical" and the term "mainline."



And we don't think of ourselves as a denomination, but it getting more difficult to argue against.



> Baptist churches are not necessarily all that much better than Presbyterian churches (as a class).



Well, that's something of an understatement. 



> I am still in the mulling it over phase. Have not jumped the fence yet



God bless you, brother. I hope I don't sound like someone with a closed mind. I'm not.


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 23, 2008)

Dennis, I see where you are coming from and have no real argument with you in what is a tangential aspect of my argument. I realize we are splitting hairs here. 

The source for my considering the SBC "mainline" is Harold Lindsell's _New Paganism_ in which he refers to the SBC and the LCMS as the only mainline churches who appeared to turn the tide against liberalism. (Although they are of course much smaller, neo-orthodox influence was effectively stamped out in the ARP and RPCNA as well by the late 20th Century. Both are churches that date back to the 1700's, I believe.) I realize that the LCMS wouldn't be considered mainline by most either (the ELCA is the mainline Lutheran church) and the identification of the LCMS or SBC as mainline is problematic since in some ways they stood apart from the rest of American Protestantism. (Arguably this is more true of the LCMS than the SBC. Some of this with regard to the SBC is likely due to the Landmark influence in the 19th Century that led many churches to do things like rejecting "alien immersion," a practice which was rarer in the North and became rarer in many Southern Baptist churches as well after the turn of the 20th Century, particularly city churches.) I was using the term the way Lindsell did, in the sense that the SBC has been THE Baptist convention (or denominaton) for all intents and purposes in the South and Southwest (i.e. TX, OK) for its entire existence. Most of the other Baptist groups as well as many independent churches in those areas broke away from the SBC at one time or another. 

I may not have been as clear as I could have been in my earlier post. I was mainly comparing the SBC to the PCUS, the old Southern Presbyterian church that only reunited with the Northern Presbyterian church in 1983, after conservatives had defected to the PCA and later the EPC. (By contrast the Methodist church reunited in 1939.) If it was, on what basis was it considered mainline? I think it was a member of the NCC so perhaps on that basis it was, but for most if not all of its existence I believe it would have been considered more conservative than most other mainlines. But whether one or both or neither was considered mainline is really beside the point I was making since in my opinion some degree of apostasy was involved in being considered mainline to begin with, at least by the early 20th Century. (I don't know that the term was in use before that.) The point was that in the middle of the 19th century there was the Southern Baptist Convention and there was the Southern Presbyterian church and where are those churches today? SBTS now enforces subscription to the Abstract of Principles, the confession that was drafted by its original founders. By comparison, what do we find at Columbia and and Union Seminaries today? Thus these comparisons that we often find people making between the SBC and PCA are inaccurate at least historically since the PCA had to separate from the PCUS (whose seminaries degenerated into apostasy, necessitating the formation of RTS in 1966) while there has been a recovery, however incomplete, in the SBC. SBTS now seriously subscribes to the Abstract of Principles, the confession drawn up by its Calvinistic founders. Obviously the same can't be said of any of the old PCUS seminaries. But I realize that some of my protestations on this issue are due to my background as an historian (at least on the B.A. level) and others will dismiss my arguments on this issue as being largely irrelevant. To some degree they are. If someone considers the mixed nature of the Southern Baptist Convention to be deficient, then as I've noted, there are certainly alternatives. To those who persist in making these comparisons and using them as a basis on which to turn Presbyterian, join the PCA if you must, but let's not set up a straw man comparison. A more appropriate comparison would be to ARBCA, FIRE and similar associations or the many independent Calvinistic Baptist churches as well as to the new Reformed Baptist seminaries and ministerial training academies that have been recently formed, whether it is the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies, the Midwest Center for Theological Studies or the Reformed Baptist Seminary in Greenville.


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 23, 2008)

I want to add one other thing. I think a major factor in my long struggle was that, although it might seem paradoxical on the surface, I think to some degree I was looking for the easy way out and didn't really study the issue as deeply as I thought I had and that this actually prolonged the struggle. For a time I was in a church that was quite dismissive of paedo views and at times could be accused of overstating the case against them and casting Presbyterians in general in the worst possible light. So when I left that church and began to study the paedo view, I realized that in some cases the portrayals of the Reformed that I had been exposed to were inaccurate, I was ripe for the picking. But I didn't switch right away, even though I started attending a Presbyterian church off and on. I was on the fence for a good while and was to some degree looking for a silver bullet that would decide the case one way or another. Eventually, I ruled out the other options and decided on the OPC as the best possible choice, with Jay Adams book on the mode of Baptism giving me the final impetus. (Adams takes the gloves off in that little book and provides us with a dose of the sharp invective that some who haven't joined the PB or the Reformed blogosphere may think is exclusive to Baptists!) 

However, I think until this Spring, to a certain extent I was always like Kim describes in the OP, largely agreeing with both Baptist and Reformed arguments when I would read them. However, the difference was that when I started attending the OPC, I largely quit reading Baptist arguments, thinking the issue was settled in my mind, especially since I didn't think there were any acceptable baptistic churches in my area anyway. In the back of my mind I always wondered whether I became convinced of paedo arguments because I really believed them or because I wanted to believe them so I could in good conscience join a confessional Presbyterian church. (I didn't consider joining as a convinced Baptist to be an option.) I knew that if I were ever nominated to office or if I moved to an area that had more choices or when and if I had children that I would have to settle the issue once and for all although for much of that time I considered myself a convinced paedo.


----------

