# Baptism Flip/Flop?



## humble_soul (Mar 18, 2004)

Have you changed your belief about Baptism?

What exactly convinced you?

[Edited on 3-18-2004 by humble_soul]


----------



## humble_soul (Mar 18, 2004)

I'm not interested in a credo/padeo debate. I am simply curious how many people changed their beliefs, and what helped them make their decision.

I never considered paedobaptism until I read articles on monergism and apuritansmind. Then I started going to a PCA church to escape Arminianism.

I accepted the paedo-baptist argumentation that it makes the most sense within covenant theology. 

[b:0decbbe8e7]CAUTION[/b:0decbbe8e7]: the next few lines are a feeble attempt at humor, if you can't take it, please stop reading now! (You have been warned):

When I found out Curious Matthew McMahon conceded to paedobaptism, I had to pause and consider my stance.

Besides, you can always re-baptize your kids at any local Baptist church without fear of being burned at the stake for heresy.

[Edited on 3-18-2004 by humble_soul]


----------



## pastorway (Mar 18, 2004)

*Credo*

Have not changed, and in fact, since joining this forum I have become even more convinced of my position. :smug_b:

Phillip


----------



## Len (Mar 18, 2004)

Where I grew up the only church that baptized young'uns was the Methodist Church. Seemed like a pretty open and shut case to me!

When we moved out to New Orleans we began going to the OPC church. Once I got to know everyone I had to ask, &quot;How come it seems Presbyterians, whose works I've read and love, can hold onto this obviously Roman Catholic relic?&quot; (pun intended!) My pastor and I began to work through Christ of the Covenants- I had no idea why, I had simply asked about infant baptism! :biggrin:

Wrestled with it for about a year, but I remember one of those epiphany moments listening to Dr. Greg Bahnsen's sermon &quot;The Meaning and Purpose of Baptism&quot; when he said, &quot;Baptism is not a testimony of personal saving faith, but a testimony that God saves by faith!&quot;

And so now I have to hear my grandmother, a staunch Southern Baptist, tell me, &quot;Do you know what's wrong with a Presbyterian? Nothing a little water can't cure!&quot;


----------



## A_Wild_Boar (Mar 18, 2004)

[quote:712a02af85][i:712a02af85]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:712a02af85]
Have not changed, and in fact, since joining this forum I have become even more convinced of my position. :smug_b:

Phillip [/quote:712a02af85]
Same here.


----------



## Saiph (Mar 18, 2004)

I was a baptist until I read the Bible.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Mar 18, 2004)

[quote:33fbe2a122][i:33fbe2a122]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:33fbe2a122]
I was a baptist until I read the Bible. [/quote:33fbe2a122]

Rather blunt obviously, but I would have to agree in principle.

Chris


----------



## twogunfighter (Mar 18, 2004)

Hmmm...Trends of the thinking are telling.


----------



## A_Wild_Boar (Mar 18, 2004)

[quote:7d0aebb092][i:7d0aebb092]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:7d0aebb092]
I was a baptist until I read the Bible. [/quote:7d0aebb092]

I heard the same from JW's, Mormons, and Roman Catholics. We all claim the Bible is our final answer. Well all but the RCC. But sometimes us protestants put as much faith into a confession as the RCC's put into the Vatican.

[Edited on 3-18-2004 by A_Wild_Boar]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 18, 2004)

[quote:78aafe78ce]
I was a baptist until I read the Bible. 
[/quote:78aafe78ce]



















Okay then, that was a good laugh! I needed that today, desperately. It just hit me the right way. Thanks Wintermute!

(No offense to the baptists - it just hit me funny tis all.)

[Edited on 3-18-2004 by webmaster]


----------



## mjbee (Mar 18, 2004)

Roger, thanks for saying it. It seems to me, as an outsider who isn't yet hooked up with a church despite 18 years of being God's adopted kid, that there is much criticism of others who use extrabiblical writings as their guides (ie Mormons, Catholics, etc.) But I go to an OPC church, and I find the same thing happening with the WCF. In Sunday school the emphasis is on the WCF. When I was a kid growing up RC, we studied the Catholic Catechism. I'm still not sure about hooking up with an OPC church. It brings back bad memories of......


