# Courtship/Marriage between Paedos and Credos



## Kaalvenist

Any thoughts on the question of whether Reformed paedobaptists should court or marry Reformed credobaptists? (I view this as more of a question regarding courtship or marriage, rather than concerning baptism; that's why I put it in this forum.)


----------



## Coram Deo

Haha





Kaalvenist said:


> Any thoughts on the question of whether Reformed paedobaptists should court or marry Reformed credobaptists? (I view this as more of a question regarding courtship or marriage, rather than concerning baptism; that's why I put it in this forum.)


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

I would not think this would fall under the heading of "unequally yolked". I certainly, when I get to the place where I can wed and give pre-marital counseling, would marry a couple with one credo and one paedo member as long as we talked through the issue and made sure that it was not a factor that would cause division later. 

(I of course would try and counsel the credo member of the union as to his/her position)


----------



## servantofmosthigh

Well, you'll have to discuss with her whether whichever one of you is the pedobaptist wants to baptize your children after marriage or whichever one of you is the credobaptist views that as heresy. =p


----------



## Gryphonette

*It largely would depend on the type of paedo involved.*



Kaalvenist said:


> Any thoughts on the question of whether Reformed paedobaptists should court or marry Reformed credobaptists? (I view this as more of a question regarding courtship or marriage, rather than concerning baptism; that's why I put it in this forum.)



One thing I've definitely noticed over the years by interacting with Presbyterianish folk is that there are quite a few variations on a paedobaptist theme, so to speak.

If the paedobaptist in question is one of the "baptism does _so _save, it says so right there in 1 Peter 3:21", then trying to pair off with a credobaptist is a serious mistake.

If, however, the paedobaptist thinks of baptism more as placing someone within the parameters of the visible church, then there's more hope that the two can either peacefully coexist, or - playing the odds of the way this tends to go - the credobaptist will move over to the paedobaptist's POV.


----------



## JBaldwin

I agree with Michael  

Here's why: If God should bless a marriage with children, there has to be a "united front" when it comes to raising the children. The issue of paedo vs. credo is an argument waiting to happen, especially if one of the two is firmly planted in their beliefs. It's a possible source of division that can cause trouble down the road. 

What I have found in marriage is that when it comes to differences in raising children, the most ridiculous things can become a source of irriation. If you start off with a division as big as paedo-credo, you're asking for trouble. My


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Interesting. I agree with Backwoods Pres that it doesn't fall under unequally yoked, but I also agree with JBaldwin that it is a conflict waiting to happen, unless the wife understands the issue and agree beforehand that she will submit to her husband on the issue. I guess if it's something both are very passionate about and the the wife isn't willing to submit, then I don't see a reason to continue courtship, knowing that it will inevitably lead to major, potentially unresolvable contention.


----------



## Simply_Nikki

As a credo, I have no problem courting or marrying a paedo.... 

The children will probably just have to be baptized twice


----------



## Simply_Nikki

I was kidding hence the smirk. 

On a serious note, I'm not sure, though I think I could probably submit to a paedo husband's stance on that issue. However, what if the children once adults wanted to be baptized again because they did not come to accept the position of paedo baptism? I've seen many adults do this, especially those who left the church and came back. Oh and why would it be blasphemy? 



joshua said:


> Simply_Nikki said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a credo, I have no problem courting or marrying a paedo....
> 
> The children will probably just have to be baptized twice
> 
> 
> 
> But to the paedo husband, and the Reformed Paedos everywhere, that would be considered as blasphemous and a denial of their children's baptism (i.e. the original).
Click to expand...


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Kaalvenist said:


> Any thoughts on the question of whether Reformed paedobaptists should court or marry Reformed credobaptists? (I view this as more of a question regarding courtship or marriage, rather than concerning baptism; that's why I put it in this forum.)



The only absolute qualification in courtship and marriage is that the other person is a Christian. Other things are a matter of prudence. However, if a woman is strongly paedo-baptist, then it is unwise of her to marry a man who is definitely Baptist, as she will have to submit to her husband's decision as to whether or not the children are to be baptised. But even in this case, we cannot forbid her from marrying the man if her father permits her.


----------



## JBaldwin

Just for the record, before I met my husband, I dated a wonderful Christian man, and we had such a disagreement. We met in a reformed Baptist church, but I was studying paedo baptism at the time. It wasn't too long before I made the switch, and he couldn't agree. I knew I wasn't going to change my mind, so we broke it off. 

Though I highly respect the views of my credo baptist brothers and sisters, if I had married (and we were discussing it seroiusly) I would have always felt like I was denying my convictions, and I'm sure it would have caused trouble later on.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

joshua said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kaalvenist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any thoughts on the question of whether Reformed paedobaptists should court or marry Reformed credobaptists? (I view this as more of a question regarding courtship or marriage, rather than concerning baptism; that's why I put it in this forum.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only absolute qualification in courtship and marriage is that the other person is a Christian. Other things are a matter of prudence. However, if a woman is strongly paedo-baptist, then it is unwise of her to marry a man who is definitely Baptist, as she will have to submit to her husband's decision as to whether or not the children are to be baptised. But even in this case, we cannot forbid her from marrying the man if her father permits her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But if we can't _biblically_ object to their marriage, how could her father? In other words, if we all know the facts, and there is nothing biblically prohibiting the two from marrying, neither we nor the father can ultimately (and legitimately) forbid the marriage, right? Sorry for this  question.
Click to expand...


I suppose what I mean is that her church's elders could not discipline her for marrying a Baptist, as it is the father's responsibility to decide whether or not such an marriage is wise and prudent. In my humble opinion, it is a sphere sovereignty issue, which the church has got no business to get involved in. Hope that helps.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Joshua, it may interest you to know that Mark Chanksi has a couple of good chapters on the father's role in courtship and giving in marriage in his book _Manly Dominion_. It wont be that long before boys are wanting to court your own daughter, so be prepared.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

joshua said:


> But if we can't _biblically_ object to their marriage, how could her father? In other words, if we all know the facts, and there is nothing biblically prohibiting the two from marrying, neither we nor the father can ultimately (and legitimately) forbid the marriage, right? Sorry for this  question.



Biblically, the father is the head of the daughter until she is given in marriage, and if he sees this issue leading to future irreconcilable trouble in the marriage (after due consideration) I believe he can biblically deny his blessing. 

This would be a tough issue to weigh, as would be many others, and wise would be the couple who didn't weighing issues just because they would not be "unequally yoked".


----------



## Pergamum

If paedoism is error, then a credo wife need not submit to theological error.

If the wife thinks that this issue is cloudy, she may submit to the decision of her husband without compromising her views (which would be sin to do something she is convicted is not right)


If she cannot agree up front to her potential husband or if this issue is settled in her own mind, then wisdom would lead one to the conclusion that they should not marry.

If she marries a credo who turns paedo and she believes he is wrong, then she is faced with the tough decision of whether to submit to what seems blatant error or to stay true to the bible and oppose her husband. This issue is much harder.

There is no biblical prohibition against such a marriage, as long as both parties are Christian, but wisdom dictates that this all be factored in among other factors such as health, personality, childrearing beliefs, etc...


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

> If paedoism is error, then a credo wife need not submit to theological error.



She need not agree with her husband on the issue, but even if she thinks he is wrong, she should not undermine his authority by vehemently disagreeing with him, but she can gently exhort him in a manner consistent with femine meekness.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

joshua said:


> Southern Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Biblically, the father is the head of the daughter until she is given in marriage, and if he sees this issue leading to future irreconcilable trouble in the marriage (after due consideration) I believe he can biblically deny his blessing.
> 
> 
> 
> In my humble opinion, he would have to have specific _biblical_ substantiation for his forbading. Why? Because if it's just a matter of personality, or his disapproval, say, of the suitor's lack of prestige or affluence, then the father could continue to object for as long as the daughter lives. Also, under the same cicrumstance, it seems, that an unregenerate father may do the same.
> 
> For what it's worth, I do think doctrinal questions, etc. serve as bibilcally legitimate reasons to forbid a courtship.
Click to expand...


Exactly, and I was thinking specifically of the given situation of credo-pedo union. If we broaden this discussion to other issues then we will range very far . I was trying to stay within bounds of the OP yet still address your post. 

EDIT: If dad is playing his proper biblical role in courtship/dating then there would be no reason to forbid a wedding since he should have headed the whole situation off before marriage is even discussed. IHMO.


----------



## Simply_Nikki

Silly 



joshua said:


> Southern Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we broaden this discussion to other issues then we will range very far . I was trying to stay within bounds of the OP yet still address your post.
> 
> 
> 
> Awww...c'mon. It's fun! Let's do it some more. So, I was chasin' this rabbit down a trail the other day and...
Click to expand...


----------



## servantofmosthigh

*the issue is submission, not baptism*

The issue, therefore, is not about whether pedos and credos can court and marry one another. The issue is: if both of them are adamant about their respective views, then the lack of submission will cause the courtship to not last long.


