# How has your view of baptism changed?



## Andres

Based on a question in another thread, this poll's purpose is to survey members’ beliefs in baptism, specifically if you have changed your position at any point in your Christian life. For example, I was saved into a Pentecostal church and my initial baptismal view was credo, but through the years I came to embrace Presbyterianism and the paedo view. What has your experience been?


----------



## Reformation Monk

40 years as a paedobaptist and am now a credo.


----------



## JoannaV

Not entirely the same question, as baptismal beliefs do not always coincide with church attendance, but interesting nonetheless.


----------



## Andres

JoannaV said:


> Not entirely the same question, as baptismal beliefs do not always coincide with church attendance, but interesting nonetheless.



Well your original question was whether more people transferred membership from Baptist churches to Presbyterian churches or vice versa. I broadened the question to include more than just Baptists and Presbyterians yet I also narrowed it to the specific reason why one might transfer membership. Personally, I've never heard of anyone transfering solely due to views on polity. The only other reason might be due to location, as if a Presbyterian moved and they couldn't find any solid Presbyterian church so they became members at a RB church.


----------



## kodos

Started off as a credo-baptist, and was "conditioned" to think that anyone who baptized their babies were heretics at worst, and traditionalists at best (kinda like most of the evangelical church views Calvinists!). So much so, that when I was looking for a solid Reformed Church I groaned when I found out that the Presbyterian Church (PCA/OPC, etc.) were paedo baptists. I thought, "I love everything about their churches except for the infant baptisms!".

But you know what, that set off a slight inkling in the back of my brain that, "if they are this biblically committed, surely they didn't just decide to baptize infants based on tradition". So that launched a long investigation into paedo-baptism, which was great because I was already studying Covenant Theology.

Suddenly, the lightbulb went off - and it became clear as day, and suddenly my credo-convictions just crumbled quickly. It probably helped that I had already started being 'de-programmed' slowly from my original Arminian Dispensational viewpoints. First, decisional regeneration fell. Then dispensationalism fell. Then finally credo-baptism fell, and suddenly family worship made a lot of sense, 1 Cor 7 made sense, Gen 17, etc.

I'm sure that's probably a typical pattern for many - especially since modern evangelicalism is so tightly woven into credo convictions, and not Reformed credo convictions - but rather Arminian credo convictions!

That said, I have the utmost respect for Reformed folk who fall on the other side of the divide - especially on this board. You guys tend to be more thoughtful and gracious than even some of the Reformed Baptist leaders (like Piper) when it comes to this topic.


----------



## FCC

I born the son of a Southern Baptist pastor and thus was firmly raised as a credo-baptist. The Lord brought me into a knowledge of the Regulative Principle of Worship first. We actually started by giving up the "holy"days after reading their history in an encyclopedia. We then embraced exclusive Psalmody as an off shoot of that study. We struggled with Cavlinism for a long time. My wife was saved in a Free Methodist church and her membership classes had castigated Cavlinists so she struggled for a long time with the doctrines of grace. I was still firmly credo at this point and even pontificated with a Reformed Baptist elder that I had meet on how I would NEVER, NEVER become a "baby Baptists." Then came the clincher. My Dad, who still doesn't understand my Reformed doctrine, gave me a copy of Berkhof's Systematic Theology. My reading of that brought me into the paedo Baptist camp.


----------



## JoannaV

Andres said:


> JoannaV said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not entirely the same question, as baptismal beliefs do not always coincide with church attendance, but interesting nonetheless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well your original question was whether more people transferred membership from Baptist churches to Presbyterian churches or vice versa. I broadened the question to include more than just Baptists and Presbyterians yet I also narrowed it to the specific reason why one might transfer membership. Personally, I've never heard of anyone transfering solely due to views on polity. The only other reason might be due to location, as if a Presbyterian moved and they couldn't find any solid Presbyterian church so they became members at a RB church.
Click to expand...


I am not entirely sure about membership, because someone may be unable to be a member of some churches whilst disagreeing on baptism, but I can easily see people attending a church regardless of views on baptism. I guess some areas are drier than others, but my experience has often been of such a drought of Bible-preaching churches that to find one church that preached the Word was really all one could hope for. If you can only find one truly Reformed church, then that's kind of where you're stuck for a season. Though to view it as being "stuck" would be unfair and misleading.


----------



## DAN-the-UK-man

kodos said:


> Started off as a credo-baptist, and was "conditioned" to think that anyone who baptized their babies were heretics at worst, and traditionalists at best (kinda like most of the evangelical church views Calvinists!). So much so, that when I was looking for a solid Reformed Church I groaned when I found out that the Presbyterian Church (PCA/OPC, etc.) were paedo baptists. I thought, "I love everything about their churches except for the infant baptisms!".
> 
> But you know what, that set off a slight inkling in the back of my brain that, "if they are this biblically committed, surely they didn't just decide to baptize infants based on tradition". So that launched a long investigation into paedo-baptism..



This is my position at the moment, from a reformed baptist church back in the Uk, at the moment attending a reformed Presbyterian to which i groaned also because of baptizing infants, but love the preaching of the word there. I am at the moment undergoing my investigation on the subject, my pastor from the UK is send me a book or two which argues against it.


----------



## Peairtach

I've been paedo all my Christian life, and my Christian life started before I was regenerated, i.e. my Christian life started when I was conceived and I was solemnly admitted to the visible catholic Church by baptism as an infant. God engrafted me into the visible Church in His gracious providence.