----------



## blhowes (Mar 18, 2004)

[b:faeac0a1c4]Josh wrote:[/b:faeac0a1c4]
...and I'm in over my head...

Sounds like your leaning towards credo position, by immersion.


----------



## Len (Mar 18, 2004)

While I think there CAN be a danger in an over-emphasis on confessions I simply do not believe that's the problem of the day. For every one person supposedly over-emphasizing a confession of faith I bet I can find a thousand who claim &quot;No creed but Christ!&quot; or &quot;Just give me the Bible!&quot; and follow their blind traditions that simply have not been put into print - and certainly not printed anywhere in the Scriptures!


----------



## pastorway (Mar 18, 2004)

[quote:4b71f83d2d][i:4b71f83d2d]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:4b71f83d2d]
I was a baptist until I read the Bible. [/quote:4b71f83d2d]

I read the Bible! I am a Baptist. 

And from what I hear I will remain a Baptist until I read Witsius.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Mar 18, 2004)

pw,
so your expecting to hop the fence because of witsius?

blade-paedo


----------



## luvroftheWord (Mar 18, 2004)

I was raised in the Baptist church. I embraced paedobaptism 2 years ago (wow! has it been that long already?) when I began to read the Scriptures covenantally. To be honest, I cannot fathom ever going back to being a credobaptist. The concepts I used to hold are so foreign to me now. And no offense to Baptists here at all, but nothing I have ever read by a Baptist has shaken me in my conviction at all, even though you guys are usually pretty good debaters. Of course, I'm sure nothing I or any other paedobaptist has written has shaken you Baptists at all either, but isn't that what makes debate so much fun?


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 18, 2004)

[quote:e58a6112b6][i:e58a6112b6]Originally posted by mjbee[/i:e58a6112b6]
Roger, thanks for saying it. It seems to me, as an outsider who isn't yet hooked up with a church despite 18 years of being God's adopted kid, that there is much criticism of others who use extrabiblical writings as their guides (ie Mormons, Catholics, etc.) But I go to an OPC church, and I find the same thing happening with the WCF. In Sunday school the emphasis is on the WCF. When I was a kid growing up RC, we studied the Catholic Catechism. I'm still not sure about hooking up with an OPC church. It brings back bad memories of...... [/quote:e58a6112b6]

Melissa,

You may want to read what I have posted here:
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=1710

and here:
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=1227

before coming to that conclusion.

I am from a Roman Catholic family, and I am very comfortable with confessionalism. It is Biblical. Modern unconfessionalism destroys the body of Christ and its being the &quot;pillar and ground of the truth.&quot; The key is whether confessions are amendable. Rome's is not. Westminster's is (and has been in America).


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Mar 18, 2004)

'and paedo was his name oh'


----------



## pastorway (Mar 18, 2004)

[quote:fbf53b6b39][i:fbf53b6b39]Originally posted by Bladestunner316[/i:fbf53b6b39]
pw,
so your expecting to hop the fence because of witsius?

blade-paedo [/quote:fbf53b6b39]

I'm just not going to read Witsius.....



Seriously, I am in no danger of changing my view. Like I said, I am more and more convinced by Scripture of believer's baptism.

I would be interested to know from those of you who were credo and are now paedo.....what finally changed your mind? What author/book/etc was the final straw?

And for those who were paedo and are now credo...what did it for you?

Phillip


----------



## Me Died Blue (Mar 18, 2004)

Fred, I just read your posts on the issue of confessional and Church authority (through youer links), and I agree with much of it. But I'm definitely still trying to get fully grounded in my thinking and how to approach issues such as that, since I've only been committed to, and studying, the Reformed faith for almost a year and a half. So would you be able to recommend any good books that deal with the issue you're talking about in those threads, that is, the issue of confessional and Church authority, its importance, how it is biblical, and how it relates to Sola Scriptura and the Spirit's personal illumination to believers?

Thanks,

Chris


----------



## Me Died Blue (Mar 18, 2004)

[quote:f8a3af8403][i:f8a3af8403]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:f8a3af8403]
[quote:f8a3af8403][i:f8a3af8403]Originally posted by Bladestunner316[/i:f8a3af8403]
pw,
so your expecting to hop the fence because of witsius?

blade-paedo [/quote:f8a3af8403]

I'm just not going to read Witsius.....