----------



## Gryphonette

*But she did specify ADULT children.*



joshua said:


> As long as they are under the headship of their Father, and according to the Father's paedo position, and the family's Paedo Church membership, it ought not be allowed.


My sister was baptized as an infant and raised in an Episcopalian church - as was I - but didn't come to faith until she was in college at Texas Tech, at which time she was baptized by the church she attended.

She says it was literally one of the happiest days of her life, and still is....right up there with her marriage and the births of her children. 

I've never been baptized at Christ Chapel, but it's been more out of respect for my parents, who were pretty upset about my youngest sister being re-baptized.

Having been baptized back when I was four months old by unbelieving (my mother claims to be Christian, but trust me, she's not, while my father doesn't even make the claim any longer) parents in an apostate denomination isn't a baptism I take any pleasure in, to be honest. I'd love to be baptized at Christ Chapel.

Baptized by believing parents in a true church and actually _raised_ in the faith and _discipled_ (not just shuffled off to Sunday school and that's it as regards religious instruction) is one thing, but being baptized by unbelieving parents in an apostate denomination followed by no useful instruction so that one never heard the true gospel until one was in one's 40's isn't the same thing at all.

In any event, I don't think adult children who have presumably left their father's house and church should be expected to march to his drum beat.


----------



## ADKing

joshua said:


> Southern Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Biblically, the father is the head of the daughter until she is given in marriage, and if he sees this issue leading to future irreconcilable trouble in the marriage (after due consideration) I believe he can biblically deny his blessing.
> 
> 
> 
> In my humble opinion, he would have to have specific _biblical_ substantiation for his forbading. Why? Because if it's just a matter of personality, or his disapproval, say, of the suitor's lack of prestige or affluence, then the father could continue to object for as long as the daughter lives. Also, under the same cicrumstance, it seems, that an unregenerate father may do the same.
> 
> For what it's worth, I do think doctrinal questions, etc. serve as bibilcally legitimate reasons to forbid a courtship.
> 
> EDIT: Oh, deny his blessing. Sure. But he can't _forbid_ the marriage, or call it sinful...I suppose that's what I'm getting at.
Click to expand...


Thanks for saying this, Josh. As an overaction to the sinful license in our culture during dating/courtship (whatever term one prefers) some reformed people seem to have swung the pendulum too far the other direction. A goldy Christian father is not God. He should have grave reasons to attepmt to "forbid" a marriage. And even then, as you point out, all he can really do is deny his blessing. For a father to believe that his word suffices (sometimes without explanation!) is hardly the teaching of scripture. It is worth noting that in the reformed tradition, although _minors_ were required to obtain permission to marry, those in their majority were to seek their father's blessing. If it were denied because a father was overscrupulous, obstinate, or whatever else that was not scriptural, the couple, with the blessing of the church could proceed to marriage anyway. 

Just an  plea for balance these days...


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

> In any event, I don't think adult children who have presumably left their father's house and church should be expected to march to his drum beat.



Daughters are still required to honour him by seeking his blessing/permission regarding a prospective marriage partner.


----------



## Gryphonette

Here's a bunny trail to hop down...

If someone is under his father's headship and care, is that one truly an adult?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Gryphonette said:


> Here's a bunny trail to hop down...
> 
> If someone is under his father's headship and care, is that one truly an adult?



Good question, but I think we are going


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

joshua said:


> Gryphonette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> As long as they are under the headship of their Father, and according to the Father's paedo position, and the family's Paedo Church membership, it ought not be allowed.
> 
> 
> 
> My sister was baptized as an infant and raised in an Episcopalian church - as was I - but didn't come to faith until she was in college at Texas Tech, at which time she was baptized by the church she attended.
> 
> She says it was literally one of the happiest days of her life, and still is....right up there with her marriage and the births of her children.
> 
> I've never been baptized at Christ Chapel, but it's been more out of respect for my parents, who were pretty upset about my youngest sister being re-baptized.
> 
> Having been baptized back when I was four months old by unbelieving (my mother claims to be Christian, but trust me, she's not, while my father doesn't even make the claim any longer) parents in an apostate denomination isn't a baptism I take any pleasure in, to be honest. I'd love to be baptized at Christ Chapel.
> 
> Baptized by believing parents in a true church and actually _raised_ in the faith and _discipled_ (not just shuffled off to Sunday school and that's it as regards religious instruction) is one thing, but being baptized by unbelieving parents in an apostate denomination followed by no useful instruction so that one never heard the true gospel until one was in one's 40's isn't the same thing at all.
> 
> In any event, I don't think adult children who have presumably left their father's house and church should be expected to march to his drum beat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm basically talking about those who are still under their Father's headship and care. An adult child? What is that? Oh wait! I'm one!
Click to expand...


When does an unmarried daughter leave the headship of her father? 18, 21, when she gets a job and an apartment of her own?

Or, is this one of those "age of accountability" things?


----------



## ericfromcowtown

This is an interesting thread, as it hits close to home.

My wife was raised Pentecostal. I didn't become a Christian until I was an adult, but was attending a Reformed church when I met her and had come to accept infant baptism as a consistent and biblical position.

During premarital counselling our PCA pastor made sure that this was one of the topics we just didn't cross of a list but dealt with. I was impressed by our pastor's diplomatic handling of the issue - this is why we believe it's biblical, but no infant baptism isn't a salvational issue; your father is still a Christian if he disagrees with us. 

I agree with the previous posters, the issue is one of submission. After reading the materials we were provided with on infant baptism, she understood the issue much better. Learning to distinguishing between a biblical infant baptism in a Presbyterian church and the Catholic belief in baptismal regeneration was a biggie. She could now at least see both sides of the issue and agreed to accept my lead and baptize our children, and although it was a topic for discussion it obviously wasn't a make-it-or-break it issue with her father. I'm not sure if her out-of-town parents will make it to the baptism, though.  Our first child is due June 5th.

The other half of the discussion with my then fiance had to do with how we'd deal with adult children who wanted to be baptized again. I'd talk to them, give them the reasons why I disagreed with them, but ultimately as an adult, it would be their decision. We'd remind ourselves that it wasn't a salvational issue and that we'd rather they attend a sound baptist church than either no church at all or the PCUSA church down the road.

Now the tongues thing is a whole other  Luckly my wife is sort of weirded out by tongues as well.


----------



## Pilgrim

Gryphonette said:


> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> As long as they are under the headship of their Father, and according to the Father's paedo position, and the family's Paedo Church membership, it ought not be allowed.
> 
> 
> 
> My sister was baptized as an infant and raised in an Episcopalian church - as was I - but didn't come to faith until she was in college at Texas Tech, at which time she was baptized by the church she attended.
> 
> She says it was literally one of the happiest days of her life, and still is....right up there with her marriage and the births of her children.
> 
> I've never been baptized at Christ Chapel, but it's been more out of respect for my parents, who were pretty upset about my youngest sister being re-baptized.
> 
> Having been baptized back when I was four months old by unbelieving (my mother claims to be Christian, but trust me, she's not, while my father doesn't even make the claim any longer) parents in an apostate denomination isn't a baptism I take any pleasure in, to be honest. I'd love to be baptized at Christ Chapel.
> 
> Baptized by believing parents in a true church and actually _raised_ in the faith and _discipled_ (not just shuffled off to Sunday school and that's it as regards religious instruction) is one thing, but being baptized by unbelieving parents in an apostate denomination followed by no useful instruction so that one never heard the true gospel until one was in one's 40's isn't the same thing at all.
> 
> In any event, I don't think adult children who have presumably left their father's house and church should be expected to march to his drum beat.
Click to expand...


For what it's worth I was brought up in a liberal United Methodist Church. We didn't attend when I was an infant, so I wasn't baptized until I was 12, at my confirmation. When I was 25 after I was converted I was immersed at a Wesleyan church, but after coming to paedo views I now view my immersion at 25 as, at best, an unnecessary act of supererogation and the first baptism as being valid after all, even though I wasn't a believer at that time. To open up another  I would feel the same way had I been baptized at a Roman Catholic church instead of the UMC. (If someone wants to discuss the validity of Romish baptism, another thread should be opened.) Despite the fact that these churches are not sound and are guilty of many errors and heresies, it does not invalidate the baptism.


----------



## smhbbag

> Any thoughts on the question of whether Reformed paedobaptists should court or marry Reformed credobaptists? (I view this as more of a question regarding courtship or marriage, rather than concerning baptism; that's why I put it in this forum.)



My wife was "baptized" as an infant in the CRC, and was raised faithfully and catechized well growing up. I was a reformed baptist when we met, and when we decided to pursue marriage, we knew that unity on this issue was vital. We simply placed a lot of trust in God that over the year or two we planned to be together before marriage, He would give us genuine, heart-felt agreement on the issue.