By God's grace I probably was regenerated when I was 13. I not only was in the Vine, but also drinking of the sap of the Vine and producing fruit (John 15).


----------



## E Nomine

I went from being a paedobaptist without understanding why to being a paedobaptist by conviction. I understand and tolerate both credo and paedo positions regarding baptism and communion.


----------



## athanatos

Been raised credo, non-regenerative, symbolic reflection of actual grace (but not a means of grace). Been leaning toward paedobaptism, but not yet taken the plun--- sprinkling.


----------



## fishingpipe

Born and raised Southern Baptist. Became paedobaptist while reforming and presented my two oldest (ages 3 and 2) for baptism back in 2002. My youngest was baptized at 38 days on Christmas Day, 2005.


----------



## Scottish Lass

E Nomine said:


> I went from being a paedobaptist without understanding why to being a paedobaptist by conviction.


----------



## yoyoceramic

I did not understand paedobaptism until I read Kim Riddlebarger's "The Covenantal Contextfor Discussing the Sacraments".


----------



## steadfast7

born presbyterian but parents didn't baptize as a baby, so got baptized in teenage years in a pentecostal church. Still vividly remember and it's a powerful reminder to this day. I understand paedobaptism, but cannot let go of a few things: 
1. the subjective experience of remembering one's own baptism
2. immersion as a testimony of being buried with Christ; and the baptism in the flood waters (Noah), as well as the red sea (Moses).
3. keeping in line with New Testament witness and Jesus' own baptism, as well as the baptism of the first Gentile converts in their adulthood.
4. what I believe to be the practice of the early church until the 3rd century or so.
5. the fullness of the sacramental promises for 'faithful' participants of the covenant.
6. true Israel and children of Abraham as the elect in Christ.
7. Baptism as a very New Testament thing.


----------



## pianoman

I have always been credo, but currently studying the paedo position. I am pretty much deciding to stay credo, but I am open and tolerant to brothers who believe otherwise


----------



## J Miles

I've drifted more towards Paedobaptist since learning about covenant theology and how it relates to baptism.
I try not to make this my primary focus though, and I am tolerant towards the LBC 1689 views.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe

Been credo all my life except for 2 brief stints of paedo


----------



## Herald

I answered "other" because of the crisis I had over baptism after I embraced Reformed theology. In 2005 I was still a credobaptist but was struggling greatly with issues surrounding the New Covenant. It took a while to work them out, but once I did my credobaptist position went from being shaky to firm.


----------



## "William The Baptist"

kodos said:


> Started off as a credo-baptist, and was "conditioned" to think that anyone who baptized their babies were heretics at worst, and traditionalists at best (kinda like most of the evangelical church views Calvinists!). So much so, that when I was looking for a solid Reformed Church I groaned when I found out that the Presbyterian Church (PCA/OPC, etc.) were paedo baptists. I thought, "I love everything about their churches except for the infant baptisms!".



Conditioned was a good word choice. I can relate to all of it minus the groaning part.  I would say I am not hostile toward paedo by any means (slowly peeling the layers); I just cannot say I am paedo until I am convinced in my own mind and able to _articulate_ my belief. That being said, grown up credo. Would you have any studying resources you would recommend? 

So my answer is other. 

And credo turned to paedo seems to be most prevalent.


----------



## Marrow Man

"William The Baptist" said:


> Would you have any studying resources you would recommend?



Yes, _William the Baptist_ 

http://www.covenantofgrace.com/william_the_baptist.htm

(I know this question was addressed to kudos, but I just couldn't resist  ).


----------



## "William The Baptist"

Marrow Man said:


> "William The Baptist" said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you have any studying resources you would recommend?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, _William the Baptist_
> 
> William the Baptist
> 
> (I know this question was addressed to kudos, but I just couldn't resist  ).
Click to expand...


Toooo funny.  A wonderful book. It has given much to process, pray through, and wrestle through. Great introduction!


----------



## BenjaminBurton

I'm with Miss William the Baptist on this one. I was raised dispensational, Arminian credo and have been on a long road of seeking to understand the paedo position. It makes sense to me, I agree with it, but I'm going to have to stick with "other" until I can clearly articulate my belief. And until I'm ready to take that tuition hike...


----------



## kodos

"William The Baptist" said:


> Conditioned was a good word choice. I can relate to all of it minus the groaning part.  I would say I am not hostile toward paedo by any means (slowly peeling the layers); I just cannot say I am paedo until I am convinced in my own mind and able to _articulate_ my belief. That being said, grown up credo. Would you have any studying resources you would recommend?
> 
> So my answer is other.
> 
> And credo turned to paedo seems to be most prevalent.



Hi Leah,

I have recently received,_ "Word Water and Spirit: a Reformed Perspective on Baptism" _by J.V. Fesko - I just started reading it last night, and it appears to be an excellent albeit slightly technical look at this subject. I cannot recommend it yet, as I have barely cracked it open  - but it looks outstanding. Our very own Lane Keister on the PB (greenbaggins) was even thanked by the author.

However, it wasn't a single work that convinced me, but many. I've had to now debate this issue, and teach it to others - so I am pretty confident that I can articulate the doctrine at this point, which is where you want to be. It can take a while!