Seriously, I am in no danger of changing my view. Like I said, I am more and more convinced by Scripture of believer's baptism.

I would be interested to know from those of you who were credo and are now paedo.....what finally changed your mind? What author/book/etc was the final straw?

And for those who were paedo and are now credo...what did it for you?

Phillip [/quote:f8a3af8403]

Let's hope that we can successfully keep this thread from being another debate on baptism, as that so easily happens when people explain what finally convinced them as I am about to briefly do.

What finally convinced me of the paedobaptist view was an argument I read by Warfield on how certain Scriptures give Christians just as much reason to believe their children will be saved as they have reason to believe that Joe Shmoe who claims to have just &quot;accepted Christ&quot; will be. Here's the quotation by Warfield:

&quot;No man can read the heart. As a consequence, it follows that no one, however rich his manifestation of Christian graces, is baptized on the basis of infallible knowledge of his relation to Christ. All baptism is inevitably administered on the basis not of knowledge but of presumption. And if we must baptize on presumption, the whole principle is yielded; and it would seem that we must baptize all whom we may fairly presume to be members of Christ's body. In this state of the case, it is surely impracticable to assert that there can be but one ground on which a fair presumption of inclusion in Christ's body can be erected, namely, personal profession of faith. Assuredly a human profession is no more solid basis to build upon than a divine promise. So soon, therefore, as it is fairly apprehended that we baptize on presumption and not on knowledge, it is inevitable that we shall baptize all those for whom we may, on any grounds, fairly cherish a good presumption that they belong to God's people - and this surely includes the infant children of believers, concerning the favor of God to whom there exist many precious promises on which pious parents, Baptists as fully as others, rest in devout faith.&quot;

The &quot;precious promises&quot; he refers to are seen in the following verses I read when I became a convinced paedo (all ESV):

Genesis 17:7 "And I will establish my covenant between me and you [Abraham] and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you."
Deuteronomy 30:6 (emphasis mine) "And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live."
Psalm 103:17-18 (emphasis mine) "But the steadfast love of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear him, and his righteousness to children's children, to those who keep his covenant and remember to do his commandments."
Proverbs 3:33 (emphasis mine) "The LORd's curse is on the house of the wicked, but he blesses the dwelling of the righteous."
Proverbs 11:21 (emphasis mine) "Be assured, an evil person will not go unpunished, but the offspring of the righteous will be delivered."
Isaiah 54:13 "All your children shall be taught by the LORD, and great shall be the peace of your children."
Isaiah 59:21 (emphasis mine) "'And as for me, this is my covenant with them,' says the LORD: 'My Spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your offspring, or out of the mouth of your children's offspring,' says the LORD, 'from this time forth and forevermore.'"
Isaiah 65:23 "They [God's people] shall not labor in vain or bear children for calamity, for they shall be the offspring of the blessed of the LORD, and their descendants with them."
Jeremiah 32:39 (emphasis mine) "I will give them [the elect] one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever, for their own good and the good of their children after them."
Acts 2:39 "For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.'"
1 Corinthians 7:14 "For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy."
Psalm 22:9-10 "Yet you [God] are he who took me [David] from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother's breasts. On you was I cast from my birth, and from my mother's womb you have been my God."
Luke 1:14-15 (emphasis mine) "And you [Zechariah] will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his [John the Baptist's] birth, for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb."

In short, my own thinking went thus (I also re-mentioned this in another recent thread): &quot;We cannot know anyone's election but our own for sure, so we can only presume it based on educated evidence. For adult converts, we take their profession of faith to be evidence that God has regenerated them. For our children, we take God's promises like those above to be evidence that God has (or will) regenerated them, evidence that is at least as reliable as outer profession.&quot; (Furthermore, there are just as many excited, professing, seemingly-converted adults who later show themselves to be unregenerate as there are church-raised children brought up in a Christian home who do so.)

Again, I don't really want to start a discussion on this per se. I simply think that your idea is a good one, Phillip, for those of us who have changed to briefly explain what the final straw was. Feel free to U2U or e-mail me if you want to discuss this at all.

Chris


----------



## Bryan (Mar 19, 2004)

I voted still have not yet decided. 

