# Baptism and the stance



## Christopher88 (May 26, 2010)

*Weird name I know* 

As I study and believe in Covenant Theology (Grew up Dispensational) I sort of understand why Pedao (SP?) is done, but at the same time I could still argue for cradeo (SP?) 

I guess I really don't have a set question but I would like to understand more of these two views and why you can't be covenant in theology if you hold to believers baptism.
(Or that is what I heard somewhere) 

I can tell you with out an a doubt, I do hold to the belief in covenant theology from what I know of it. 

Thanks for the help.


----------



## Christopher88 (May 26, 2010)

So correct me here my friend in my lack of doctrinal understanding. 
As I understand Padeo it is a sign unto the God that ,"Child" is under God's salvation? Which I feel is wrong on my understanding. 
Baptism is a sign unto God saying we are under your covenant of grace once it is official by our lips. However infant baptism is a sign of what? Or is infant baptism the same as meaning the, "Child" is now saved under the covenant in which I the ,"Father" am under. 

Are all offspring of the elect saved? 

Thanks, Josh and others for helping me to understand more of the reformed view regarding baptism.


----------



## Christopher88 (May 26, 2010)

I will listen to the sermon and get back to this thread. Thank you sir for your help.

Josh, the sermon has about two speakers over speaking one another. Is there a sermon text I could read?


----------



## jonjordan (May 26, 2010)

Very interested in this discussion as well. While previously being under the umbrella of "infant baptism is weird", I took a class and now understand the solid arguments behind both paedo and credo. Without kids yet, my current stance is to submit to the view held by the elders at our church - which right now (though Reformed in much of their theology) is credo. With my current understanding (admittedly little) of the arguments for both, if we were to move and join a paedobaptist church I would submit to that view as well.


----------



## KSon (May 26, 2010)

Joshua said:


> That link's messed up too. It worked a few days ago. Apologies.


 
Josh,

If you find that an operable link becomes available, please pass it along.


----------



## eqdj (May 26, 2010)

Sonny said:


> ... why you can't be covenant in theology if you hold to believers baptism.


 
Exellent question.


----------



## Peairtach (May 26, 2010)

*Josh*


> Reformed paedobaptists do not believe that baptism saves a child. That's nonsense.



This is the case as Josh says. And we don't believe that water baptism saves the adult who is baptised in a Reformed Baptist church or in a paedo (Covenantal) Baptist church.

We believe that the regeneration which is the reality signified and sealed by the sacrament of baptism saves. That regeneration may happen before or after water baptism, in the case of both children and adults who are water baptised. Circumcision of heart didn't necessarily occur at the mpment a baby boy or adult man was circumcised either.

Westminster Confession

CHAPTER XXVII.
Of the Sacraments

II. There is in every sacrament a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified; *whence it comes to pass that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.*

III. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments, rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it, but upon *the work of the Spirit*, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.

CHAPTER XXVIII.
Of Baptism.


VI. *The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;* yet, notwithstanding, by *the right use of this ordinance,* the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, *to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.*

VII. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered to any person.

(Because a person can't be regenerated twice or more times).

We "paedo"baptists are believer's in both adult and child baptism. Maybe we should more properly be called "Covenantal Baptist Churches" as we draw out the natural implications of the Covenant God made with Abraham, which is still in operation under its New Covenant administration.

We believe that "the Baptists" are administering the Covenant *of Grace *and Visible Church too narrowly. Obviously there is more to this administration than baptism (e.g. How the Lord's Supper is administered, church discipline and sanctions, church attendance, family worship, Christian education of various kinds, etc.), but baptism is an important aspect.

God's grace extends in a peculiar way - not always easily understood - to those who profess the Christian religion and their children. They have special promises, priovileges and responsiblities.

In a properly ordered church, those who profess the Christian religion must have a credible profession of faith, or be debarred from the Visible Church and the Visible Covenant of Grace by being denied access to the Lord's Table.

*Quote from Josh*


> then there is the visible church (the elect, whom we do not know are elect, etc.).


 Typo, should be " invisible church"

This seems to be poorly understood by the Baptists, as they are known. A Kirk Session has to operate according to a credible profession of faith (Baptism) and/or an accredited profession of faith (Lord's Table). 