Here are some of the works that helped develop my thought process:

*God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology* by Michael Horton. NOTE: I started reading this work before I got to Infant Baptism as a topic I wanted to study. But I think it laid a fertile ground for my being receptive to it.
*A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith*: Robert L. Reymond. Has a pretty good treatise of Infant Baptism under the Sacraments. It was also quite instrumental in my understanding the nature of the Sacraments, which like understanding Covenant Theology is vital to understanding the Reformed view of Infant Baptism.
*Calvin's Institutes*: More than any work this one helped me understand the nature of the sacraments and the paedo position. Again, understanding the nature of a sacrament in Reformed thought is vital to understanding the paedo position.
*The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way* by Michael Horton. Again, more help in understanding sacraments, covenants and infant baptism.
*The Bible*: particularly how God worked through His people in the OT church, and seeing the continuum between the OT and the NT. This might sound trite, but really apprehending the OT by the light of the NT was really vital for all the pieces to 'fall in place'.


In the interest of not wanting to turn this thread into a debate, I will refrain from articulating how I precisely came to a view of this through Scripture - as that is usually the first step to people wanting to debate!


----------



## baron

Seeing how I was born and raised a Roman Catholic I was baptized on Oct. 31, 1954. So I guess I was paedobaptist. I even baptised my daughter in the RC. But after I was saved I was told that a RC baptism was not biblical, seeing how the RC church does not proclaim the Gospel. So I needed to be baptized by immersion. So now I'm credo. From reading the bible it seem's the right way to me. But again that's me and I have never really studied the diffrences.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

The results of this poll are truly interesting. Not because there are so many credos who switched to paedo, but because there are so few who have always been paedo. I would have expected more, but then again maybe they just didn't feel the need to vote.


----------



## CharlieJ

Bill The Baptist said:


> The results of this poll are truly interesting. Not because there are so many credos who switched to paedo, but because there are so few who have always been paedo. I would have expected more, but then again maybe they just didn't feel the need to vote.



Bill, I agree with the noticeably small number. A while back I asked a question (or maybe did a poll) about the backgrounds of PB members. I'm pretty sure that most of the people on this board are "converts" to Reformed theology. Thus, almost all of them would have been credobaptist to start with. I think that most people who have maintained the belief system from childhood and who are not involved in seminary or ministry simply don't have the interests that fuel participation in boards like this.


----------



## TexanRose

I was raised paedobaptist, but never really understood the position, so gravitated towards credobaptist views as a young adult. More recently, I began studying the issue in-depth as I wished to join a Reformed Presbyterian church, and knew that I would be expected to have my two sons baptized. I didn't "get" paedobaptism until I read this excellent booklet:

Covenant Baptism

Now I had been reading and studying and thinking for some time, and had become more and more firmly credobaptist based on my understanding at the time of the covenants. But Mr. Bloomfeld's explanation of the covenant of grace vs. the outward administration of the covenants was so clear and logical, that as I read it everything fell into place and I became a convinced paedobaptist. The booklet is only $3, and I highly recommend it to anyone who wants to "get" paedobaptism but can't.


----------



## SRoper

I was baptized as a baby in the UCC, but my parents weren't Christians at the time. When they became Christians twelve years later they became members of a credobaptist church. When I became a Christian in college, I studied the issue and was convinced of paedobaptism. I'm in the strange position of being the only one between my parents and me to believe I've been properly baptized and I was the one with no say in the matter.


----------



## Jack K

Bill The Baptist said:


> The results of this poll are truly interesting. Not because there are so many credos who switched to paedo, but because there are so few who have always been paedo. I would have expected more, but then again maybe they just didn't feel the need to vote.



That was me. Didn't feel the need to vote because I haven't changed my position. Just rectified that. (By voting, not by changing)


----------



## jwright82

You will enjoy my story Andres because my daughter was baptized at your church and by your minister, one of the best ministers I have had the pleasure of knowing by the way. I was raised in an Epsicopal church only to change to a baptist church when I met my ex-wife, we dated for a coulpe of years until her old piano teacher called her to play at this new baptist church her husband starting. So of course for her, and back than I could care less about theology, I went there too. 

Well I adopted their views on everything except I became, thanks to R.C. Sproul and her father, a Calvinist. I debated with her father about infant baptism up until I went into the Air Force. At the end of basic training my ex and her father brought me many books, one being Berkhof's _Systematic Theology_. She was pregnant a couple of months before I left to go to Texas for my basic training. When I went to techschool her father was asking about whether we would have my daughter baptized when she was born. My poor ex was caught beetween her father, a wonderful man whom I deeply respect to this day, encourging infant baptism and me discourging against it. 

The break for me came when I studyed covanent theology from Berkhof and the sacraments as well. That and debating with her father convinced me that infant baptism is the biblical model for baptism. So she came to live with me, while pregnant, in tech school and we went to a wonderful OPC church in Wichita Falls Texas. Robert Lotzer, Andres' pastor and my old one in Abeline Texas, actually came up there to preach and talked with my ex and I about helping us out when we moved there, which he and and everyone in the church did. Well to make a long story short shortly after we arived my ex gave birth to Sarah our daughter. While in the proccess of joining the church Robert baptized our daughter, I still have her baptismal dress. Actually the church was admonished, I think, at Presbytery for baptizing our daghter while we were not technicaly members. 