I find it funny however, as I look into Baptism I am becomming convinced of the Padeo position, and becasue of this I keep hearing from my Baptist freinds how it's all based on tradition. Why do I find this funny? First off becase it's not, but more so becasue since in the past before I began to examine the issues regarding Baptism I believed in it simply becasue it's what my church believed in; talk about following a tradition! :roll:

Bryan
SDG


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 19, 2004)

I was a credobaptist by defalt since that was all I ever knew.
Then I studied it and became convinced of paedoism.
Then, after almost almost a year, I became convinced that &quot;covenant baptism&quot; is wrong and that left me with either a Lutheran sacramentalism or credobaptism. I chose credobaptism in the light of what I bleieve to be the Bible's teaching on the matter.


----------



## Answerman (Mar 19, 2004)

I'm a puedo turned credo.

What convinced me was the simple argument that I had to admit that recipients of the sign of the covenant changed to some extent, since women now also received the sign of the covenant. Then having to admit this much, I asked the next logical question, to what extent? And I am currently convinced that the pattern I find in the New Testament is that of a pattern of belief followed by baptism. And to top it off John the baptist appearently also followed this pattern.

If you've noticed this is a simplified version of the argument used by TE Watson that Tertullian was so kind to supply us with in the recent thread called, At what age do we start baptizing our children?


[quote:464d0b9d99]
Thus, people may be in covenant who are without the sign of the covenant, and the sole reason for giving all or some the sign of the covenant is the command of God . It follows that even if the children of believers were in some special covenant relationship, this of itself does not entitle them to the sign of that covenant. The sign is to be given only as the Lord commands - perhaps to males only, perhaps to females, perhaps to both, perhaps to neither. In previous chapters we have seen that the Lord has not commanded that babies should be baptized, whether male or female, so that Christians are no more required to baptize their babies than the Jews are required to circumcise their females (Should Babies Be Baptized? p. 99) 
[/quote:464d0b9d99]

I was unfamiliar with this argument for the credo position when I studied the subject. I had thought that it was my own unique view. I also noticed that some of my baptist friends would think that this argument is admitting too much. They did not want to accept that it was the sign of the entrance into the covenant community. But when I saw this quote from Watson, I was excited to see that not only was I not the only one that holds to this kind of view but he states it much better than I did. And to top it off, it appears to be a very hard argument to refute biblically, as it appears some puedo's admitting how &quot;cleaver&quot; it is. Which is just a subtle admition that it is a very sound biblical argument.

Well I better stop now before the puedos feel compelled to turn this thread into a debate. Please just continue debating in that other thread. I have really appreciated the puedo's interaction with Tertullian and other credo's in that thread.

In Christ,
David


----------



## Answerman (Mar 19, 2004)

I guess a related question would be:

Did you change Churches/Seminaries or have to step down from leadership when your view changed, since many would require such if such an admition is made.

In Christ,
David


----------



## luvroftheWord (Mar 19, 2004)

What convinced me of paedobaptism was a realization of the following truths, in no particular order:

1. I realized that the Abrahamic Covenant did not pass away with the OT, but we are in fact members of it as well today, since Christians are called &quot;sons of Abraham&quot;. Since the Abrahamic Covenant included our children, then our children must also be included today.

2. The warning passages of the NT, particularly in the book of Hebrews are in many ways mirror images of the Old Covenant curses, and thereby demonstrate that the New Covenant, though superior to the Old, still follows the same basic form: blessings for covenant faithfulness, curses for covenant disobedience.

3. OT covenantal language concerning us and our children/household is carried over into the New Covenant, showing that God's &quot;to you and to your children&quot; principle of covenanting with entire households applies to Christians today just as it did in the OT. This is made especially clear all throughout the book of Acts, particularly with God's promise being given to us and our children, but also in the household baptisms. It is possible to exegete and interpret each of these passages of Scripture in a vacuum apart from their historical-redemptive contexts, but I believe this overlooks the very obvious covenantal nature and worldview of the first century audience.

4. The covenant sign of circumcision was not simply a sign of ethnicity or merely temporal blessings, but was a sign of a circumcised heart, just like baptism. Therefore, if circumcision can be administered to infants, then the fact that baptism points to regeneration cannot be argued against the practice of paedobaptism.

