# Question for Paedos



## Herald

Simple question. I'm hoping to get a simple answer.

Do you believe credos are saved?


----------



## Theoretical

Sorry for being dense - I'm not sure why 1 and 3 are both there, as 3's assertion seems implicit in agreeing with 1. Am I missing something?


----------



## Herald

Scott - I was thinking that some paedo's may want to separate Calvinisitic credos from Arminian credos.


----------



## Civbert

Theoretical said:


> Sorry for being dense - I'm not sure why 1 and 3 are both there, as 3's assertion seems implicit in agreeing with 1. Am I missing something?


The reason I picked three is a credo or a paedo can be saved or lost alike. It's not essential to salvation as is having a correct understanding of Jesus dieing for our sins.


----------



## Theoretical

Civbert said:


> The reason I picked three is a credo or a paedo can be saved or lost alike. It's not essential to salvation as is having a correct understanding of Jesus dieing for our sins.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I chose 3:

- I know many credo-Baptists who I believe have been justified on the basis of their trust in the imputed righteousness of Christ.

- I have met many Mormons, Jehova Witnesses, Pentecostals, and Campbellites who I suspect do not trust Christ for their righteousness.


----------



## bookslover

SemperFideles said:


> I have met many Mormons, Jehova Witnesses, Pentecostals, and Campbellites who I suspect do not trust Christ for their righteousness.



With Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, that would be pretty much a no-brainer, right?


----------



## Me Died Blue

I chose 3 as well, yet would not limit "a correct soteriology" _in a saving sense_ to the Calvinistic understanding of the doctrines of grace, but simply a basic understanding of salvation by grace through faith in Christ apart from one's works.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

bookslover said:


> With Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, that would be pretty much a no-brainer, right?



Insofar as I would not consider them Christians at all - yes. But they're still technically Credos in the same way a Roman Catholic is a paedo. The question is really broad.


----------



## Herald

SemperFideles said:


> Insofar as I would not consider them Christians at all - yes. But they're still technically Credos in the same way a Roman Catholic is a paedo. The question is really broad.



You're correct Rich, the question is broad. If I were to drill down on the question a bit more I would ask it this way, "Do you believe credos who hold to, grace alone by faith alone in Christ alone, are saved?"


----------



## notgollum

Bill...

I believe if you go back and search the many posts concerning baptism you will certainly conclude that most of us with the padeo view understand that Calvinistic Baptists are definetly part of the body of Christ.
As a former RB, I am truly blessed by the fellowship I enjoy with my friends from my old church.
Of course there are those who might disagree.
Where we differ is how we view children's standing in believing families.

Hey Rich.....I'm still eagerly anticipating your critique of my email.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

notgollum said:


> Bill...
> 
> Hey Rich.....I'm still eagerly anticipating your critique of my email.



It's on my "To Do". That's a massive e-mail. Haven't forgotten but my Dad just left town and we're moving this week. I'll chip away at it a bit tomorrow.


----------



## jolivetti

*Interesting question*

I'm wondering what provoked the question...(?)

I almost chose #3 but went with #1. Mostly, it's important to remember that we're saved by a person, not by correct soteriology or sacramentology (though they are of indeniable importance).


----------



## Herald

notgollum said:


> Bill...
> 
> I believe if you go back and search the many posts concerning baptism you will certainly conclude that most of us with the padeo view understand that Calvinistic Baptists are definetly part of the body of Christ.
> As a former RB, I am truly blessed by the fellowship I enjoy with my friends from my old church.
> Of course there are those who might disagree.
> Where we differ is how we view children's standing in believing families.
> 
> Hey Rich.....I'm still eagerly anticipating your critique of my email.



David - I started this thread in order to have a question answered. Namely, do paedos consider us credos to be Christians? There have been threads on the PB that have called that into question. I don't believe that opinion (if it exists) is held by the majority of paedos, as witness by this thread. I suppose I want to see where everyone stands so I can put my doubts and suspicions to rest. So far I am very encouraged by the votes and comments in this thread.


----------



## Me Died Blue

BaptistInCrisis said:


> David - I started this thread in order to have a question answered. Namely, do paedos consider us credos to be Christians? There have been threads on the PB that have called that into question. I don't believe that opinion (if it exists) is held by the majority of paedos, as witness by this thread. I suppose I want to see where everyone stands so I can put my doubts and suspicions to rest. So far I am very encouraged by the votes and comments in this thread.



Actually, I'm pretty sure _everyone_ on the board considers credos to be saved, including any who gave contrary statements and/or implications in the past.


----------



## Pilgrim

Me Died Blue said:


> Actually, I'm pretty sure _everyone_ on the board considers credos to be saved, including any who gave contrary statements and/or implications in the past.



 and the person Bill was responding to isn't necessarily representative of the board as a whole. 

Also, there are far more credos today that would question the salvation of paedos than the other way around.


----------



## etexas

I think that dunkers and baby splashers are both saved, as Rich said it comes down to depending on Lord Jesus Christ and His finished work that brings about salvation.


----------



## Dagmire

I don't know what either of those terms mean.


----------



## Pilgrim

Dagmire said:


> I don't know what either of those terms mean.