I was sitting with one of our elders at Presbytery, it was held at our church that year, and when they announced it he leaned over and laughed saying "that was because of you". On a personal note Andres I would love to send pictures of Sarah to Robert is there anyway you can arange that? I don't have his email, also tell him she is a committed christian at age 8, she has been for some time(I think he will be proud). I am sure that he and his wife would love love see her now and in between through pictures. I will talk to her mother and see which ones we want to send. Thanks in advance.


----------



## Robert Truelove

Began credobaptist, went paedobaptist, was ordained a Presbyterian minister, in time returned to credobaptism and pastor a Reformed Baptist church today. For me it took coming full circle to properly get all of the issues on the table to make sense of them. It was not a simple journey.


----------



## "William The Baptist"

kodos said:


> However, it wasn't a single work that convinced me, but many. I've had to now debate this issue, and teach it to others - so I am pretty confident that I can articulate the doctrine at this point, which is where you want to be. It can take a while!


 
Yes. Thank you for your input and suggestions! I appreciate it very much. Very helpful. 

The patience factor is hard to accept. There is so much to learn, so much I need to study... I wish I could know it all now!-but there is such joy and richness studying more about the Lord I love, even if it slower than I would wish.  I want to be thorough in my studying, peeling the layers and digging deep, not just going on a whim by any means.


----------



## Reformed Roman

I've been Credo all my life but I'm open to change. I think the important thing is not to wrestle with positions, as much as simply looking and reading over the text and wrestling with God over it.


----------



## JM

Paedobaptist by tradition (the first church I attended was paedo), latter credo by association (was attending a Baptist church) and confirmed credo after reading and studying the issue. PB has helped in the process.


----------



## Marrow Man

Grew up credo (immersed about age 10 upon false/weak profession of faith), because a Christian in college, began attending a Presbyterian (PCA) Bible study and later church, soon became a committed paedo after studying the issue.


----------



## deleteduser99

Lifelong credobaptist.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

Credo to Paedo


----------



## DMcFadden

More than five decades as credo; been considering paedo for the last few years; leaning paedo intellectually, but have not made the unplunge yet.


----------



## KMK

I was raised in United UMC/PCUSA church. (believe it) So I don't know what I was. After reforming I wanted badly to be a Presbyterian but, much to my chagrin, became convinced of credobaptism.


----------



## Pilgrim

I answered "paedobaptist to credobaptist" but it has been a lot more complicated than that. Maybe I should have chosen "other" although I did go from paedo to credo, albeit with a number of stops in between! 

My experience has probably been closest to Robert Truelove's except that I was raised in a mainline paedobaptist church (UMC.) I suspect given one's perspective, the question may arise as to what the choice "my entire Christian life means." But since most Reformed paedobaptists would accept my sprinkling in a liberal United Methodist congregation as being Christian baptism, I think we should start there. As with brother. Truelove, it has not been an easy process for me. 

Once I was converted after several years of blasphemy and dabbling in new ageish meditation, etc., I adopted baptistic views, probably because that was the view of most of my formative influences. At that time, I knew nothing about covenant theology and at best may have only been faintly aware of any conservative evangelicals who held to non-regenerative infant baptism. After leaving an independent "Sovereign Grace" congregation over unrelated doctrinal issues a few years later, I eventually adopted Reformed paedobaptist views and started attending a congregation of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church shortly before becoming a member of this board. 

About 3 years ago I relocated and was faced with finding a new church to join, I reconsidered the issue after a more thorough study of the Scriptures and a more thorough study of Baptist writings this time around. I adopted the Baptist views with more conviction this time and with less regard to what implications there were for which church to attend. (The change was made when we were in the middle of joining a PCA congregation.) At this point I suspect my previous acceptance of covenantal infant baptism had a lot to do with frustration over a perceived lack of sound Baptist churches in the area. Once I finally grasped the argument for covenant infant baptism and the Presbyterian argument for the meaning and mode of baptism (thanks to Jay Adams, mainly, with a nod to _William the Baptist_) I bought in. 

With my change back to Baptist views, I'm sure some have thought "he was always really a Baptist deep down" even though I used to denounce and ridicule Baptists. (I had pretty much always done that with more mainstream (and especially Southern) Baptists, even while holding baptistic views.) I wonder if that's why the Presbyterians in my life did very little to try to dissuade me. There was 1000x more resistance on the Puritanboard, even though what I posted here was the same note I sent to those pastors. That there wouldn't have been much said on the part of the church we were planning to join is more understandable, since there was less of a relationship there and we were not members. But the church I had joined two years earlier and where we had been married just 3 months prior did nothing whatsoever to try to dissuade me. It was as if I was of no concern because I moved away, even though I had been implored to join a couple of years earlier even though I had some disagreements with them at that time. But I digress. And I'm sure the same can be said of some Baptist congregations, even some that are relatively sound.

With the last change on this issue (and some other issues as well) I've forfeited some ministry opportunities and at least one possibility of being in leadership. It doesn't seem that I can ever do anything the easy way! But I have to admit that I probably wasn't ready for that responsibility at that time. The choice to become Presbyterian was in many respects more agonizing, but I lost more with the switch back to Baptist views. 

As to the poll results, I do think the numbers are skewed in favor of the paedobaptists in large part because there are relatively few evangelical paedobaptist churches today compared to 100 years ago. (I'm thinking specifically of the USA.) The various reasons for that development are beyond the scope of this thread.


----------



## Matthew Tringali

Grew up Roman Catholic, but will set that aside for the purpose of this poll...