5. The household baptisms of the NT very strongly suggest that all members in the house received the covenant sign based upon the continuing OT principle of federal headship, rather than upon the basis of each individual member of the household coming to a consensus that they all want to &quot;say yes to Jesus&quot; together. They mimic the household of Joshua, who said, &quot;As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD&quot; (Josh 24:15). The point is not to prove that there were infants present in these households, as some paedobaptist authors have attempted, since that ultimately is not what is important. The point is simply to show the same covenantal principle of household inclusion applies today as it did in the OT.

6. The examples of adults being baptized in the NT were gentile converts who were seperated from God's covenant but were brought near through the apostle's preaching as adults. Entering the covenant as an adult required a profession of faith, just as it did in the OT. When this happened in the OT, the entire household was circumcised along with the professing father. So what we have again in the book of Acts is a continuation of the covenant principles from the OT into the NT.

7. The practice of infant baptism has been the majority view of the church for 2,000 years. Has the church really been lost on this issue so long?

8. Even on baptistic principles, my children should still be baptized because they are disciples. The idea that infants cannot be believers is foreign to Scripture as is evidenced in such passages as Psalms 8 and 22. The fact that the infants are born to believing parents is just as credible evidence of their salvation as an adult professing faith, since even professing believers sometimes only bear fruit for a season before falling away.

9. Specific texts of Scripture that expressly include our children in the New Covenant, and particularly Ezekiel 37 where God's &quot;rules and statutes&quot; (of which baptism is surely a part) are applied not only to adults, but to their children.

Ezekiel 37:24-28-- 
"My servant David shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd. [i:79eb48bb44]They shall walk in my rules and be careful to obey my statutes.[/i:79eb48bb44] They shall dwell in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob, where your fathers lived. [i:79eb48bb44]They and their children and their children's children[/i:79eb48bb44] shall dwell there forever, and David my servant shall be their prince forever. I will make a covenant of peace with them. It shall be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will set them in their land and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in their midst forevermore. My dwelling place shall be with them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Then the nations will know that I am the LORD who sanctifies Israel, when my sanctuary is in their midst forevermore." 

Isaiah 59:21-- 
"And as for me, this is my covenant with them," says the LORD: "My Spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of [i:79eb48bb44]your offspring, out of the mouth of your children's offspring[/i:79eb48bb44]," says the LORD, "from this time forth and forevermore." 

Jeremiah 32:37-41-- 
"Behold, I will gather them from all the countries to which I drove them in my anger and my wrath and in great indignation. I will bring them back to this place, and I will make them dwell in safety. And they shall be my people, and I will be their God. I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever, for their own good and [i:79eb48bb44]the good of their children after them.[/i:79eb48bb44] I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them. And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me. I will rejoice in doing them good, and I will plant them in this land in faithfulness, with all my heart and all my soul." 

Zechariah 10:6-10-- 
"I will strengthen the house of Judah, and I will save the house of Joseph. I will bring them back because I have compassion on them, and they shall be as though I had not rejected them, for I am the LORD their God and I will answer them. Then Ephraim shall become like a mighty warrior, and their hearts shall be glad as with wine. [i:79eb48bb44]Their children[/i:79eb48bb44] shall see it and be glad; their hearts shall rejoice in the LORD. I will whistle for them and gather them in, for I have redeemed them, and they shall be as many as they were before. Though I scattered them among the nations, yet in far countries they shall remember me, and [i:79eb48bb44]with their children[/i:79eb48bb44] they shall live and return. I will bring them home from the land of Egypt, and gather them from Assyria, and I will bring them to the land of Gilead and to Lebanon, till there is no room for them."


There may be some more things I have forgotten. If I remember anymore I will add them to this post.

[Edited on 3-21-2004 by luvroftheWord]


----------



## JohnV (Mar 19, 2004)

I'm a paedo, and I've never switched. I've just not read anything to compel me to do so. But I do believe the two views are mutually exclusive, and that we need to challenge ourselves to the task. I also believe it is resolvable. I think that we need to get all our cards on the table and trust each other to be objective, interested in getting at the truth, not pretecting our views. We won't get there if we think too little of the others. If one of us is doubtful, we have to take that doubt seriously; we need to go back and recheck ourselves. The old rule that we are to hold our impositons on others that much more upon ourselves before we try to apply them on thse others. That will be a lifelong task in any area of conviction. But there are a lot of things to overcome yet; for we are discussing something a lot bigger than any of us.