They refer to views on infant baptism, with Paedobaptists (sometimes spelled pedobaptists) being for the practice and Credobaptists being against it.


----------



## Herald

Pilgrim said:


> and the person Bill was responding to isn't necessarily representative of the board as a whole.
> 
> Also, there are far more credos today that would question the salvation of paedos than the other way around.



Chris, well I'm not one of them. Salvation by grace through faith, in Christ alone. I thank the Lord for my Reformed brethren who embrace what the scriptures say in regards to the new birth.


----------



## Kevin

I went with 1. We are saved by grace, NOT by believing in the "correct" doctrines of grace.


----------



## Herald

Dagmire said:


> I don't know what either of those terms mean.



Ryan:

Paedo-baptism = infant baptism
credo-baptism = believers baptism


----------



## Archlute

I've always found relief from the ridiculousness of the referenced debates through Paul's statement to the the church in Corinth - "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel...." That man knew what his mission was, and so shall we pray that every minster will emulate him.


----------



## JohnV

I would vote for #1. But I would like to know what you mean by #3. If you mean that Credos are saved by having the correct soteriology, then I would think that this is the worst to vote for. If you mean that Credos can also demonstrate a correct soteriolgical understanding in their faith, then I would agree. So #1 is sufficient for that, and #3 is not needed. 

If I'm saved, it is for sanctification and glory. It is something to strive for within that salvation. My own beliefs as far as soteriology will grow to be more and more true as I grow in faith and understanding. I am never saved by it, though. Neither are Credos.

I am saved that I might obey the law, not because I have obeyed the law. I am saved that I might live for Christ, not because I lived for Christ. I am saved that I may be baptized into the church, not because I was baptized into the church. So I was saved that I might have a proper soteriolocal belief, not because I had it. I'm still striving for it, even though I am a Paedo and already have it through inheritance.


----------



## Herald

There have been 36 votes so far and each one of them as been in the affirmative. The purpose of this thread was not to launch a debate on credo vs. paedo. That has been done so many times that I am convinced there is nothing more to be said on the topic. I believe it is possible to maintain our doctrinal distinctives (in regards to baptism) and still be brethren. Sometimes it is necessary to put the issue on the table and have everyone ante up as to what they truly believe. I pray this thread served that purpose.


----------



## JohnV

Bill:

I didn't vote. I only said that I would vote for #1. That is, if I were to vote I would vote for #1. I'm not going to vote. I only vote on some polls, but on things like this I don't. How I vote makes no difference to anything, so I don't vote. 

But I would disagree with you. I'm still waiting for Baptism discussions to really get going. When we can discuss openly the old Synod of Dordt form for baptism in an even-handed way then our discussions can bear some fruit. Not that discussions haven't already done so. I just would like to see them go on to the next level instead of giving up hope altogether. 

The old form for baptism adopted by the Synod of Dordt is the single best defence of infant baptism that I know of.


----------



## Herald

> But I would disagree with you. I'm still waiting for Baptism discussions to really get going.



John: it's all good brother.  My fancy has never been tickled by the baptism issue. I've discussed it, debated it, resolved to avoid it and debated it once again. I'll never avoid it for good, but I don't know if there is anything left to say that is new. At least not from the credo perspective.


----------



## Me Died Blue

JohnV said:


> I would vote for #1. But I would like to know what you mean by #3. If you mean that Credos are saved by having the correct soteriology, then I would think that this is the worst to vote for. If you mean that Credos can also demonstrate a correct soteriolgical understanding in their faith, then I would agree. So #1 is sufficient for that, and #3 is not needed.
> 
> If I'm saved, it is for sanctification and glory. It is something to strive for within that salvation. My own beliefs as far as soteriology will grow to be more and more true as I grow in faith and understanding. I am never saved by it, though. Neither are Credos.
> 
> I am saved that I might obey the law, not because I have obeyed the law. I am saved that I might live for Christ, not because I lived for Christ. I am saved that I may be baptized into the church, not because I was baptized into the church. So I was saved that I might have a proper soteriolocal belief, not because I had it. I'm still striving for it, even though I am a Paedo and already have it through inheritance.



While it indeed could not be more true that we certainly need not have a fully-developed, correct view of every soteriological issue, I think we also need to be careful not to give an impression that goes too extreme in the opposite direction; for it is also true that in one sense we _do_ need to have a minimal, root understanding of the basic nature of salvation (God's perfection, our sin, Christ's sacrifice, etc.) and just what we are even doing by "trusting Christ" - that is why, for instance, a fully consistent Roman Catholic understanding of the Gospel would not be a saving understanding.


----------



## turmeric

Hi, just weighing in without reading all the posts, they're in disobedience, but that's because of a weak conscience. We all err in many things. I hope our salvation does not depend either on our grasp of theology or our _levl_ of trust at any given time. Otherwise, just looking at myself I'd have to be a paedo Arminian!


----------



## Archlute

Just to clarify, it's not a matter of weaker/stronger conscience, but a matter of hermeneutics. Baptists won't soon agree with you that they are in disobedience, if they cannot first be persuaded of the hermeneutical platform upon which paedobaptism rests.