Upon leaving the RCC in my youth, my family began attending various baptist and arminian-bapstist-type churches. And thus, was actually re-baptized at that time (something which I now regret, but was doing what I was told was right, in my youth). In college I was leading a bible study on Romans and my eyes were opened to the truth of reformed theology. At that time I was attending a church that was the equivalent of a Reformed Baptist, but didn't even realize that until later. So, in any case I moved along with a reformed, but credo-baptist, viewpoint for several years.

As I spent more and more time in theological studies I grew to a deeper understanding of covenant theology, not just reformed theology. It was upon this that I began looking more seriously at the merits of paedobaptism and became wholly convinced of them.


----------



## PatrickTMcWilliams

Other: Raised Credo, then at age 21 began attending a PCA church (and dating a Presbyterian!). That was the turning point in my life where I could no longer believe doctrines simply because my parents had taught me that way; I had to research it for myself. For a while, I strongly leaned toward a Paedo position, but am now firmly Credo.


----------



## gritsrus

Credo my entire Christian life. The more I've looked into it, the firmer my convicton.


----------



## DawnTreader

Credobaptist to Paedobaptist ... and very recently.

Just had my first born son baptized last Lord's Day. Blessed time and thankful to God for His covenant blessings.


----------



## dudley

A quote from Symington

"Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."

William Symington

It is why I abandoned roman Catholicism and renounced it totally with no hesitation when I discovered the truth.

When I first became a Presbyterian in 2007 I wrote and stated to the elders that I renounced my roman Catholicism and her pope and all her teachings that were contrary to the true Gospel of Christ. 

In time I came to believe the roman catholic church as a false church and a harlot of Satan himself. I did not consider my roman catholic baptism as valid. I also became a very staunch Protestant and a solid Reformed Protestant.

For a while in 2008 2009 I believed that the Reformed Baptists were truly Protestant and more purely and authentically Protestant than even Presbyterians. I also thought I liked the Baptist use of the word ordinance rather than sacrament because it more clearly defines what Baptism and the Lords Supper really are. They were ordained by God to be a sign of our accepting Jesus Christ alone as our savior. They are not a means of grace and salvation in themselves as roman Catholicism teaches. Furthermore the Baptist position signifies that they are not necessary for salvation as papists teach but are a symbol of our salvation through Christ Jesus. 

As my knowledge of Protestantism expanded I became a Reformed Protestant because I believe Reformed Protestantism is the most purely and authentically Protestant. We are against heresy and popery as a corrupt and evil institution and as Protestants we promote the truth of the true church and Gospel founded by Jesus Christ 2000 years ago. Reformed Protestantism is a return to the true church. Even the roman church taught me that Presbyterians and Baptists were the furthest from Rome in their theology and teachings , worship and sacrament, ordinances. I am a Reformed Protestant because we are further from the corruptions of Rome than any other branch of Protestantism. 

In the summer of 2009 I started to attend a reformed Baptist church. On Reformation Sunday 2009 I was baptized by immersion in the Baptist church. However after a few months I began exploring again and I returned To the Presbyterian fold. I was received into my current Presbyterian church by re affirmation of faith on October 24th 2010.I am and want to be purely most Protestant in my expression of the Christian faith.

I do now believe in Paedo baptism and believe it was more my belief that my Roman catholic baptism was not valid. 

I feel my journey and conversion to Protestantism has been on going and is now complete. I was baptized in the ordinance of Baptism as a reformed Baptist and as a Protestant. I am now a Presbyterian. 

In faith,
Dudley 


__________________


----------



## Stargazer65

I switched from Roman Catholic to Episcopal to Baptist shortly after I was saved. I still count myself as being originally a PB since I spent almost a year in the RC, and in the Episcopal church. At first when I became a Baptist, I saw PB as a flagrant violation of scripture. However, after reading some good treatments of the subject; I no longer think that way. Now I accept PBer's as complying with scripture as they understand it. For myself I didn't find the arguments for PB as convincing as the CB arguments, and since I see neither command nor example in the scripture for PB; I remain CB.


----------



## Tyrese

Studied infant baptism and I am still not convinced. I will be a baptist forever .


----------



## Constantlyreforming

Marrow Man said:


> Grew up credo (immersed about age 10 upon false/weak profession of faith), because a Christian in college, began attending a Presbyterian (PCA) Bible study and later church, soon became a committed paedo after studying the issue.



You should just consider the age 10 baptism to be a paedo baptism and you'll be good to go!


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

I went from a mainline baptism ignoramus to a convinced paedobaptist.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I went from a mainline baptism ignoramus to a convinced paedobaptist.



Now that can be taken a few different ways. The ignoramus part that is. LOL


----------



## Jash Comstock

Born in a traditional baptist church, raised credo, baptized credo, but now in the process of accepting covenant theology. I understand the paedo position, and respect it, though i can't say that I fully affirm it.... yet.... But I would like to find more resources on paedo baptism. 
By the way, i answered other.


----------



## ZackF

Used to believe and teach baptismal regeneration.


----------



## Constantlyreforming

KS_Presby said:


> Used to believe and teach baptismal regeneration.



Did you have an instance where it didn't work, and you suddenly wondered if it wasn't a 100% sure thing???