----------



## Tertullian (Mar 20, 2004)

My world was shattered after I fought against and against a position called Calvinism and in the end God's grace changed my heart and I was forced to embrace these wondrous doctrines of life called the five points. Everything the moment I became a Calvinist changed- soon my eschatology changed from a Dispensational to a Covenantal my view of Sola Scripture was properly focused as was my view of the Trinity and so when it came the teaching of the sacraments I thought I would also embrace paedobaptism as well. I wanted to test paedobaptism by Scripture and see how the Reformers defended there position from Scripture- but I was thoroughly disappointed with the reformers when I read their arguments I mean even a questionable figure like Jewett can shatter their arguments. I love the reformers but just because Calvin side this or that does not make it right- I gave up my tradition of the man made Dispensationalist not to embrace a new man-made tradition articulated by the reformers- I want a tradition founded upon Scripture- and it is the scripture part that the reformed Paedobaptist have not been able to supplement.

As a credobaptist I have fun returning the favor- when I was a Dispensationalist I was destroyed in argumentation by my Presbyterians brother in love- now I get to repay the favor challenge Presbyterians to examine their traditions that they got from their fathers to see if it lines up with Scriptures.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 20, 2004)

[quote:e66f964a01][i:e66f964a01]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:e66f964a01]
As a credobaptist I have fun returning the favor- when I was a Dispensationalist I was destroyed in argumentation by my Presbyterians brother in love- now I get to repay the favor challenge Presbyterians to examine their traditions that they got from their fathers to see if it lines up with Scriptures.
[/quote:e66f964a01]
My father wasn't Presbyterian uzzled:


----------



## luvroftheWord (Mar 20, 2004)

[quote:f120509429]
My father wasn't Presbyterian 
[/quote:f120509429]



Mine, neither. My dad doesn't even know why he's a Baptist.


----------



## Tertullian (Mar 20, 2004)

[quote:a1a72c40f6][i:a1a72c40f6]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:a1a72c40f6]
[quote:a1a72c40f6]
My father wasn't Presbyterian 
[/quote:a1a72c40f6]



Mine, neither. My dad doesn't even know why he's a Baptist. [/quote:a1a72c40f6]

I was speaking about John Calvin


----------



## luvroftheWord (Mar 20, 2004)

Would you be shocked if I told you I NEVER read John Calvin on this issue until AFTER I had already accepted paedobaptism?


----------



## Tertullian (Mar 20, 2004)

[quote:3d29fb5278][i:3d29fb5278]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:3d29fb5278]
Would you be shocked if I told you I NEVER read John Calvin on this issue until AFTER I had already accepted paedobaptism? [/quote:3d29fb5278]

Not really, I think that most Paedobaptist who argue for the practice have completely different arguements then John Calvin, which makes the practice all the more questionable because it is a practice looking for an arguement... and every Paedobaptist has their own version of an arguement for it. My main point is that if Calvin had taught credobaptist most Prestbyterians today would be credobaptist (but that is just my unprovable beleif)

[Edited on 3-21-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## luvroftheWord (Mar 20, 2004)

[quote:f026065498]
which makes the practice all the more questionable because it is a practice looking for an arguement
[/quote:f026065498]

I see. Interesting OPINION you have there.


----------



## Tertullian (Mar 21, 2004)

[quote:b8213dd6cd][i:b8213dd6cd]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:b8213dd6cd]
well, am I thankful that you comended me for arguing like Calvin in the other thread.....and here I was beginning to think that my practice was questionable.

-Paul

[Edited on 3-21-2004 by Paul manata] [/quote:b8213dd6cd]

We will save you a seat on the Reformed Baptist side of the table we would love to have... just keep on checking this tradition with Scripture and you are on the right track

-Tertullian


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 21, 2004)

[quote:d28bab21a8][i:d28bab21a8]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:d28bab21a8]
p.s. my hymn, &quot;when we've been here ten thousand years...trying to recall all the debates I had with the baptists will be like trying to recall a hiccup I had once in 1975. [/quote:d28bab21a8]
An excellent analogy Paul! :thumbup:


----------



## Halliday (Mar 22, 2004)

Charlemagne's forced baptism of the Saxons.


----------



## Halliday (Mar 22, 2004)

I forgot to mention I am a paedo.