He did, and she became fully convinced of the credo position about 6 months before we married. At that time, we faced a difficult issue of her being under her father's authority, attending a paedo church, while wanting to be legitimately baptized. To leave her father's church (and hers), to be baptized seemed a bit imprudent and too much like a slap in the face. We've now been married, and she is attending a Baptist church and will be baptized in the next few weeks. 

As others have mentioned, the agreement that the wife is to submit to the husband's authority in this matter is essential. If I end up being wrong, and her infant 'baptism' was in fact valid, then I will answer to God in full for her being re-baptized. Same goes for any of our children who are not baptized as infants - if I'm wrong, it's on my head entirely. Praise the Lord that sort of very difficult submission is not required of her, as God has brought us into full agreement.

Will I let my daughter marry a paedo when she grows up? I would be hard-pressed to deny my daughter the blessing of marriage to a faithful, honorable servant of Christ. I agree with others that I may only deny my blessing based on reasons that are explicitly listed in scripture as valid in that situation. But you bet we'd have a number of friendly talks on the matter 

So, to answer the question of whether paedo's should court/marry credos...my answer is:

Paedo women should certainly marry credo's and convert/submit.
Paedo men should certainly marry credo's and convert.

In all seriousness, it is not something to be entered into lightly, and should only be done with mature individuals and wise counsel from others in the church family.


----------



## Kaalvenist

Wow... I'm a little surprised that it garnered this much response, in so short a time. Thanks for the input.


----------



## Zenas

I would niether court nor marry a credo-baptist. She would have to submit to my authority or switch camps.

Thankfully, nothing like that ever has to happen, I'm already engaged to another baby sprinkler.


----------



## Herald

JBaldwin said:


> Just for the record, before I met my husband, I dated a wonderful Christian man, and we had such a disagreement. We met in a reformed Baptist church, but I was studying paedo baptism at the time. It wasn't too long before I made the switch, and he couldn't agree. I knew I wasn't going to change my mind, so we broke it off.
> 
> Though I highly respect the views of my credo baptist brothers and sisters, if I had married (and we were discussing it seroiusly) I would have always felt like I was denying my convictions, and I'm sure it would have caused trouble later on.



It shouldn't. If a paedo woman marries a credo man I would certainly expect them to discuss the issue. In the end the wife is to submit to her husband on the issue and not allow it to become a point of contention. If she continues to fight against it then she is sinning. If both feel strongly about the issue before marriage than courtship/marriage should never take place. Unfortunately many are blinded by love and don't count the cost in this area.


----------



## Nse007

Simply_Nikki said:


> I was kidding hence the smirk.
> 
> On a serious note, I'm not sure, though I think I could probably submit to a paedo husband's stance on that issue. However, what if the children once adults wanted to be baptized again because they did not come to accept the position of paedo baptism? I've seen many adults do this, especially those who left the church and came back. Oh and why would it be blasphemy?
> 
> 
> 
> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply_Nikki said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a credo, I have no problem courting or marrying a paedo....
> 
> The children will probably just have to be baptized twice
> 
> 
> 
> But to the paedo husband, and the Reformed Paedos everywhere, that would be considered as blasphemous and a denial of their children's baptism (i.e. the original).
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Nikki,

There's more at stake than just when you baptize. The understanding of the covenant is different which makes the rearing of the children different. If brought up with a proper peado covenantal understanding, they will not desire a second baptism when grown up...they will look to "improve" on their first...


----------



## Simply_Nikki

I don't see how it would be different from preaching the gospel to them and training them up in the Lord . But what do I know.. i'm not dogmatic about paedo v credo so I think for me personally it would not be as difficult as it would be for other credo-women to submit to a paedo husband. 

I agree with the other posts it does boil down to submissiveness and/or one partner being converted to one or the other view. 



Nse007 said:


> Simply_Nikki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was kidding hence the smirk.
> 
> On a serious note, I'm not sure, though I think I could probably submit to a paedo husband's stance on that issue. However, what if the children once adults wanted to be baptized again because they did not come to accept the position of paedo baptism? I've seen many adults do this, especially those who left the church and came back. Oh and why would it be blasphemy?
> 
> 
> 
> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> But to the paedo husband, and the Reformed Paedos everywhere, that would be considered as blasphemous and a denial of their children's baptism (i.e. the original).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nikki,
> 
> There's more at stake than just when you baptize. The understanding of the covenant is different which makes the rearing of the children different. If brought up with a proper peado covenantal understanding, they will not desire a second baptism when grown up...they will look to "improve" on their first...
Click to expand...


----------



## Nse007

Nikki,

What I'm saying is that credos and peados view the nature of baptism, ie what it means as being different and that plays out when the child is older which is why they should not desire to be "rebaptized"


----------



## Kaalvenist

Any more thoughts?


----------



## MOSES

I think that the most difficult, out of all the possibilites, would be for a Paedo woman to marry a Baptist man, and submit to his authority (depending on her paedo view).
Because.

She will be forced to raise "pagan" unbelieving children. Rather then raising covenant Christian baptized children, she will be forced to raise the heathen (un-baptized) children of her baptist husband. That may be quite difficult for her (depending on the strength of her conviction).

Note: It may not be difficult at all if she is a paedo who holds that baptism is basically a dead traditional sign that does nothing, and it does not matter much if the children are baptized or not.


----------



## KMK

MOSES said:


> I think that the most difficult, out of all the possibilites, would be for a Paedo woman to marry a Baptist man, and submit to his authority (depending on her paedo view).
> Because.
> 
> She will be forced to raise "pagan" unbelieving children. Rather then raising covenant Christian baptized children, she will be forced to raise the heathen (un-baptized) children of her baptist husband. That may be quite difficult for her (depending on the strength of her conviction).
> 
> Note: It may not be difficult at all if she is a paedo who holds that baptism is basically a dead traditional sign that does nothing, and it does not matter much if the children are baptized or not.



If this is the biggest hurdle the new couple would face, then they have nothing to worry about!


----------



## Mushroom

I have many RB brothers and sisters that I dearly love, but I must confess that I tell my daughters to stay away from their sons. I'll not brook the thought of non-covenant children carrying my bloodline.


----------



## raekwon

Brad said:


> I have many RB brothers and sisters that I dearly love, but I must confess that I tell my daughters to stay away from their sons. I'll not brook the thought of non-covenant children carrying my bloodline.



I understand your concern here, but would they really be non-covenant children though, Brad? Baptism is the sign and the seal of the covenant, but it is not the covenant itself, nor does it bring the covenant into effect. The children of believers (even of a Baptist and a Presbyterian) are _entitled_ to baptism through the covenant and by right of birth.

Such entitlement wouldn't exist if the covenant was actually effected by baptism.


----------



## Archlute

raekwon said:


> Brad said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have many RB brothers and sisters that I dearly love, but I must confess that I tell my daughters to stay away from their sons. I'll not brook the thought of non-covenant children carrying my bloodline.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your concern here, but would they really be non-covenant children though, Brad? Baptism is the sign and the seal of the covenant, but it is not the covenant itself, nor does it bring the covenant into effect. The children of believers (even of a Baptist and a Presbyterian) are _entitled_ to baptism through the covenant and by right of birth.
> 
> Such entitlement wouldn't exist if the covenant was actually effected by baptism.
Click to expand...


Exactly.


----------



## raekwon

joshua said:


> Just my :
> 
> Ultimately, the woman -whatever she may be- must submit to her husband's beliefs in such a matter, and follow him accordingly. If she cannot do that/work through that in educating and counsel, there should be no courtship.



:thumbsup:

I'd also say that if the husband is on any sort of shaky ground theologically when it comes to the matter of baptism, or if he holds his position (be it paedo or credo) only on the basis of tradition, he should be willing to listen to his wife's convictions on the matter and possibly to study the Scriptures with her to come to a firm conclusion for their family.


----------



## raekwon

Archlute said:


> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brad said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have many RB brothers and sisters that I dearly love, but I must confess that I tell my daughters to stay away from their sons. I'll not brook the thought of non-covenant children carrying my bloodline.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your concern here, but would they really be non-covenant children though, Brad? Baptism is the sign and the seal of the covenant, but it is not the covenant itself, nor does it bring the covenant into effect. The children of believers (even of a Baptist and a Presbyterian) are _entitled_ to baptism through the covenant and by right of birth.
> 
> Such entitlement wouldn't exist if the covenant was actually effected by baptism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.
Click to expand...


And that's not to say that there's no such thing as baptismal efficacy, either! Baptism is effective unto salvation in the same way that the Word of God is: when it is received in faith and repentance.


----------



## DMcFadden

MOSES said:


> I think that the most difficult, out of all the possibilites, would be for a Paedo woman to marry a Baptist man, and submit to his authority (depending on her paedo view).
> Because.
> 
> She will be forced to raise "pagan" unbelieving children. Rather then raising covenant Christian baptized children, she will be forced to raise the heathen (un-baptized) children of her baptist husband. That may be quite difficult for her (depending on the strength of her conviction).
> 
> Note: It may not be difficult at all if she is a paedo who holds that baptism is basically a dead traditional sign that does nothing, and it does not matter much if the children are baptized or not.