----------



## FenderPriest

Grew up paedo, was baptized as an infant, changed to credo in college, was baptized subsequently as a believer. _If_ I were to change again, I'd probably go all the way and become a paedo-baptist-and-Lord's-Supper guy, which probably wouldn't make many people happy. But, I'm convinced on credo, and will happily stay where I am.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

Credo to Paedo...
Was raised in and Baptized in an independent fundamentalist baptist church that taught decisional regeneration & full immersion upon confession of faith in the sign of a cross symbolizing death burial and resurrection. Had a "_false profession of faith_" leaning on my own works, and carried _fire insurance_ in my back pocket all the while living in sin.

Was married, met my wife, and about the time of the birth of our first child, I was brought to a saving faith in Christ Alone by a sermon preached by Spurgeon 144 years prior...(that I found on the internet.) My wife followed suit, embracing the doctrines of grace. We eventually made our way to the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster in the US. (Now FPCNA.) Which allowed for grace and charity of views in Baptism. (Allowes both Credo & Pado positions.) I witnessed several paedobaptisms in the church and began to study the issue out over a ~10 year period of time. 

The question was once asked if the charitable positions could last together in the same denomination, to which I began to look at the level of _charity,_ and possible definitions thereof that were required to maintain the position held in the denom. It was at this point that I thought that those who held to credobaptism were, for all intents and purposes, forced to accept and treat the children of believers in the Church, as legitimately baptized in the eyes of the Denomination, where as those who held to paedobaptism had to accept that credo parents of unbaptized children were _NOT_ living in outright sin by withholding the sacrament from their children in the eyes of the presbytery. 

I first read an excellent argument by John Knox in which he spoke against the 'rebaptism' of the anabaptists. It was so convincing that for *years *I wrestled with the issue. <- still a credo at this point. 

*I began to question mode* as soon as I heard the arguments:
1. The death/burial/resurrection immersion creating the 'cross' formation was a western 'semantic anachronism,' or 'reverse etymology,' based on a modern application of the "idea" of burial. "Under the ground" vs. "In" a tomb as Christ was buried _in a tomb_, not in a casket under the earth.
2. Reference of "Coming Up Out of the water" are interpreted by some as stepping up out of the water instead of coming up from "underneath" the water.
3. Even some baptists would allow for "alternate" modes when total submersion was not an option, (such as confined to wheelchair.) To which I thought to myself I could not "in good conscience" deny the validity of the baptism of that Christian.
4. There were more specifics spoken of in regards to "head covering" than "mode" of baptism in the new testament.

*After years of wrestling with "mode"* of baptism, I once again *began to study "subject"* of baptism. Some dear friends of mine in the congregation who were paedobaptists were very influential, along with postings on the PB that I read. I read through several books on the subject pro/con. 

Rev. Winzer sent this to me: 


> The best systematic and clear exposition of baptism which I have read was written by Thomas M'Crie (pronounced McCree), the son of the historian of John Knox.


 He sent me a link to "Lectures on Christian baptism." I found a link to a "scanned copy" that was a bit more "readable" for me on the internet archive here Lectures on Christian baptism (1850) that was most convincing. 

After much prayer, the Lord opened my eyes to Christian Paedobaptism to the point I could no longer deny it, nor could I leave my "multiple young children" at that point unbaptized. 

Once I fully embraced the doctrine of Paedobaptism (which I obviously see as the 'clear' teaching of scripture) All of my children then, and those whom I have had sense have been baptized. 

As a note: the book Lectures on Christian baptism (1850) was so convincing not only to myself, but also to my wife, that I have decided to republish it with updated "American English" spellings, contemporary formatting, original footnotes, and otherwise unaltered, as the only copies available at this time are either digital or very poor OCR scans with multiple errors and poor formatting. This is rather time consuming work - typing out, reading/re-reading/and having my wife read and re-read to check for error, but it is surprisingly very enjoyable and rather fulfilling work non the less.


----------



## Phil D.

Pilgrim Standard said:


> 1. The death/burial/resurrection immersion creating the 'cross' formation was a western 'semantic anachronism,' or 'reverse etymology,' based on a modern application of the "idea" of burial. "Under the ground" vs. "In" a tomb as Christ was buried in a tomb, not in a casket under the earth.



Not to sound unkind, but that is utter nonsense (excepting the part about the "Cross formation"). If you're interested, here is some historical info on this subject.


----------



## Constantlyreforming

FIGHT!
FIGHT!
FIGHT!


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

Phil D. said:


> Pilgrim Standard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The death/burial/resurrection immersion creating the 'cross' formation was a western 'semantic anachronism,' or 'reverse etymology,' based on a modern application of the "idea" of burial. "Under the ground" vs. "In" a tomb as Christ was buried in a tomb, not in a casket under the earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to sound unkind, but that is utter nonsense (excepting the part about the "Cross formation"). If you're interested, here is some historical info on this subject.
Click to expand...


I don't take it as unkind at all brother. I appreciate the PDF file as well. Note that these (arguments) were _reasons that I began to question *mode.*_ I suppose I should have been more clear in stating they are "Not the end all means of _coming to_full paedobaptism." I understand the arguments from historical context dealing with immersion. But simply because there are instances of persons associating physical immersion as a mode in baptism with "burial" in Christ in ages past does not make the mode in question necessary from scripture. Looking at Alcuin of York (735–804) English stating "[Those who do not practice triple immersion] neglect to imitate in baptism the three days‘ burial of our Savior..." I find this an unscriptural emphasis placing "Preference" above Scriptural mandate. Also noted that since some historical persons regard Baptism to mean "to dip," I feel no obligation to force an interpretation of others upon scripture either. 

