# Puritans credo or paedo?



## Claudiu (Dec 17, 2010)

I was wondering where most Puritans (England and New England) stood on baptism, credo or paedo?


----------



## Reformed Roman (Dec 17, 2010)

I believe paedo, from what I know about the puritans. But this is the puritan board, so I'm sure some others know much better then I do.


----------



## MLCOPE2 (Dec 17, 2010)

From my understanding they were mostly credo. But we'll forgive them for that


----------



## N. Eshelman (Dec 17, 2010)

MLCOPE2 said:


> From my understanding they were mostly credo. But we'll forgive them for that



Who was Credo, besides Bunyan? Seriously? Baptists came later in the game, if I understand my timeline of English non-conformity.


----------



## baron (Dec 18, 2010)

The Puritans were padeo as far as I know.

If I'm not mistaken the Puritans started as a movement to reform the Church of England. The Church of England was formed when Henry 8 seperated from Rome and the Roman Catholic Church. Since Rome baptized infants so did the Church of England and the Puritan's. The Puritan's wanted to clean (Popery) out of the Church of England but never did. They were driven out of the Church of England and they still practised infant baptism. Then along came the Baptist movement who wanted a pure church free from Popery. The Baptist were needed due to the Protestants not truly Rreforming the church from Rome.

At least this is how baptism was explained to me, by an Episcopal preist who practiced infant baptism.


----------



## N. Eshelman (Dec 18, 2010)

baron said:


> The Puritans were padeo as far as I know.
> 
> If I'm not mistaken the Puritans started as a movement to reform the Church of England. The Church of England was formed when Henry 8 seperated from Rome and the Roman Catholic Church. Since Rome baptized infants so did the Church of England and the Puritan's. The Puritan's wanted to clean (Popery) out of the Church of England but never did. They were driven out of the Church of England and they still practised infant baptism. Then along came the Baptist movement who wanted a pure church free from Popery. The Baptist were needed due to the Protestants not truly Rreforming the church from Rome.
> 
> At least this is how baptism was explained to me, by an Episcopal preist who practiced infant baptism.


 
The Puritans did not see infant baptism as part of "popery" though. Look at the Westminster Confession of Faith, the finest Puritan document, and you do not see a rejection of infant baptism. Even the Independents at the Assembly (and later in the Savoy Declaration) do not see infant baptism as popery; but as a biblical expression of what Christ commands. 

Puritans were paedo; but not because they didn't do their job.

---------- Post added at 01:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:57 AM ----------

By the way, I love your schnauzer in your avitar. I always smile when I see him/her. What's his/her name? How old? I heart schnauzers.


----------



## Don Kistler (Dec 18, 2010)

It was overwhelmingly paedo. These were Anglicans, Congregationalists, and Presbyterians, all paedo-baptistic. The number of "credo-baptists" would have been very few. And, to be technical, baptists were not considered Puritans since they were not members of the Church of England who wanted to purify that church.

It is only later in history that men such as Bunyan were considered Puritan because of their theology, even though John Owen admired Bunyan greatly.


----------



## au5t1n (Dec 18, 2010)

My understanding is that it is very difficult to prove conclusively that Bunyan was a credobaptist.


----------



## toddpedlar (Dec 18, 2010)

austinww said:


> My understanding is that it is very difficult to prove conclusively that Bunyan was a credobaptist.


 
Who disputes his being credo???


----------



## au5t1n (Dec 18, 2010)

toddpedlar said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> > My understanding is that it is very difficult to prove conclusively that Bunyan was a credobaptist.
> ...


 
I read somewhere that his church allowed both practices and that we don't have his own view in writing. I don't know if it's true and I don't remember where I read it. Googling it didn't help much, except to confirm that his church did accept paedobaptists into membership.


----------



## toddpedlar (Dec 18, 2010)

austinww said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> > austinww said:
> ...


 
Perhaps with such uncertainty on what you thought you knew about Bunyan & his views, you might not have made such a strong statement about whether he in fact was credo or not?


----------



## au5t1n (Dec 18, 2010)

toddpedlar said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> > toddpedlar said:
> ...


 
I didn't make a statement about whether he in fact was credo or not. I'll leave that question open until the burden of proof can be satisfied. I just read a bit of his treatise on admittance to communion. Bunyan doesn't seem to care whether a person thinks it desirable to be rebaptized or not. This fits well with the practice of his church.

---------- Post added at 02:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:17 PM ----------

In any case, I'll make sure to track down my source first next time.


----------



## amg (Dec 18, 2010)

In the course of my study it appears that Bunyan was indeed a credo-baptist. However, the question hinges on how you define a puritan. I know some who would say that the early baptists were puritans, which means that you now have to include names like John Spilsbury, Hercules Collins, Benjamin Keach and William Kiffin- all major players in the reformed baptist circles. Even to this day well educated and well respected folks will say that Charles Spurgeon was a puritan- and he was also a reformed baptist. The problem that you run into by using a title like puritan is that it is not very definite, in other words, if you narrow the criteria too much then you will end up with only one or two names and if you broaden the spectrum to cover everything from the 1559 to Spurgeon, or, even Lloyd-Jones, who is often called "The Last Puritan," then you will end up with a laundry list of names.

The names are not coming to me now, but I can remember reading of a few other puritans (perhaps in Dr. Beeke's book Meet the Puritans?), apart from Bunyan, who were credo in their belief. However, I am home on Christmas break from the university and I do not have that title with me so I cannot reference it for you. Perhaps, another can. Regardless, there seems to be a pretty strong case for the fact that the puritans were overwhelmingly paedo in belief and practice. Just look at the WCF.