My, Shawn, you certainly have an opinion! My wife and I raised five children in our Baptist churches over the years. All of them are walking with the Lord (one is a pastor, one teaches Bible at a Christian school, one is an attorney, etc.). I get that you believe in paedo baptism. However, check out the posts by Raekwon and Archlute, certainly no wusses on the baptism issue.


----------



## Mushroom

raekwon said:


> Brad said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have many RB brothers and sisters that I dearly love, but I must confess that I tell my daughters to stay away from their sons. I'll not brook the thought of non-covenant children carrying my bloodline.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your concern here, but would they really be non-covenant children though, Brad? Baptism is the sign and the seal of the covenant, but it is not the covenant itself, nor does it bring the covenant into effect. The children of believers (even of a Baptist and a Presbyterian) are _entitled_ to baptism through the covenant and by right of birth.
> 
> Such entitlement wouldn't exist if the covenant was actually effected by baptism.
Click to expand...


My point is that they would be _raised_ as non-covenant members. My daughters are taught to submit in all things to their husbands. I would strongly object to my grandchildren being denied the outward benefits of being members of the covenantal community of believers. I would react sheer apoplexy to see my own descendents treated as pagans outside of the covenant by their _own parents_.

I try to stay out of the paedo-credo arguments on this board, simply because the credo position is wrong and a denial of God's faithfulness intermingled with a good dose of man's desire for autonomy. The very worst thing about credobaptism for me is that it moves christians to treat their OWN children as though they are enemies of Christ. In my mind that is disgusting. That's all I'll say of it, so offended credos will have to argue with someone else.

But as for my daughters.... love you guys, but if you're credo, stay far away. I have that right. -1 Cor. 7-


----------



## raekwon

Brad said:


> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brad said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have many RB brothers and sisters that I dearly love, but I must confess that I tell my daughters to stay away from their sons. I'll not brook the thought of non-covenant children carrying my bloodline.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your concern here, but would they really be non-covenant children though, Brad? Baptism is the sign and the seal of the covenant, but it is not the covenant itself, nor does it bring the covenant into effect. The children of believers (even of a Baptist and a Presbyterian) are _entitled_ to baptism through the covenant and by right of birth.
> 
> Such entitlement wouldn't exist if the covenant was actually effected by baptism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is that they would be _raised_ as non-covenant members. My daughters are taught to submit in all things to their husbands. I would strongly object to my grandchildren being denied the outward benefits of being members of the covenantal community of believers. I would react sheer apoplexy to see my own descendents treated as pagans outside of the covenant by their _own parents_.
> 
> I try to stay out of the paedo-credo arguments on this board, simply because the credo position is wrong and a denial of God's faithfulness intermingled with a good dose of man's desire for autonomy. The very worst thing about credobaptism for me is that it moves christians to treat their OWN children as though they are enemies of Christ. In my mind that is disgusting. That's all I'll say of it, so offended credos will have to argue with someone else.
> 
> But as for my daughters.... love you guys, but if you're credo, stay far away. I have that right. -1 Cor. 7-
Click to expand...


Okay, that clears things up.


----------



## DMcFadden

Brad said:


> I have many RB brothers and sisters that I dearly love, but I must confess that I tell my daughters to stay away from their sons. I'll not brook the thought of non-covenant children carrying my bloodline.



Brad, "disgusting" as I am, I admire your passion. I'm not sure that your characterization of credo baptists is any more accurate than the rabid Baptists who accuse Presbyterians of being crypto-Romanists because their practice of infant baptism leads "inevitably" to nominal Christianity and "dead" churches.

Still, you've got style. I don't want my only unmarried child to go to an Arminian college or marry an Arminian either. If my daughters were in Reformed churches, I would be honored to see my grandchildren baptized (my sons are in credo baptist churches so not much chance there). So, your fatherly concern for your "bloodline" is not lost on me. 

Incidentally, at this stage of life watching my four grandsons being raised, I suspect that regardless of formal theological differences, the actual practices of credo and paedo parents (except for the paedocommunion ones) are not all that different. My grandsons were all "dedicated" in church ceremonies, brought to church weekly (or more often), taught the Bible, prayed with nightly, and their parents eagerly anticipated that they would submit to baptism as soon as they were old enough to understand it. Perhaps theory should lead to them being regarded as "enemies of Christ" (to use your phrase), but that is not how it is done in practice. And, my guess is that even the average "Baptist" Vacation Bible School and "Presbyterian" one share the same curriculum by the same publisher.

Honestly, there are several points where our different theological conceptions tend to get "accommodated" to the reality of our existential situations. Not only are we not as good as the consistent implications of our doctrine would suggest, but (blessedly) we are not as bad either. God in his grace seems to preserve us from some of the logical consequences of our dumb ideas.

Brad, I am re-evaluating the whole paedo/credo issue for myself. So, you won't offend me by your comments about how "disgusting" my beliefs are. I do want you to be relieved of the fear that my granchildren (all raised in non-"Baptist" but baptistic churches) are being raised as pagans. The 7 year old and 4 year old have already expressed their faith in Christ and are treated as "believers." The older one has been baptized. [editorial note to self: funny how paedo baptists baptize infants _before_ they have faith and credo baptists delay baptism (sometimes for years) _after_ the young child expresses faith] In either case, faith is a gift of God (TULIP and all).

[BTW - I've been home with a fever the last couple of days and am sure enjoying LOTS of extra time for the PB. Honest, I do have a life . . . _most_ days and typically go to church every Sudnay.]


----------



## MOSES

DMcFadden said:


> MOSES said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the most difficult, out of all the possibilites, would be for a Paedo woman to marry a Baptist man, and submit to his authority (depending on her paedo view).
> Because.
> 
> She will be forced to raise "pagan" unbelieving children. Rather then raising covenant Christian baptized children, she will be forced to raise the heathen (un-baptized) children of her baptist husband. That may be quite difficult for her (depending on the strength of her conviction).
> 
> Note: It may not be difficult at all if she is a paedo who holds that baptism is basically a dead traditional sign that does nothing, and it does not matter much if the children are baptized or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *My, Shawn, you certainly have an opinion!* My wife and I raised five children in our Baptist churches over the years. All of them are walking with the Lord (one is a pastor, one teaches Bible at a Christian school, one is an attorney, etc.). I get that you believe in paedo baptism. However, check out the posts by Raekwon and Archlute, certainly no wusses on the baptism issue.
Click to expand...

<-- bold emphasis mine

Well, hopefully you got that my comment was exagerated to make a point. 

Personally, I don't think the children of baptists are heathens. I don't believe that the Church should baptize un-repentant heathens...but I *do* believe that all baptist's should have thier children baptized..(so logically, I cannot believe that baptist children are heathens)...only that baptists presume their children to be unbelievers (perhaps infidel is a better word).

As for your children...see...they proved not to be heathen...you could of baptized them as infants...
God is faithful to his covenant promises.


----------



## DMcFadden

Shawn, see my concessions in the post one minute before yours.


----------



## Mushroom

DMcFadden said:


> Brad said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have many RB brothers and sisters that I dearly love, but I must confess that I tell my daughters to stay away from their sons. I'll not brook the thought of non-covenant children carrying my bloodline.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brad, "disgusting" as I am, I admire your passion. I'm not sure that your characterization of credo baptists is any more accurate than the rabid Baptists who accuse Presbyterians of being crypto-Romanists because their practice of infant baptism leads "inevitably" to nominal Christianity and "dead" churches.
> 
> Still, you've got style. I don't want my only unmarried child to go to an Arminian college or marry an Arminian either. If my daughters were in Reformed churches, I would be honored to see my grandchildren baptized (my sons are in credo baptist churches so not much chance there). So, your fatherly concern for your "bloodline" is not lost on me.
> 
> Incidentally, at this stage of life watching my four grandsons being raised, I suspect that regardless of formal theological differences, the actual practices of credo and paedo parents (except for the paedocommunion ones) are not all that different. My grandsons were all "dedicated" in church ceremonies, brought to church weekly (or more often), taught the Bible, prayed with nightly, and their parents eagerly anticipated that they would submit to baptism as soon as they were old enough to understand it. Perhaps theory should lead to them being regarded as "enemies of Christ" (to use your phrase), but that is not how it is done in practice. And, my guess is that even the average "Baptist" Vacation Bible School and "Presbyterian" one share the same curriculum by the same publisher.
> 
> Honestly, there are several points where our different theological conceptions tend to get "accommodated" to the reality of our existential situations. Not only are we not as good as the consistent implications of our doctrine would suggest, but (blessedly) we are not as bad either. God in his grace seems to preserve us from some of the logical consequences of our dumb ideas.
> 
> Brad, I am re-evaluating the whole paedo/credo issue for myself. So, you won't offend me by your comments about how "disgusting" my beliefs are. I do want you to be relieved of the fear that my granchildren (all raised in non-"Baptist" but baptistic churches) are being raised as pagans. The 7 year old and 4 year old have already expressed their faith in Christ and are treated as "believers." The older one has been baptized. [editorial note to self: funny how paedo baptists baptize infants _before_ they have faith and credo baptists delay baptism (sometimes for years) _after_ the young child expresses faith] In either case, faith is a gift of God (TULIP and all).
> 
> [BTW - I've been home with a fever the last couple of days and am sure enjoying LOTS of extra time for the PB. Honest, I do have a life . . . _most_ days and typically go to church every Sudnay.]
Click to expand...