----------



## a mere housewife (Mar 22, 2004)

I was born &amp; raised in a paedo-baptistic family, and have changed to credo baptism. Since then, I have been &quot;phased&quot; by paedo arguments many, many times. I can honestly say that it is not because of any hostility to the position that I haven't re-changed my mind. But I am still a credo-baptist because:

1. The command to circumsize was wider in scope than infant children of believers, or even those to whom the promise was made:
Ishmael, Abraham's servants, and Abraham's servants' children were none of them the &quot;child of promise.&quot; Some of them were not children at all. Some of them were not biologically related.

2. The promises are wider in scope than the practice of paedobaptism, also:
Genesis 17:7 "And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you." 
Psalm 103:17-18 "But the steadfast love of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear him, and his righteousness to children's children, to those who keep his covenant and remember to do his commandments." 
The children talked about in these verses are not just biological infants, but biological children of any age, along with those children's children right on through to the end of the age. This is the thinking that was behind the &quot;half-way&quot; covenant: if somewhere back along the line there were believing ancestors, the children had a right to be baptized, whether their parents were believing or not. 
Proverbs 3:33 "The LORd's curse is on the house of the wicked, but he blesses the dwelling of the righteous." 
This would also include servants, and every person who was a part of the household.

3. The language of the promises is interpreted differently depending on to whom it is addressed:
Peter preached that the &quot;promise is to you&quot; to every person in attendance on the Day of Pentecost. Yet the only ones who were baptized were the ones who received the word with gladness. &quot;The promise being to&quot; language in this case is not taken as a grounds to presume salvation, but merely as a statement of the extent of the promise: it extends to you. It is also taken as a statement of extent &quot;to them that are afar off.&quot; Yet it is taken as grounds to presume either regeneration or election when it is addressed &quot;to your children.&quot;

4. Abraham was a father in two senses: a natural sense, and a spiritual sense:
I am a spiritual child of Abraham, but am still distinguished from the family, and from the covenant practices, that ran along natural lines.

5. Not all those who were circumcised were disciples:
The first circumsized child ever was not a disciple.

6. The household language of the NT is rare enough to lend credence to the possibility that everyone in the house believed and was baptized:
In the instance of the Phillippian jailor, there is reason to believe that everyone in the household was of a discerning age, because Paul preached to all (each one) of them. Also, in another household instance, the household was mentioned afterwards as those who were ministering to the saints. This would indicate that those in the household were old enough to do so. In the instance of Lydia, it is just as easy to assume that she was unmarried and had no children.

7. If the households included unbelievers, they would also reasonably have included unbelieving adults.

8. As has been mentioned by others, women being baptized indicates a difference in the economy of the covenant:
The heads of households &amp; prospective heads of household were no longer the ones to whom the covenant sign was given. The new covenant sign emphasizes the individual in covenant, rather than the household.



[Edited on 3-23-2004 by a mere housewife]


----------



## pastorway (Mar 22, 2004)

We're not debating here.....only telling what we hold to and why.


Phillip


----------



## blhowes (Mar 23, 2004)

I've been a credo pretty much ever since I was saved (1976). I was basically always taught that believer's baptism (after a person professes faith) is biblical and that churches that practice infant baptism did so because they just couldn't break away from the catholic church. 

For the last two years or so, I've been trying to understand why paedos baptize infants. Much of what I've learned about covenant theology so far makes sense to me. Its funny how, since I've started studying covenant theology, the word &quot;covenant&quot; seems to pop up everywhere as I'm reading through the Bible (whereas before it went unnoticed).

It is very humbling trying to come to grips with this issue. As I read and listen and ponder the scriptures, I can only see what I'm able to see. Thus far, I still see the baptist position. Some may say &quot;Amen, no need to look any further&quot; while others may say &quot;Just keep looking and soon you'll see&quot;. 

In addition to not yet seeing some of the scriptures the way my CT brother/sisters see them, there's also a &quot;tradition&quot; (for lack of a better word) that is most difficult to accept. The idea that the catholic baptism is acceptable because they used the &quot;trinitarian formula&quot; is probably the last (and highest) hurdle I'd have to jump over if I were to switch camps. It makes no sense to me. 

Anyway, that's where I'm at now. 

Bob


----------