----------



## au5t1n (Dec 18, 2010)

It would seem that there are multiple uses of the word "puritan." If we use it to refer to the group of people in 17th century England who sought for greater purity of worship in the Church of England, then Bunyan, being a separatist, wouldn't fit the bill, and neither for that matter would paedobaptist Jonathan Edwards, seeing he was American and from a later period. However, in retrospect, we might call these men "puritans" because they hold the theology, in whole or in large part, of the 17th century English Puritans. Likewise I'm sure many of us consider ourselves puritans in theology.


----------



## N. Eshelman (Dec 18, 2010)

austinww said:


> It would seem that there are multiple uses of the word "puritan." If we use it to refer to the group of people in 17th century England who sought for greater purity of worship in the Church of England, then Bunyan, being a separatist, wouldn't fit the bill, and neither for that matter would paedobaptist Jonathan Edwards, seeing he was American and from a later period. However, in retrospect, we might call these men "puritans" because they hold the theology, in whole or in large part, of the 17th century English Puritans. Likewise I'm sure many of us consider ourselves puritans in theology.


 
I agree. In some sense we can talk about American Puritans (who were congregationalists); Scottish Puritans (Covenanters); English Puritans (Church of England; OR English Presbyterians like Thomas Watson); or even Dutch Puritans! 

That is the broad usage that I use, and I believe most people use when thinking about Puritans- Puritanism was an ecumenical movement- it was not specifically in the Church of England, although it started there.


----------



## Claudiu (Dec 18, 2010)

nleshelman said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> > It would seem that there are multiple uses of the word "puritan." If we use it to refer to the group of people in 17th century England who sought for greater purity of worship in the Church of England, then Bunyan, being a separatist, wouldn't fit the bill, and neither for that matter would paedobaptist Jonathan Edwards, seeing he was American and from a later period. However, in retrospect, we might call these men "puritans" because they hold the theology, in whole or in large part, of the 17th century English Puritans. Likewise I'm sure many of us consider ourselves puritans in theology.
> ...


 
That's how I think of it.


----------



## Marrow Man (Dec 18, 2010)

WRT Bunyan: I was once told by a Reformed-minded Baptist that his church practiced the "Bunyan model" of baptism. That is, they were officially credo-baptistic, but if someone who had been baptized as an infant wished to join, they would let them join and not require them to be baptized again (though they encouraged it). When he told me this, I said something like "That sounds wonderful." He replied, "Presbyterians always say that." But then he proceeded to tell me that their practice effectively cut them off from all other Baptists. The Southern Baptists in the area (northern Mississippi) didn't like them because they were Calvinistic, and the Reformed Baptists in the area didn't like them because of this particular model.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Dec 18, 2010)

If denying Paedobaptim disqualifies one as a Puritan, then what of Baxter's denial of Limited Atonement? Can he be legitimately "Puritan" or for that matter "Reformed"?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Dec 18, 2010)

I once heard Mark Dever refer to John Bunyan (lovingly) as a "proto-EV minister". Seems to fit.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Dec 18, 2010)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I once heard Mark Dever refer to John Bunyan (lovingly) as a "proto-EV minister". Seems to fit.


 
Help me out. I'm a little slow, what's a "proto-EV"?


----------



## toddpedlar (Dec 18, 2010)

austinww said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> > austinww said:
> ...


 
What you said was that it was very difficult to prove that he was a credobaptist... and I cannot fathom why that would be said. You didn't offer any reason to question whether he was (though it is well known that he was baptized as one, and his treatise to which you refer on whether being baptized as an infant precludes your communing with his church seems very clearly to indicate to me that in fact he was a credo-baptist. He didn't hold the line on rebaptism, as most baptists do - but I don't think it can easily be disputed that he held that believers only should be baptized. He accepted infants as irregularly baptized, but nevertheless truly baptized. Again, I'm sure some would then say that he's not really a credobaptist based on that treatise.


----------



## Ivan (Dec 18, 2010)

On this issue, my heart is with Bunyan.


----------



## Marrow Man (Dec 18, 2010)

Ivan said:


> On this issue, my heart is with Bunyan.



As is mine. And besides, the man could preach!


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Dec 18, 2010)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > I once heard Mark Dever refer to John Bunyan (lovingly) as a "proto-EV minister". Seems to fit.
> ...


 
Evangelical Free Church


----------



## baron (Dec 19, 2010)

nleshelman said:


> The Puritans did not see infant baptism as part of "popery" though. Look at the Westminster Confession of Faith, the finest Puritan document, and you do not see a rejection of infant baptism. Even the Independents at the Assembly (and later in the Savoy Declaration) do not see infant baptism as popery; but as a biblical expression of what Christ commands.
> 
> Puritans were paedo; but not because they didn't do their job.
> 
> ...



I just purchased a copy of The Westminister Confession for my Kindle and started reading about Baptism in Chapt. 28. I will have to search out the board regarding that chapter. My copy has no commentary to refer to.

My schnauzer name is Baron, he is 14 years old and his health is starting to go down hill.


----------



## baron (Dec 19, 2010)

austinww said:


> I read somewhere that his church allowed both practices and that we don't have his own view in writing. I don't know if it's true and I don't remember where I read it. Googling it didn't help much, except to confirm that his church did accept paedobaptists into membership.



I found this in my Kindle edition The Life of John Bunyan by Venables, Edmund 1819-1895, location 1277-84 With these he will not quarrel about"things that are circumstantal" such as water baptism, which he regards as something quite indiffrent, men being "neither the better for having it, nor the worse for having it not." "He will receive them in the Lord as becometh saints. If they will not have communion with him, the neglect is theirs not his. But with the openly profane and ungodly, though, poor people! they have been christened and take the communion, he will have no communion. It would be a strange community, he says, that consisted of men an beasts. Men do not receive their horse or their dog to their table; they put them in a room by themselves."


----------