OK, I withdraw the word "disgusts' and replace it with "concerns" in the interest of peace among the brethren. That's why I stay out of paedo-credo debates. Too easy for me to give offense without thinking. Hope you can forgive my unnecessary intensity, Dennis. I am now officially bowing out of the discussion.


----------



## smhbbag

> But as for my daughters.... love you guys, but if you're credo, stay far away. I have that right. -1 Cor. 7-



You have the right to deny your blessing, but not to deny your permission. 

The denial of blessing can be made on issues of prudence, doctrine, or practicality (and a wise daughter would take such a denial with great weight).

While the denial of permission can _only_ be made on specific Biblical criteria, namely the suitor's lack of faith or damnable doctrinal heresy. To deny a daughter permission to marry another believer is never excusable. That is the only qualification necessary to earn a father's permission, and if he recognizes the suitor's faith, giving permission is a moral duty.


----------



## staythecourse

> I have many RB brothers and sisters that I dearly love, but I must confess that I tell my daughters to stay away from their sons. I'll not brook the thought of non-covenant children carrying my bloodline.



To me that's dangerous thinking. Ruth, Boaz, and Rahab tainted my Savior's blood, brother.


----------



## MOSES

smhbbag said:


> But as for my daughters.... love you guys, but if you're credo, stay far away. I have that right. -1 Cor. 7-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right to deny your blessing, but not to deny your permission.
> 
> The denial of blessing can be made on issues of prudence, doctrine, or practicality (and a wise daughter would take such a denial with great weight).
> 
> While the denial of permission can _only_ be made on specific Biblical criteria, namely the suitor's lack of faith or damnable doctrinal heresy. To deny a daughter permission to marry another believer is never excusable. That is the only qualification necessary to earn a father's permission, and if he recognizes the suitor's faith, *giving permission is a moral duty*.
Click to expand...

 <-- bold mine

This seems like and excellent point...and I am willing to agree with it. But first, I am just curious, do you have a biblical argument for this position?
Did the king of Israel have to permit marriage of his daughter to anyone just as long as he was in covenant Israel? 
Do you have OT (or NT) examples of people giving daughters permission to marry as a moral duty just as long as the suitor was a "believer"?

Personally, I see a lot more qualifications needed for someone to court my daughters then JUST being a believer...being a believer is just the starting point (somewhat along the lines of the courter being male !!...that is just the first qualification)

NOTE: There are going to be a whole bunch of believers who do not qualify for marriage to my daughters.


----------



## Theoretical

staythecourse said:


> I have many RB brothers and sisters that I dearly love, but I must confess that I tell my daughters to stay away from their sons. I'll not brook the thought of non-covenant children carrying my bloodline.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To me that's dangerous thinking. Ruth, Boaz, and Rahab tainted my Savior's blood, brother.
Click to expand...

 and I strongly agree with the paedo position.


----------



## smhbbag

> <-- bold mine
> 
> This seems like and excellent point...and I am willing to agree with it. But first, I am just curious, do you have a biblical argument for this position?
> Did the king of Israel have to permit marriage of his daughter to anyone just as long as he was in covenant Israel?
> Do you have OT (or NT) examples of people giving daughters permission to marry as a moral duty just as long as the suitor was a "believer".
> 
> Personally, I see a lot more qualifications needed for someone to court my daughters then JUST being a believer...being a believer is just the starting point (somewhat along the lines of the courter being male !!...that is just the beggining qualification)



You are right that there are other things packed into the word "believer" as I used it. It is not just faith, but would include his being male, and of appropriate age. 

But most other substantial objections seem to qualify as a reason to question or doubt his status in Christ - like what if he does not have a job, nor desire to have a job and cannot provide even the most meager support? Or numerous other serious problems.

In most of those cases, the situation would actually make me begin to doubt the suitor's status in Christ at all. In the example I gave, a denial of permission may actually be in order. A life characterized by slothfulness in every area, and a refusal to accept responsibility to provide for his (desired) future wife, would make me seriously doubt his conversion. But, my denial of permission would be grounded in that fact, not on the basis that the standard of living wouldn't meet my criteria. I think the idea of the bride-price was a formal way of checking such things, and gives us a Biblical category to work with beyond just profession of faith, but also a life that is not entirely inconsistent with his profession.

Ultimately, I think it boils down to the things in I Cor. 5 - if his life is characterized by such things, a father not bound by the suitor's profession of faith to give him his daughter. In the same way, the church is not bound to maintain and individual's membership merely because he continues professing Christ.


----------



## MOSES

Brad said:


> I have many RB brothers and sisters that I dearly love, but I must confess that I tell my daughters to stay away from their sons. I'll not brook the thought of *non-covenant children *carrying my bloodline.




One paedo to another.

If you are consistent with this position, then you could never argue with a baptist that they should baptize their children...because even we paedos don't baptize "non-covenant" children.

The whole argument for paedos to creedos is that they SHOULD baptize thier children because they *are *covenant children.


Note: unless you are just exagerating that statement to drive home a point.


----------



## DMcFadden

Brad said:


> OK, I withdraw the word "disgusts' and replace it with "concerns" in the interest of peace among the brethren. That's why I stay out of paedo-credo debates. Too easy for me to give offense without thinking. Hope you can forgive my unnecessary intensity, Dennis. I am now officially bowing out of the discussion.



Brad and Shawn, 

Don't bow out on my account. I was not offended, just a little bit of middle aged bemusement at the strength of your expressions of convictions. I actually appreciate your fervancy for the view. As I articulated in another thread, my "tribe" is composed of those who ran from the Baptist label like it was poison because we were part of a liberal mainline denomination. Most of my ministry was spent explaining, "yes, I'm a Baptist, but . . ." So, no harm, no foul with me. I'm enjoying the thread.

BTW - I suspected that a real live Baptist using your strong words might make at least one of you feel uncomfortable. Sorry for playing with you.


----------



## staythecourse

Theoretical said:


> staythecourse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have many RB brothers and sisters that I dearly love, but I must confess that I tell my daughters to stay away from their sons. I'll not brook the thought of non-covenant children carrying my bloodline.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To me that's dangerous thinking. Ruth, Boaz, and Rahab tainted my Savior's blood, brother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and I strongly agree with the paedo position.
Click to expand...


Please expound when you have the time, Scott.


----------



## Theoretical

joshua said:


> staythecourse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theoretical said:
> 
> 
> 
> and I strongly agree with the paedo position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please expound when you have the time, Scott.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think Scott just means to intimate that he agrees with what you're saying, even though, unlike you, he's a paedobaptist.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is all I meant. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## staythecourse

Thanks Josh,

I was hoping to learn something about the significance of God bringing women outside of covenant into Jesus' bloodline from a paedo-perspective.


----------



## Mushroom

Perhaps bloodline was a poor choice of words. I didn't mean genealogical lineage so much as those children that are a part of my family who by default are the objects of my affections. It would break my heart to know that my grandchildren were not being given the full extent of the benefits available to those born into the covenant. And they will be born into the covenant - I trust the promises of my God. That would apply to both biological and adopted children, and even a lot of covenant children I have been close to all their lives. There are kids I have known long enough to have been present at their baptisms, and thus to have covenanted with their parents to support their efforts in raising them in the fear and admonition of the Lord. If any of them were to be courted by a Reformed Baptist brother, I would think myself obligated to discourage it.

I don't presume to doubt the veracity of my RB brethren's faith, but I do obviously disagree with their view of the covenantal promises, or I wouldn't be a Presbyterian (duh!), and since that aspect of the faith is of utmost import in relation to children, I do want to protect mine from it.

1 Cor. 7 says I can refuse matrimony for my daughters, and gives no criteria for taking that decision. Some may disagree with that on the basis of what they think is "fair" or culturally acceptable, but they can take the proverbial flying leap in light of scripture. My position is that credo-baptism is not an acceptable theological construct for my children, or those of my daughters, to live under, and they will not. That discussion is closed.


