# Can one abandon CT yet remain paedo?



## RamistThomist (Oct 8, 2007)

Another way of asking the question, If CT were proved false, would that necessarily disprove paedobaptism from a non-Roman Catholic point of view?


----------



## JM (Oct 8, 2007)

Ask a Lutheran.

From LCMS:


> Infant Baptism
> 
> Q. How does faith play a role in infant baptism? Is faith later taken care of when the child is confirmed?
> 
> ...


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 8, 2007)

Ok, clarify: among Reformed folks. If one is not a Lutheran, and if one is not a Catholic, then see above question.


----------



## Casey (Oct 8, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> If CT were proved false, . . .


Well, Covenant Theology and Reformed Theology are synonymous; if one abandoned CT, he could no longer be considered Reformed.

Perhaps your question, more specifically, is: Can paedobaptism be argued for outside of the framework of CT?


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 8, 2007)

StaunchPresbyterian said:


> Perhaps your question, more specifically, is: Can paedobaptism be argued for outside of the framework of CT?



Try this--can paedobaptism be maintained alongside Calvinistic soteriology outside the framework of CT?


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 8, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> Try this--can paedobaptism be maintained alongside Calvinistic soteriology outside the framework of CT?



I made an argument along those lines in my debate with Cook.

I made arguments from the prophetic passages talking about the NC (all of which just a few include the children of "they").

One could thus make this argument:

1. All those in the NC get the sign of the NC
2. All infant children of believers are in the NC.
3. Therefore, they get the sign.

Now, take a dispie, Arminain literalist. Why would they "spiritualize" the "children?" So, even the Arminian, dispie literalist could accept padobaptism.

Now, I also made arguments from the NT. It was an abductive case admittedly. Why couldn't a NCTer accept paedobaptism? 

So, in short, I think the answer to your question is yes.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 8, 2007)

I think so Jacob. I'm not precisely sure what framework would supplant it.

Assuming the Scriptures were relatively silent regarding the subject of children and the Covenant - perhaps they were mentioned not at all - that there were no Proverbs or commands in the OT or NT regarding raising children in the fear and admonition of the Lord.

My first thought is that it would be a very strange condition for children to be born to parents and be under their care with a fallen human being having no concept on what the Lord's opinion is regarding their upbringing.

My second thought is related to the first. Covenant theology - the notion that children serve the same God as their parents could be demonstrated from the light of nature. In fact, it is notable that those who deny CT outright still practice a modified form of it. It takes a person who is acutely aware of their worldview to figure out a way to organize their life and their children in a way where they could bifurcate the upbringing of their children and have an organic parent-child relationship in every area except how one serves the Lord.

I was listening to Richard Dawkins on The Narrow Mind the other day and he was saying how he considers it child abuse for parents to christen their child and "force them" into a religion before they've had time to "...decide for themselves." My jaw nearly hit the deck when Gene Cook and Jonathan Goundry actually said: "We agree with you...that's why you should be a Baptist." For folks who pride themselves in pre-suppositionalism that was an incredibly naive outlook on how truth is formed in a mind and how a child makes decisions.

I cannot escape my upbringing and my outlook on the world in many ways. There are dispositions in me formed by my family that are inescapable. Nobody, and I mean nobody, has their beliefs and opinions formed in a vacuum. The reason why Dawkins' view is either incredibly naive (or perhaps incredibly sinister because he knows better) is that, if we don't instill the values and beliefs into a child, then someone will. Even the humanists, while they talk about letting children decide for themselves, know full well that they design curricula to form beliefs. Parents who let their children be tossed to and fro by the sea of beliefs among men are fools in my mind.

When I see a child screaming like a brat at their parents and in open defiance of their authority I do not think: "Well, that kid was just born that way." My immediate belief, and the belief of even non-Christians, is that the child is spoiled. That parents are responsible to "drive folly from the heart of a child" is unmistakable from the light of nature.

Now, one may decide that they grant all of the above but still would not grant the paedo position. To me, again, a good chunk of the paedobaptist position is the recognition that Christianity is a maturation process. It's not something were we look, as it were, for people who have somehow fully matured without any external means but by the direct intervention of the finger of God and then we say: "Well, you've got a developed belief - you're now one of us."

Thus, I believe the combination of our natural responsibility toward our children with the concept of Biblical discipleship would make a sound argument for paedobaptism. If it wasn't accepted by all then there would still be the perfunctory "dedications" or some other means that so many Baptists use to say: "I'm going to raise this one up in the fear and admonition of the Lord."


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Oct 8, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> StaunchPresbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps your question, more specifically, is: Can paedobaptism be argued for outside of the framework of CT?
> ...



Many Methodists still practice paedobaptism from an Arminian point of view.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 8, 2007)

Thanks all


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 8, 2007)

reason i brought this up:

say I would read Bock on Ezekiel and found him impressive. I would also read Russell Moore on _Kingdom of Christ_. Yet I still find the paedo case the most impressive. Could I accept their readings of Covenant without accepting their readings of Baptism? I think so at the moment.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Oct 19, 2007)

There are only two arguments from Scripture that can be made for infant baptism...

1. Some form of Baptismal Regeneration (Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans)

or 

2. The argument from the Covenant. 

Apart from one of these views being biblical, there is no sustainable ground for infant baptism in the Scripture.

I reject option 1. 

I find the argument of the Covenant to be overwhelming. The core of Covenant Theology is so clear in the Scriptures that I have never found a supposed refutation of this system to be very convincing.

The odd thing to me is where the Methodists are coming from? Upon what basis does Methodism baptize infants?


----------



## Robert Truelove (Oct 19, 2007)

I am not familiar with Bock or Moore's work on this subject. Could you give a brief synopsis and how it differs with Covenant Theology?

Also, understand there are slightly different permutations within the Reformed camp over some aspects of Covenant Theology; none of which would overthrow the end result regarding infant baptism. As for me, I hold to traditional Covenant Theology (i.e. Covenant of Redemption, Covenant of Works, Covenant of Grace). 




Spear Dane said:


> reason i brought this up:
> 
> say I would read Bock on Ezekiel and found him impressive. I would also read Russell Moore on _Kingdom of Christ_. Yet I still find the paedo case the most impressive. Could I accept their readings of Covenant without accepting their readings of Baptism? I think so at the moment.


----------