Being that this is going off topic I would invite you to create a new post in regard to the document you have provided, so as we do not derail the OP, and I would not be tempted to go on an on about the document. 

Actually I encourage you to do so very much. I am certain there could be some very interesting dialog, provided we maintain Christian Spirits.

---------- Post added at 03:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:14 PM ----------


In the Spirit of keeping with this thread... I am curious as to how you came to the position of "Other" being in the PCA?


----------



## NB3K

I subscribe to the WCF and when I joined the PB, I made note that I disagreed with the Paedobaptist position, but within the last year I have came to a position that I would happily baptise infants, but I would also like to see the person grow in maturity in the knowledge of God's grace and want to be immersed as a sign of obedience. I am a Baptist at heart, but if I were a pastor I would be more than willing to baptise your infant. This is my compromise as a peacemaker.


----------



## Constantlyreforming

NB3K said:


> I subscribe to the WCF and when I joined the PB, I made note that I disagreed with the Paedobaptist position, but within the last year I have came to a position that I would happily baptise infants, but I would also like to see the person grow in maturity in the knowledge of God's grace and want to be immersed as a sign of obedience. I am a Baptist at heart, but if I were a pastor I would be more than willing to baptise your infant. This is my compromise as a peacemaker.



interesting. you are the first I have come across with such a heart.


----------



## Pilgrim

Pilgrim Standard said:


> Credo to Paedo...
> Was raised in and Baptized in an independent fundamentalist baptist church that taught decisional regeneration & full immersion upon confession of faith in the sign of a cross symbolizing death burial and resurrection. Had a "_false profession of faith_" leaning on my own works, and carried _fire insurance_ in my back pocket all the while living in sin.



What is this cross formation/sign of the cross? I've never heard of it, at least not in those terms, but I have never darkened the door of an IFB church either. Is it perhaps a reference to positioning the arms a certain way while going under?


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

Pilgrim said:


> What is this cross formation/sign of the cross? I've never heard of it, at least not in those terms, but I have never darkened the door of an IFB church either. Is it perhaps a reference to positioning the arms a certain way while going under?


Chris,
This is a teaching that I had heard not only in that IFB church but other IFB churchs, but not held exclusively or universally in IFB churches, I have learned. Also a Pentecostal Preacher who was my uncle taught this. It is a teaching of a significance in the position of the of the person in relation to the water forming a 'cross' with the person standing vertically in water that is horizontal. The person is driven backward into the water being leveled to the water and submerged under the water then brought back vertical to the standing position forming the 'cross' with the water. They made much of the visible "symbolism" of the cross made, although this view only tends itself to modern Baptistic Fonts with plexiglass fronts facing the congregation, the plunging backward under the water as a "symbol" of burial under the earth, even though it is not earth it is water & Christ was buried in a tomb not under ground, and the Resurrection of Christ from death, as the believer is lifted out of the "death of burial in water _with Christ_"

I think it all goes to show how much uninspired human minds can place supposed symbolism above the thing signified. (Or make more of symbolism than the word of God itself does.)


----------



## Ryan

Paedo born and raised. Haven't really taken the time to study the matter. It's time.

Thanks for the testimonies and links. Good thread.


----------



## Pilgrim

Pilgrim Standard said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is this cross formation/sign of the cross? I've never heard of it, at least not in those terms, but I have never darkened the door of an IFB church either. Is it perhaps a reference to positioning the arms a certain way while going under?
> 
> 
> 
> Chris,
> This is a teaching that I had heard not only in that IFB church but other IFB churchs, but not held exclusively or universally in IFB churches, I have learned. Also a Pentecostal Preacher who was my uncle taught this. It is a teaching of a significance in the position of the of the person in relation to the water forming a 'cross' with the person standing vertically in water that is horizontal. The person is driven backward into the water being leveled to the water and submerged under the water then brought back vertical to the standing position forming the 'cross' with the water. They made much of the visible "symbolism" of the cross made, although this view only tends itself to modern Baptistic Fonts with plexiglass fronts facing the congregation, the plunging backward under the water as a "symbol" of burial under the earth, even though it is not earth it is water & Christ was buried in a tomb not under ground, and the Resurrection of Christ from death, as the believer is lifted out of the "death of burial in water _with Christ_"
> 
> I think it all goes to show how much uninspired human minds can place supposed symbolism above the thing signified. (Or make more of symbolism than the word of God itself does.)
Click to expand...


True, it is certainly imaginative. Through the years I have attended Southern Baptist, Sovereign Grace (Calvinistic baptistic, (not to be confused with SGM)) Wesleyan and independent Bible churches and I haven't seen this "cross" mentioned or practiced in any of them. But none of them would fit into the IFB or pentecostal mold either. (Was the reference to Pentecostal a reference to Oneness Pentecostal, or a trinitarian group?) These have all been in the Deep South or Gulf Coast regions, but I don't know if it is a regional thing or not. The symbolism of burial and resurrection are sometimes emphasized but not the specifics that you allude to. 

Regardless, as you noted to Phil, WRT mode (or subjects) we can either start a new thread or discuss it privately so as to not derail the thread any further.