----------



## Mushroom

staythecourse said:


> I have many RB brothers and sisters that I dearly love, but I must confess that I tell my daughters to stay away from their sons. I'll not brook the thought of non-covenant children carrying my bloodline.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To me that's dangerous thinking. Ruth, Boaz, and Rahab tainted my Savior's blood, brother.
Click to expand...


Ruth, Boaz, and Rahab were all believers, and would be welcome additions to any bloodline. I do not hold to any "genealogical" salvation, I only trust in the promises of my God.


----------



## raekwon

Interesting.

I wonder what I'd do if my daughter married a fellow paedobaptistic believer, but then they switched to credo down the line.


----------



## staythecourse

Brad said:


> Perhaps bloodline was a poor choice of words. I didn't mean genealogical lineage so much as those children that are a part of my family who by default are the objects of my affections. It would break my heart to know that my grandchildren were not being given the full extent of the benefits available to those born into the covenant. And they will be born into the covenant - I trust the promises of my God. That would apply to both biological and adopted children, and even a lot of covenant children I have been close to all their lives. There are kids I have known long enough to have been present at their baptisms, and thus to have covenanted with their parents to support their efforts in raising them in the fear and admonition of the Lord. If any of them were to be courted by a Reformed Baptist brother, I would think myself obligated to discourage it.
> 
> I don't presume to doubt the veracity of my RB brethren's faith, but I do obviously disagree with their view of the covenantal promises, or I wouldn't be a Presbyterian (duh!), and since that aspect of the faith is of utmost import in relation to children, I do want to protect mine from it.
> 
> 1 Cor. 7 says I can refuse matrimony for my daughters, and gives no criteria for taking that decision. Some may disagree with that on the basis of what they think is "fair" or culturally acceptable, but they can take the proverbial flying leap in light of scripture. My position is that credo-baptism is not an acceptable theological construct for my children, or those of my daughters, to live under, and they will not. That discussion is closed.



Clears it up. Appreciate it.


----------



## Kaalvenist

Thank you all for your responses and input. I'm now engaged to the most wonderful woman in the world... who also happens to be a Reformed Baptist, but is intent upon submitting her judgment to mine, regarding our differences in baptism.


----------



## a mere housewife

Sean, Congratulations! Is that your fiancee then in your avatar picture? She's very lovely.

Ruben doesn't mind if I remain a baptist in conviction or become a paedobaptist. Whatever we agree or disagree on --though it makes for good discussion, it doesn't change the fact that he leads. If 1 Cor sets forth a fact about children then that is not abrogated by whether or not they receive baptism at birth: it doesn't change election, etc. If a paedo girl can submit in conscience to a credobaptist (which submission is more important for her conscience than understanding and dictating all the theological terms of the marriage), then her own convictions are obviously not such as her father wants to force on her. In this case I'm not sure what the justification would be for making her marry another man, to whom she could not so readily and happily submit as the one she chose and honored and loved.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

Kaalvenist said:


> Thank you all for your responses and input. I'm now engaged to the most wonderful woman in the world... who also happens to be a Reformed Baptist, but is intent upon submitting her judgment to mine, regarding our differences in baptism.



Congratulations!


----------



## JonathanHunt

raekwon said:


> Interesting.
> 
> I wonder what I'd do if my daughter married a fellow paedobaptistic believer, but then they switched to credo down the line.



Join them, obviously. 

Congratulations, Sean!


----------



## Bygracealone

Cheers brother!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Sean,

Your fiancee is a beautiful young woman. You are very blessed.

It is also great to hear from you. Are you back safely now? I might have missed that news.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Congratulations, Sean, and God bless you and yours!


----------



## Neogillist

joshua said:


> Simply_Nikki said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a credo, I have no problem courting or marrying a paedo....
> 
> The children will probably just have to be baptized twice
> 
> 
> 
> But to the paedo husband, and the Reformed Paedos everywhere, that would be considered as blasphemous and a denial of their children's baptism (i.e. the original).
Click to expand...


It is true that it would be an abuse of the sacrament to perform a baptism twice (except if it had first be peformed by a cult like the Mormons or Oneness Pentecostal). On the other hand, we should not be so dogmatic on such secondary issues so as to avoid courting a credo or paedo. If we cannot learn to compromise a little on fine doctrinal points like that, we are going to seclude ourselves and become very isolated Christians. One could even perhaps have to remain single all his/her life.


----------



## Pilgrim72

> If we cannot learn to compromise a little on fine doctrinal points like that, we are going to seclude ourselves and become very isolated Christians. One could even perhaps have to remain single all his/her life.



Ugh. It's hard enough just finding a Christian woman, let alone finding one that believes everything like you.

*sigh*

I'm learning to be content as a single man. 

Oh! And Congratulations Sean!!!


----------



## Kaalvenist

Semper Fidelis said:


> Sean,
> 
> Your fiancee is a beautiful young woman. You are very blessed.
> 
> It is also great to hear from you. Are you back safely now? I might have missed that news.


Thank you, Rich (and everyone else!). And I'm quite aware that she's beautiful; thanks for mentioning it, though. 

I was just on mid-tour R&R (got to see 1600 of my brethren at the RP International Conference); I'm in Kuwait at the moment, on my way back to Iraq.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

smhbbag said:


> But as for my daughters.... love you guys, but if you're credo, stay far away. I have that right. -1 Cor. 7-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right to deny your blessing, but not to deny your permission.
> 
> The denial of blessing can be made on issues of prudence, doctrine, or practicality (and a wise daughter would take such a denial with great weight).
> 
> While the denial of permission can _only_ be made on specific Biblical criteria, namely the suitor's lack of faith or damnable doctrinal heresy. To deny a daughter permission to marry another believer is never excusable. That is the only qualification necessary to earn a father's permission, and if he recognizes the suitor's faith, giving permission is a moral duty.
Click to expand...


I think that denial of permission can also fall on the grounds of ability to support a family. If my son has not proven he can support a family, then I would not give him permission to marry. If my daughter is going to marry a man who may be a believer, but he has not demonstrated that he can support her, then I would deny her permission to marry.

Baptism is a sacrament of the Church of Jesus Christ, and is not something that can be negotiated. Consequently, I hold that Credo-Baptists teach an error on this matter, and, as they have separated themselves from the Church, they fulfill the literal definition of the word "heresy." However, a person can hold to a heresy and still be a Christian (for it is by Grace that one is saved).

Therefore, I would allow my son to marry a CB woman, but I would not allow my daughter to marry a CB man. The matter in these cases is that of authority - the husband has authority over the wife. In the case of my son he can exercise his God-given right to baptize his children. In the case of my daughter it would be more difficult to contradict her husband on this matter - especially if they attend a Baptist church.

My 

-CH


----------



## smhbbag

> I think that denial of permission can also fall on the grounds of ability to support a family. If my son has not proven he can support a family, then I would not give him permission to marry. If my daughter is going to marry a man who may be a believer, but he has not demonstrated that he can support her, then I would deny her permission to marry.



We must be very careful with this line of thinking, although there is some OT precedent for it with the bride price. In the West, especially, there is often a pseudo means-test that is entirely unbiblical. You are quite right that a husband must prove he is able to provide appropriately for his family. But, especially in America, that only takes one thing: a man who is willing to work hard doing anything necessary to provide.

What must he provide? I don't think we can go any further than requiring a roof, adequate food, clothing, and most importantly, the ability to feed his family the word of God.

To go to an extreme - let's say a good Christian man had a very poor education and little skills. He is a full-time short-order cook at Waffle House or something akin to that. Would you deny him permission to marry your daughter? Let's say he makes $15k per year. He lives in a cramped apartment, and has no prospects for moving up to a bigger place, or getting a better paying job. 

If he comes to you with a budget showing that he could adequately feed and clothe your daughter and, say, 5 kids...still living on top of one another in the two-room apartment. I would say you cannot Biblically disqualify the man. You may wish more for you daughter, but if she and the kids will eat, have a roof, and be led by a good man, then there are no grounds for disapproval. That is, assuming she is willing to live that life to be with that man. 

So, yes, there must be a sort of means-test, but really it is a character-test. If the man is willing to work hard, and shows he is dedicated to satisfying the earthly needs of a household, that is enough. It does not matter how low-quality the father believes the food, shelter, and clothes are.

For a father to deny a man permission based on ability to provide, that lack of ability must come from a lack of willingness to work hard. In this case, it is really a rejection based on character, not means. Poverty is no reason to reject a suitor. Laziness is.



> Baptism is a sacrament of the Church of Jesus Christ, and is not something that can be negotiated. Consequently, I hold that Credo-Baptists teach an error on this matter, and, as they have separated themselves from the Church, they fulfill the literal definition of the word "heresy." However, a person can hold to a heresy and still be a Christian (for it is by Grace that one is saved).



That is why I used the adjective "damnable" to specify the only type of heresy on which you can deny a suitor.