Even the Apostles did not know who the elect were in some infallible manner. Also it is not even possible to tell who the regenerate are in an infallible manner.

We can however, thankfully, infallibly know that we ourselves are regenerate and elect. See II Peter 1:10.

When I call to mind "the washing away of the filth of the flesh" (I Peter 3:21) that was involved in my baptism as a child, that signifies and seals unto me the regeneration, which I believe may have happened about thirteen years later.

_Larger Catechism

Question 167: How is our Baptism to be improved by us?

Answer: The needful but much neglected duty of improving our Baptism, is to be performed by us all our life long, especially in the time of temptation, and when we are present at the administration of it to others; by serious and thankful consideration of the nature of it, and of the ends for which Christ instituted it, the privileges and benefits conferred and sealed thereby, and our solemn vow made therein; by being humbled for our sinful defilement, our falling short of, and walking contrary to, the grace of baptism, and our engagements; by growing up to assurance of pardon of sin, and of all other blessings sealed to us in that sacrament; by drawing strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are baptized, for the mortifying of sin, and quickening of grace; and by endeavoring to live by faith, to have our conversation in holiness and righteousness, as those that have therein given up their names to Christ; and to walk in brotherly love, as being baptized by the same Spirit into one body._


----------



## Iconoclast (May 26, 2010)

> Credobaptist-ism, etc." is really a poor choice of name to identify oneself with the Baptist doctrine. Antipaedobaptist is much more accurate.



Baptism, if performed scripturally and upon a scriptural subject, is at once
an act of obedience, identification and submission. It is first an act of
obedience, the first outward testimony of the new believer corresponding to our Lord’s word: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that
believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:16). This statement reveals that one who is truly converted will desire to be outwardly identified with and
obedient to the word of his Lord and Savior (Acts 2:36–42; 8:36–38; 9:17–
19).
Believer's baptism [credo baptism] is taught in scripture.it is a fine name to use. it is a positive obedience to Jesus teaching.


> Antipaedobaptist is much more accurate



Most baptists obeyed the clear command of scripture, without being anti-anything. I have never hear someone say I am being baptized as an antipadeo baptist They usually say that God has worked inside them by His Spirit, convicting them of sin,granting salvation to them.
They are glad to identify with the people of God. They are happy to obey Jesus command and teaching.


----------



## Iconoclast (May 26, 2010)

Josh,
I really believe that baptists are really trying to obey what Jesus taught in a positive light. This idea of anti-padeo is not the primary thought of most baptists that I am familiar with.
They will reject the idea of baptismal regeneration as practiced by ROME. You do also. I am not anti -Josh, I think I am for you as a brother in Christ.
We have a different understanding of what baptism is{to some extent}
and to who are the proper subjects of that baptism,yes.
We do agree it is important.
The term antipadeobaptist sounds very negative to me. If the RB view is the biblical view, then I would be for you in that I would be offering reasons for you to reconsider what you believe and come to the biblical position. You no doubt believe you have the biblical position and are offering that up for the baptists, or those who are new to this study.
Most baptists do not know what the padeo position is, or they have misconceptions about it...I know I had some myself. Some parts of it still surprise me from time to time. That's just some feedback on the term.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (May 27, 2010)

Joshua said:


> "Antipaedobaptist" is just an historical term and, In my humble opinion, more helpful in articulating the baptist position. If one takes it as being offense, it is due to a misunderstanding of its use. The term "Credobaptism" which connotes "believer's baptism" when applied to baptists as over and against Reformed folk gives the impression that said Reformed folk deny "believer's baptism," when nothing could be further from the truth. It's helpful to have meaningful and accurate terms when discussing these things, lest a position be poorly represented or misrepresented altogether.


 
You may believe it more helpful in _articulating the baptist position_, but the fact is you are not a Baptist and the usage is unnecessarily inflammatory to your Baptist Brethren as well as derailing the thread. It would be good for us to not quibble with semantics and simply use the common nomenclature, "Credobaptist" as a courtesy.