With regard to Phil being in the PCA, as far as I know he is not an officer of the church. They don't have confessional membership the way the Dutch and continental Reformed do. I'm sure the PCA has a great many dispensationalists and Arminians in membership as well (you only have to affirm the 5 questions to join) so a man who is basically confessional on all points but who has doubts about baptism isn't going to be seen as unusual unless he's being divisive in the local church. The PCA is chock full of disgruntled Baptists and baptistic folks, but in the future I would expect to see this lessen somewhat with the number of Calvinistic graduates coming out of SBC seminaries.


----------



## Phil D.

Benjamin, 

First of all, I need to apologize for using unnecessarily harsh words in my previous post (as well as to thank you for your gracious overlooking of them), even though I wasn't directing them at you specifically. It was more of an exasperated response to the bare assertion itself relative to the historical record.




Pilgrim Standard said:


> But simply because there are instances of persons associating physical immersion as a mode in baptism with "burial" in Christ in ages past does not make the mode in question necessary from scripture.




Agreed, although that is not the argument I make in the attached article. Rather, if you will go over it carefully, you will see that I am saying that the view in question was the unbroken consensus of the universal church (including among the early Greek-speaking Eastern church fathers) until quite recently (in relative terms), and even then denial of it is concentrated among a pretty limited sector of Christianity. Thus to present it as a modern invention by ill-informed modern Western immersionists (as some modern non-immersionists have) is not a tenable argument. I also try and show that there are very good answers to all of the objections that have been raised against it in modern times. Also, at the very end of the document you will see my main reason for seeing the symbolism as "not unimportant", even though it may not be absolutely crucial to hold.




Pilgrim Standard said:


> Looking at Alcuin of York (735–804) English stating "[Those who do not practice triple immersion] neglect to imitate in baptism the three days‘ burial of our Savior..." I find this an unscriptural emphasis placing "Preference" above Scriptural mandate.




Again, agreed. Now if you were to say that about immersion itself regardless of the number of times it was repeated, well, again, see the end of my article. (Maybe I'll have to link to the study I did on triple vs. single immersion in the early church sometime...)




Pilgrim Standard said:


> Being that this is going off topic I would invite you to create a new post in regard to the document you have provided, so as we do not derail the OP



Feel free to do so yourself, if you have such a compulsion... 




Pilgrim Standard said:


> In the Spirit of keeping with this thread... I am curious as to how you came to the position of "Other" being in the PCA?



See my personal profile.


----------



## 21st Century Calvinist

Me also. I actually contemplated joining a Baptist church when in undergrad. But in the end I stuck with the Presbyterian's. Now I am pedo by conviction.


----------



## Weston Stoler

Started going to an indy fundy baptist church when I was 13 and made a confession of faith. They where an odd (very arminian) mix of indy fundy, joel osteen, and rick warren. Try to mix those together. It is like oil and water. Anyways Now I have been convinced of not only calvinism but infant baptism.


----------



## shelly

I started off credo and changed to paedo. We thought it wasn't something we had to think about since we were finished having children, God convicted us that we weren't the ones to decide, therefore we had to study this out. We actually made several church moves that reflected our direction away from vitrolic, fluffy or repetitive preaching and focused more on actual God-based preaching that wasn't man-centered. We made moves based on church polity, we looked for a church that had built in accountability to protect the sheep from the pastor(that was important to us due to our experiences in the IFB). We found a Bible church that functioned much like Presbyterian denominations, but we didn't know that at the time. From the Bible church we moved to a PCA because we were taught out of the church, in other words we learned what the pastor was trying to teach faster than the church as a whole and it became time to move on. Another pastor in the church warned us that the questions we were asking was going to end up leading us to infant baptism and the presbyterian church and that we were on a slippery slope. We jumped on the slope and began attending the PCA, about 5 years later we had a baby and he was baptised in the CPC this spring. We have seen God's hand in our journey and praise Him for it!!!


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Raised in an unbelieving family. My family attended a dispensational, charismatic, arminian, credo-baptist church (say that five-times fast). In the military discovered Banner of Truth, then Ten Points of Calvinism book, embraced Calvinism first, then covenantalism then paedobaptism. Then joined a Presbyterian (OPC) church in the early 90s.


----------



## py3ak

shelly said:


> I started off credo and changed to paedo. We thought it wasn't something we had to think about since we were finished having children, God convicted us that we weren't the ones to decide, therefore we had to study this out. We actually made several church moves that reflected our direction away from vitrolic, fluffy or repetitive preaching and focused more on actual God-based preaching that wasn't man-centered. We made moves based on church polity, we looked for a church that had built in accountability to protect the sheep from the pastor(that was important to us due to our experiences in the IFB). We found a Bible church that functioned much like Presbyterian denominations, but we didn't know that at the time. From the Bible church we moved to a PCA because we were taught out of the church, in other words we learned what the pastor was trying to teach faster than the church as a whole and it became time to move on. Another pastor in the church warned us that the questions we were asking was going to end up leading us to infant baptism and the presbyterian church and that we were on a slippery slope. We jumped on the slope and began attending the PCA, about 5 years later we had a baby and he was baptised in the CPC this spring. We have seen God's hand in our journey and praise Him for it!!!



It's very nice to see post again, Shelly!


----------



## Rob H

Started as assumed/conditioned but barely educated credo. Until I reached 37 years I was credo. Now I'm convinced, educated conscientiously paedo. Reformed folk actually took the time to educate me and encouraged me to pay attention.


----------