> Therefore, I would allow my son to marry a CB woman, but I would not allow my daughter to marry a CB man. The matter in these cases is that of authority - the husband has authority over the wife. In the case of my son he can exercise his God-given right to baptize his children. In the case of my daughter it would be more difficult to contradict her husband on this matter - especially if they attend a Baptist church.



It would not just be more difficult for her to contradict her husband; it would be _sin_ for her to do so. She would be bound to attend the church he chooses, and baptize as he sees fit. 

On this, the burden of proof is certainly on you. I do not see any justifiable, scriptural reason to deny a virtuous Christian man permission to marry a daughter. To do so would be to go well beyond what scripture requires - and a father is not free to exert that kind of authority. His permission is dictated by the suitor's profession of Christ, and his life's consistency with that. 

As a Baptist, I believe the error of Paedobaptists is every bit as egregious as you believe mine is, and yet because of these principles I would still be able to honestly rejoice if, one day, a daughter of mine married a Reformed paedobaptist. Baptism is a sacrament, and paedobaptists grossly misuse and misunderstand, but that is not given as a scriptural limitation on marriage. 

A daughter is free to say "I don't know if I could submit to him in good conscience and with joy." In that case, a daughter is much more free to find reasons why she doesn't want to marry a man than the father is to deny her the opportunity. The father's ability to veto is much more limited. 

A woman is free to reject a proposal because she finds the man hideously ugly, or because she does not want to move to where he lives, or because his personality makes conversation like pulling teeth. And a woman is free to reject a man because she does not believe she could submit respectfully to his leadership in all things, because she questions his judgment in general things, or in theological matters. But, if he is in Christ and in good standing, that is her decision, and not one the father is free to deny her. 

A wise father in such situations would counsel his daughter, warn her, and sober her judgment before she decides. But, if the suitor is a believer and has character consistent with his confession, then the father's veto power is entirely gone.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

smhbbag said:


> I think that denial of permission can also fall on the grounds of ability to support a family. If my son has not proven he can support a family, then I would not give him permission to marry. If my daughter is going to marry a man who may be a believer, but he has not demonstrated that he can support her, then I would deny her permission to marry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We must be very careful with this line of thinking, although there is some OT precedent for it with the bride price. In the West, especially, there is often a pseudo means-test that is entirely unbiblical. You are quite right that a husband must prove he is able to provide appropriately for his family. But, especially in America, that only takes one thing: a man who is willing to work hard doing anything necessary to provide.
> 
> What must he provide? I don't think we can go any further than requiring a roof, adequate food, clothing, and most importantly, the ability to feed his family the word of God.
> 
> To go to an extreme - let's say a good Christian man had a very poor education and little skills. He is a full-time short-order cook at Waffle House or something akin to that. Would you deny him permission to marry your daughter? Let's say he makes $15k per year. He lives in a cramped apartment, and has no prospects for moving up to a bigger place, or getting a better paying job.
> 
> If he comes to you with a budget showing that he could adequately feed and clothe your daughter and, say, 5 kids...still living on top of one another in the two-room apartment. I would say you cannot Biblically disqualify the man. You may wish more for you daughter, but if she and the kids will eat, have a roof, and be led by a good man, then there are no grounds for disapproval. That is, assuming she is willing to live that life to be with that man.
> 
> So, yes, there must be a sort of means-test, but really it is a character-test. If the man is willing to work hard, and shows he is dedicated to satisfying the earthly needs of a household, that is enough. It does not matter how low-quality the father believes the food, shelter, and clothes are.
> 
> For a father to deny a man permission based on ability to provide, that lack of ability must come from a lack of willingness to work hard. In this case, it is really a rejection based on character, not means. Poverty is no reason to reject a suitor. Laziness is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baptism is a sacrament of the Church of Jesus Christ, and is not something that can be negotiated. Consequently, I hold that Credo-Baptists teach an error on this matter, and, as they have separated themselves from the Church, they fulfill the literal definition of the word "heresy." However, a person can hold to a heresy and still be a Christian (for it is by Grace that one is saved).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is why I used the adjective "damnable" to specify the only type of heresy on which you can deny a suitor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, I would allow my son to marry a CB woman, but I would not allow my daughter to marry a CB man. The matter in these cases is that of authority - the husband has authority over the wife. In the case of my son he can exercise his God-given right to baptize his children. In the case of my daughter it would be more difficult to contradict her husband on this matter - especially if they attend a Baptist church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would not just be more difficult for her to contradict her husband; it would be _sin_ for her to do so. She would be bound to attend the church he chooses, and baptize as he sees fit.
> 
> On this, the burden of proof is certainly on you. I do not see any justifiable, scriptural reason to deny a virtuous Christian man permission to marry a daughter. To do so would be to go well beyond what scripture requires - and a father is not free to exert that kind of authority. His permission is dictated by the suitor's profession of Christ, and his life's consistency with that.
> 
> As a Baptist, I believe the error of Paedobaptists is every bit as egregious as you believe mine is, and yet because of these principles I would still be able to honestly rejoice if, one day, a daughter of mine married a Reformed paedobaptist. Baptism is a sacrament, and paedobaptists grossly misuse and misunderstand, but that is not given as a scriptural limitation on marriage.
> 
> A daughter is free to say "I don't know if I could submit to him in good conscience and with joy." In that case, a daughter is much more free to find reasons why she doesn't want to marry a man than the father is to deny her the opportunity. The father's ability to veto is much more limited.
> 
> A woman is free to reject a proposal because she finds the man hideously ugly, or because she does not want to move to where he lives, or because his personality makes conversation like pulling teeth. And a woman is free to reject a man because she does not believe she could submit respectfully to his leadership in all things, because she questions his judgment in general things, or in theological matters. But, if he is in Christ and in good standing, that is her decision, and not one the father is free to deny her.
> 
> A wise father in such situations would counsel his daughter, warn her, and sober her judgment before she decides. But, if the suitor is a believer and has character consistent with his confession, then the father's veto power is entirely gone.
Click to expand...


Hi:

For the most part I agree with your post. Just a few points. You wrote:



> It would not just be more difficult for her to contradict her husband; it would be _sin_ for her to do so. She would be bound to attend the church he chooses, and baptize as he sees fit.


I do not believe that a wife should be *slavishly* obedient to her husband. If her husband, for example, requires her to do something that is contrary to the Word of God, then she is fully authorized to disobey such a requirement.

If he requires her not to baptize her children, then he is definately doing something that is contrary to the Word of God. The grey area here would be that she knew he was a CB before she married him, and, if they did not talk about this, and come to some agreement on it, then it would be more difficult for her to disobey.

Certainly, I believe that in a CB household where the husband is a CB that CB policies should rule - unless there was some arraingement made prior to the marriage. This is why I would not allow a daughter of mine to marry a CB. I also do not believe that the Sacrament should be "negotiated" - if a CB'er desires to marry a daughter of mine, then he will have to prove to me that he has embraced Paedo-baptism.

Next, you write:



> *As a Baptist, I believe the error of Paedobaptists is every bit as egregious as you believe mine is,* _and yet because of these principles I would still be able to honestly rejoice if, one day, a daughter of mine married a Reformed paedobaptist._ *Baptism is a sacrament, and paedobaptists grossly misuse and misunderstand, but that is not given as a scriptural limitation on marriage*.


I was glad to read the parts I put in bold above. It shows that there is iron in your beliefs, that you are willing to die for them if necessary. Here, I say, is a CB who is worthy to dialogue with on the matter of Baptism. However, such a resolve is weakened by the sentence in italics above. If Credo-Baptism is the Truth of God's Word, then how can you rejoice to see your grandchildren baptized as infants? Your words indicate that you do not hold your Credo-Baptism with the full assurance of your other statements. Consequently, it appears that you are willing to admit that CB is not an expression of the Word of God, and could be wrong.

I personally believe that heresy is a "scriptural limitation" on marriage. That Credo-Baptism is a heresy as I pointed out in my previous post. Consequently, I have no problem denying a daughter of mine marriage to a Credo-Baptist.

I do not wish to get off the subject of this thread. If you wish to discuss CB vs PB, then I will be happy to dialogue with you. I believe that you especially are worthy enough to discuss this matter with in a truly civil fashion. If you are willing, then start a new thread detailing how Paedo-Baptists, "misuse and misunderstand" the Sacrament.

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## Scott1

Folks, I really think these things can be worked out in marriage. 

It's difficult enough to find a Christian with similar maturity let alone one who has thoroughly worked out his baptism doctrine (and considered the biblical case for the alternatives). 

While I'm not discounting the doctrinal significance of this, there is so much more to marriage than this- I wouldn't make it definitive.


----------



## Ex Nihilo

Scott1 said:


> Folks, I really think these things can be worked out in marriage.
> 
> *It's difficult enough to find a Christian with similar maturity let alone one who has thoroughly worked out his baptism doctrine (and considered the biblical case for the alternatives). *
> 
> While I'm not discounting the doctrinal significance of this, there is so much more to marriage than this- I wouldn't make it definitive.