The fact is, "paedobaptist" is equally misleading because it gives the impression that you all only baptize infants: which is equally ludicrous. So, if your going to change our name than we should probably change yours as well.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (May 28, 2010)

Joshua said:


> C. M. Sheffield said:
> 
> 
> > You may believe it more helpful in _articulating the baptist position_, but the fact is you are not a Baptist and the usage is unnecessarily inflammatory to your Baptist Brethren as well as derailing the thread. It would be good for us to not quibble with semantics and simply use the common nomenclature, "Credobaptist" as a courtesy.
> ...



Insisting that one could only object to the term out of ignorance is insulting! Can you not see that? We do not object out of ignorance to the term. We object because because our view is a response to Scripture's teaching that only those repent and believe should receive baptism (ergo: Credo-baptist) It has nothing to do with what infant baptists believe on the topic. 

And whether you disagree with my argument for why it is inflammatory or insulting is irrelevant - they are none the less. So I would kindly ask you to stop the right-fighting, and exercise charity to your brethren by using the term Credobaptist (or just plain Baptist). 



Joshua said:


> > The fact is, "paedobaptist" is equally misleading because it gives the impression that you all only baptize infants: which is equally ludicrous.
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't. It just means that we _do_ baptize infants.



I know what the term means. But there is noting in the term stopping someone from concluding that it means that you only baptize babies. I'm proof of this fact! For a long time as a young Christian I was under just that impression! 

The term is "Paedobaptist" which means "Infant baptist." That term fails to fully communicate the paedobaptist position because it says nothing about adult believers. If we're going to be precises then a better term would be:

"PAEDO-ET-CREDO BAPTISTS"​
What do you think? Accurate, but not as catchy. 

Now I will concede that "credobaptist" is also insufficient. Our position is perhaps best summed up in the the words "believer's baptism alone." Now I'm no Latin scholar so bear with me. The term would be something like:

"SOLA-CREDO BAPTIST"​
Again, not as catchy. 

We can acknowledge the imperfection of the terms "paedo" and "credo" without saying that they insufficiently serve the purpose of our theological discussions. Agreed?


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (May 28, 2010)

Joshua said:


> Dear Pastor,
> 
> You accuse me of lacking charity over something that shouldn't be taken as offensive if one _correctly _understands the terms employed, and in doing so are yourself being uncharitable. Regardless of "catchiness" of a term, it's irrelevant if said term is misleading in the context of its misuse (in other words, the term _credobaptist_ is not misleading in itself, it's only misleading when a Baptist uses it to distinguish himself from Reformed Paedobaptists). It's not appropriate to accuse one of lacking charity because of the _right _distinction of terminology. When I say one is "objecting out of ignorance," that shouldn't be taken as an insult either. I didn't say, "objecting out of _stupidity_," as there's a large difference between being _stupid_ and being _ignorant_. Once a person understands the meaning of _antipaedobaptist_, and how it is _not_ a derogatory term, then their taking offense is no longer valid. At that point, they're no longer _ignorant_ but informed. Ergo, feeling insulted by it is unwarranted and unprovoked.
> 
> On the contrary, you imputing a lack of charity on my part with baseless grounds _is_ uncharitable, technically speaking. I don't mind it, though, and simply state it since you've brought it up. While _paedobaptist_ is not an all-inclusive identification of the Reformed doctrine of baptism, it does not claim to be _exclusive_, where as you seem to be arguing that I should just accept _credobaptist_ as meaning baptism of believer's only. So I should accept something that's not entirely accurate because someone chooses to take offense over something on baseless foundation?  "Paedobaptist" is not intended to be all-inclusive and certainly not restrictive. Neither does the term "Credobaptist" lend itself to the inclusion of _only_ believers, just that it identifies one _kind_ of baptism. And that's fine, but that makes those of us who believe in Reformed Paedobaptism just as much Credobaptist as any Baptists out there since we do, in fact, believe and practice, the baptism of professing believers.


 
I NEVER SAID YOU LACKED CHARITY! I ASKED YOU TO EXERCISE IT!

and WE'RE NOT IGNORANT! WE GET WHAT THE WORD MEANS and simply DISAGREE WITH IT!

STOP INSISTING THAT WE'RE IGNORANT OF THE WORDS MEANING! 

IT'S INSULTING BECAUSE IT'S UNTRUE!​


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (May 28, 2010)

Joshua said:


> My apologies, Pastor. I guess it was more of an _implication_ that I was _not_ exercising charity up to that point.



I understand. 



Joshua said:


> If you disagree with what the word means then why use it?



I _don't_ use the word "antipaedobaptist." 



Joshua said:


> I did not make a blanket statement that all baptists without exception are ignorant of its meaning. I've made a distinction between those who _are_ ignorant of its meaning and those who _aren't_ but persist in taking offense to my objection thereof.



You're posts heretofore have drawn no such distinction between _"all baptists without exception"_ and the two Baptists (Iconoclast & myself) with whom you are engaged in this thread. My use of plural pronouns was in reference to the two of us taking issue with the term "antipaedobaptist." I had no reason to assume that the charge of ignorance was not directed toward us. 



Joshua said:


> Why are you using all caps?



Isn't it obvious?


----------



## Wannabee (May 28, 2010)

Dear Josh,

Perhaps this will help. I'm not offended by it so much as it _seems_ a bit ignorantly arrogant from a credo perspective. Please let me explain.

First, it makes paedo the reference point. But, from a credo perspective it's not the reference point at all. Obedience to Christ is. Forcing this reference point upon us comes across as arrogant, as if the paedobaptist has the right to dictate from which point all positions must refer to themselves.
Second, for the credo, paedobaptism is not baptism at all. We, generally speaking, do not acknowledge it as baptism. Though you profess a baptistic background, you seem to miss this point. As you pointed out, this isn't stupidity, but does seem ignorant of the heart of your credo brethren.

In light of this to be called "antipaedopaptist" necessarily imposes a focus, and indeed an acknowledgment, that is nonexistent in the mind of a credo. We baptize those with a credible profession of faith, period. Any other form of baptism, from our perspective, is no baptism at all. And, no, we don't baptize the dead either.  This would, I suppose, make us antinecrobaptists?

I don't say this uncharitably or looking down my nose. It's simply a clear difference in understanding, regardless of the historic use of the term. And I hope my explanation adds clarity and is not seen as inflammatory. I respect my paedo brethren and know many of them live and walk much close to Christ than I, but give it no biblical credence whatsoever to this aspect of their theology. On the other hand, I do understand when a paedo brother thinks I sin in refusing to baptize babies as covenant children as well. In this we simply must charitably disagree.


Blessings,


----------



## Wannabee (May 28, 2010)

I failed to notice there were several posts while I was still working on mine. Guess I need to work faster.

Thanks Josh. I appreciate your charitable response.



Blessings,


----------



## jayce475 (May 28, 2010)

Terms will always be just that, terms. And reactions to terms will always differ in one way or another. Credobaptist doesn't sound too right to the ears of many a paedobaptists, just as how anti-paedobaptist sounds awful to many Baptist brethren. It's not that dissimilar from the continuationist/cessationist debate. Continuationists hate the term charismatics being applied to them, while cessationist as a term is not always readily accepted by Reformed folks as it also seems to imply that God can't work extraordinarily. A little charity on the usage of these terms and benefit of the doubt given to those who do use these terms often goes a long way.


----------



## Peairtach (May 28, 2010)

Paedobaptist isn't always an ideal term either, because we baptise adults, not just children.

Covenantal Baptists (?)


----------



## Christopher88 (May 30, 2010)

Please name me the book that does this:
I want a book that is a side by side study of both positions. 
I hold to Covenant theology and I still don't understand why you can't be covenant and credeo.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (May 30, 2010)

Sonny said:


> Please name me the book that does this:
> I want a book that is a side by side study of both positions.



The Book to Read: _Baptism: Three Views_ 



Sonny said:


> I hold to Covenant theology and I still don't understand why you can't be covenant and credeo.



You can be! And I would argue the credobaptist position is the only one that's consistently covenantal.


----------



## Christopher88 (May 30, 2010)

Rev. Pastor could you please than tell me why those of the infant baptism camp say you can not be covenant?


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (May 30, 2010)

No, because it isn't the case. 

I would encourage you to read Walter Chantry's _BAPTISM AND COVENANT THEOLOGY_


----------



## Christopher88 (May 30, 2010)

Thank you sir, I will begin to read now.


----------