So true! It is just so hard to find decent men, much less committed Christian men. I would certainly be thankful to find an intelligent, Reformed paedo, but I haven't categorically ruled out credos. I would have to consider it case by case -- though I suspect that in the vast majority of cases, I would decide against it. My dad is Baptist, so there would be no opposition there -- he would not object to anyone who was a Christian.


----------



## Kaalvenist

CalvinandHodges said:


> Baptism is a sacrament of the Church of Jesus Christ, and is not something that can be negotiated. Consequently, I hold that Credo-Baptists teach an error on this matter, and, as they have separated themselves from the Church, they fulfill the literal definition of the word "heresy." However, a person can hold to a heresy and still be a Christian (for it is by Grace that one is saved).


Rob, a church can be in error regarding the sacraments and still be regarded as a true church. As I recall, Turretin defended the proposition that the Lutheran churches were true churches (although they teach consubstantiation and baptismal regeneration). On such a supposition, wouldn't those baptized in Baptist churches have to be rebaptized upon joining a Reformed or Presbyterian church? How can an organization which is not a true church administer true sacraments? Our church's Synod of 1883, responding to a memorial from Nova Scotia (probably from William Sommerville) that those baptized by immersion be rebaptized upon entering our church, gave the following as the fourth point in its negative reply:


RPCNA Synod of 1883 said:


> Because we cannot refuse to accept the validity of this ordinance, as administered by Baptists without unchurching the connection, or in other words refusing to acknowledge them as a part of the true church of Christ. This we do in relation to Rome by refusing to accept her baptism and ordination, but we think it would be utterly unjustifiable to place Baptist Churches in the same category.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Kaalvenist said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Baptism is a sacrament of the Church of Jesus Christ, and is not something that can be negotiated. Consequently, I hold that Credo-Baptists teach an error on this matter, and, as they have separated themselves from the Church, they fulfill the literal definition of the word "heresy." However, a person can hold to a heresy and still be a Christian (for it is by Grace that one is saved).
> 
> 
> 
> Rob, a church can be in error regarding the sacraments and still be regarded as a true church. As I recall, Turretin defended the proposition that the Lutheran churches were true churches (although they teach consubstantiation and baptismal regeneration). On such a supposition, wouldn't those baptized in Baptist churches have to be rebaptized upon joining a Reformed or Presbyterian church? How can an organization which is not a true church administer true sacraments? Our church's Synod of 1883, responding to a memorial from Nova Scotia (probably from William Sommerville) that those baptized by immersion be rebaptized upon entering our church, gave the following as the fourth point in its negative reply:
> 
> 
> RPCNA Synod of 1883 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because we cannot refuse to accept the validity of this ordinance, as administered by Baptists without unchurching the connection, or in other words refusing to acknowledge them as a part of the true church of Christ. This we do in relation to Rome by refusing to accept her baptism and ordination, but we think it would be utterly unjustifiable to place Baptist Churches in the same category.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Hi Sean:

Congratulations, again, on your engagement. 

You have introduced an irrelevant thesis in this discussion. No self-respecting Paedobaptist would argue that a person who has not been baptized as an infant - if he/she/ professes faith as an adult - should not now be baptized.

Such a baptism is not only valid but Scriptural.

Also, the _Esse_ and _Bene Esse_ of a Church should also be debated on another thread. But, since you are the OP on this thread, if you like to discuss it here, then I will accommodate you.

The question that I infer from your OP is that whether or not a Paedo-baptist should marry a Credo-baptist?

I believe that the question should be discussed before marriage, because once you have children unnecessary tension and argumentation will arise. Clip this problem before it arises, and you will have more time to enjoy and prepare for your new born infant.

So, the point of contact on this thread is the matter of *infant baptism*. It is here where the Credo-Baptist turns heretical - not in the baptism of adults who come to faith in Jesus Christ and have never been baptized. The CB not only denies infant baptism, but is so convinced of his/her views that they divide and dissemble themselves from the Church on account of it.

If the PB/CB distinctions are a matter of adiaphora, then why the different denominations and churches?

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## Augusta

Congratulations Sean!  May God bless you both.


----------



## Kaalvenist

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi Sean:
> 
> Congratulations, again, on your engagement.
> 
> You have introduced an irrelevant thesis in this discussion. No self-respecting Paedobaptist would argue that a person who has not been baptized as an infant - if he/she/ professes faith as an adult - should not now be baptized.
> 
> Such a baptism is not only valid but Scriptural.
> 
> Also, the _Esse_ and _Bene Esse_ of a Church should also be debated on another thread. But, since you are the OP on this thread, if you like to discuss it here, then I will accommodate you.
> 
> The question that I infer from your OP is that whether or not a Paedo-baptist should marry a Credo-baptist?
> 
> I believe that the question should be discussed before marriage, because once you have children unnecessary tension and argumentation will arise. Clip this problem before it arises, and you will have more time to enjoy and prepare for your new born infant.
> 
> So, the point of contact on this thread is the matter of *infant baptism*. It is here where the Credo-Baptist turns heretical - not in the baptism of adults who come to faith in Jesus Christ and have never been baptized. The CB not only denies infant baptism, but is so convinced of his/her views that they divide and dissemble themselves from the Church on account of it.
> 
> If the PB/CB distinctions are a matter of adiaphora, then why the different denominations and churches?
> 
> Grace and Peace,
> 
> -CH


Rob,

I did not introduce the point you say I introduced. You said:


CalvinandHodges said:


> Baptism is a sacrament of the Church of Jesus Christ, and is not something that can be negotiated. Consequently, I hold that Credo-Baptists teach an error on this matter, and, *as they have separated themselves from the Church, they fulfill the literal definition of the word "heresy."* However, a person can hold to a heresy and still be a Christian (for it is by Grace that one is saved).


You now say, in a similar fashion:


CalvinandHodges said:


> The CB not only denies infant baptism, but is so convinced of his/her views *that they divide and dissemble themselves from the Church on account of it.*


I inferred from your former statement, and seem to be confirmed by your latter statement, that you do not regard Baptist churches as being "true churches," because not bearing the marks of a true church. I gave the quote from the 1883 Synod, not to speak of the baptizing of converts who have never previously been baptized, but to demonstrate that Synod's maintaining (which has never, to my knowledge, been retracted by a subsequent Synod) that Baptist churches are true churches.

You know that I don't regard such differences as light or inconsequential -- our own discussions on this subject in 2003 spring to mind. But I cannot view such differences as casting the Baptist churches out of the kingdom of Christ (especially if we in the Reformed churches will call the Lutheran churches true churches, with all their sacramental errors). If that were the case, I should be rebaptized. If this is (as you possibly indicated) a matter of the _bene esse_ of the church, rather than of the _esse,_ you didn't seem to be saying that in the previously quoted places. But, if that is the case, I will defer and say, "whoops, my bad."


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi Sean:

Discussing the status of a Baptist church seems irrelevant to me on this issue because, as you are well aware, the Reformers considered the Roman Catholic Church a true Church, in regards to _Esse,_ even though Rome holds to all kinds of heresies (Justification by Faith and Works, Transubstantiation, etc.)

So, a church can hold to a heresy, and still be considered a true church. Thank God for this, because none of us are perfect, and that we are saved by Grace Alone rather than our understanding of Biblical doctrine.

Consequently, Baptist churches are true churches insofar as _esse_ is concerned. If we consider _bene esse_ then they are not, and, I believe, that Calvin, the Westminster Assemby, and our own Synod will agree with me on that.

Again, the CB teaching that "Baptism is for Believers Only" is a partial truth, and, when they baptize professing Adults who have not been baptized as infants, they perform a true and Scriptural Baptism. Their error is that they neglect the baptizing of their children. Because they divide on this issue they are heretical on the matter.

Sorry for the mixup. I did not mention _esse_ or _bene esse_ prior because it did not occur to me that I was saying the Baptist churches were outside of the Kingdom of God.

Grace and Peace, brother,

Rob


----------



## Scott1

> as you are well aware, the Reformers considered the Roman Catholic Church a true Church, in regards to Esse, even though Rome holds to all kinds of heresies (Justification by Faith and Works, Transubstantiation, etc.)



I think I understand what you are saying here and realize you are in the midst of an exchange of ideas here on a very specific point.

For clarification for the benefit of those reading this post, we would say the Reformers did not, overall, believe the Roman church to be a "true church." This is because of the practice and official doctrinal falling away from the authority of the Scripture (sola Scriptura), the Gospel (justification by faith alone), and other doctrines (you allude to in your post). When the Gospel and authority of Scripture is lost, we do not have a "true church."

Some doctrines, the Roman church has gotten biblically right such as what you are speaking of here. Reformed theology shares those attributes in common with the church universal (e.g. Doctrine of the Trinity) but that does not make the Roman church a "true church."


----------