----------



## bookslover

BaptistInCrisis said:


> There have been 36 votes so far and each one of them as been in the affirmative. The purpose of this thread was not to launch a debate on credo vs. paedo. That has been done so many times that I am convinced there is nothing more to be said on the topic. I believe it is possible to maintain our doctrinal distinctives (in regards to baptism) and still be brethren. Sometimes it is necessary to put the issue on the table and have everyone ante up as to what they truly believe. I pray this thread served that purpose.



The real question is, Bill, when did you start dyeing your hair gray?


----------



## Herald

bookslover said:


> The real question is, Bill, when did you start dyeing your hair gray?



That is not gray hair. It's a lighting effect.


----------



## Herald

Archlute said:


> Just to clarify, it's not a matter of weaker/stronger conscience, but a matter of hermeneutics. Baptists won't soon agree with you that they are in disobedience, if they cannot first be persuaded of the hermeneutical platform upon which paedobaptism rests.



Adam - well said.


----------



## bookslover

BaptistInCrisis said:


> That is not gray hair. It's a lighting effect.



Uh-huh, yup, you bet (wink, wink). Sure thing, Bill. I see you're in denial.


----------



## Tom Roach

I chose option 3, but if credobaptists had a true/correct understanding of soteriology, wouldn't they then understand that passages like Romans 6:3-5 are symbolic? They would be able to use biblical exegesis to understand that it is symbolic based on what the rest of scripture says about being baptized into Christ, and realize that paedobaptism is how God intends the sacrament to be carried out.


----------



## Herald

bookslover said:


> Uh-huh, yup, you bet (wink, wink). Sure thing, Bill. I see you're in denial.



I am NOT in Egypt!


----------



## Herald

Tom Roach said:


> I chose option 3, but if credobaptists had a true/correct understanding of soteriology, wouldn't they then understand that passages like Romans 6:3-5 are symbolic? They would be able to use biblical exegesis to understand that it is symbolic based on what the rest of scripture says about being baptized into Christ, and realize that paedobaptism is how God intends the sacrament to be carried out.



[bible]Romans 6:3-5[/bible]

Tom - this passage is not symbolic. The baptism being spoken of in Romans 6 is spiritual, not physical. In my humble opinion this passage is not a proof-text for either the credo or paedo position.


----------



## Tom Roach

BaptistInCrisis said:


> There have been 36 votes so far and each one of them as been in the affirmative. The purpose of this thread was not to launch a debate on credo vs. paedo. That has been done so many times that I am convinced there is nothing more to be said on the topic. I believe it is possible to maintain our doctrinal distinctives (in regards to baptism) and still be brethren. Sometimes it is necessary to put the issue on the table and have everyone ante up as to what they truly believe. I pray this thread served that purpose.



I find it hard to regard a fellow Christian as my brother or sister if they are set-in-stone Arminians. I do regard Baptists as my brothers and sisters if they are Calvinist and understand the utterly obvious message in the OT and NT that God chooses us. So, I think the issue of credo- and paedobaptism is serious, but not as serious as the heretical teaching that we can achieve salvation through means of works, where our "good" works determine our level of faith. *Obviously*, our faith determines our good works, and likewise our faith is the focus in padebaptism. I understand works as being a focus in credobaptism.


----------



## Davidius

BaptistInCrisis said:


> [bible]Romans 6:3-5[/bible]
> 
> Tom - this passage is not symbolic. The baptism being spoken of in Romans 6 is spiritual, not physical. In my humble opinion this passage is not a proof-text for either the credo or paedo position.


----------



## Tom Roach

BaptistInCrisis said:


> [bible]Romans 6:3-5[/bible]
> 
> Tom - this passage is not symbolic. The baptism being spoken of in Romans 6 is spiritual, not physical. In my humble opinion this passage is not a proof-text for either the credo or paedo position.



I meant symbolic in the way that we don't need to be dunked in water to "die" and emerge from the water to be brought into a new life with Christ.


----------



## Herald

Tom Roach said:


> I meant symbolic in the way that we don't need to be dunked in water to "die" and emerge from the water to be brought into a new life with Christ.



Tom - I'm simply addressing the exegesis of the passage you cited.


----------



## Tom Roach

Thanks for the correction


----------



## Herald

Tom Roach said:


> I find it hard to regard a fellow Christian as my brother or sister if they are set-in-stone Arminians. I do regard Baptists as my brothers and sisters if they are Calvinist and understand the utterly obvious message in the OT and NT that God chooses us. So, I think the issue of credo- and paedobaptism is serious, but not as serious as the heretical teaching that we can achieve salvation through means of works, where our "good" works determine our level of faith. *Obviously*, our faith determines our good works, and likewise our faith is the focus in padebaptism. I understand works as being a focus in credobaptism.



What do you mean by a "set-in-stone Arminian?" Most free willies on the credo side would not fit the definition of Arminian, ala the Remonstrants. We are quick to use the Arminian label on anyone who is not a TULIP keeper. I recommend a study of historical Arminianism and then decide whether all of todays "Arminians" share the same theological boat.


----------



## bookslover

Tom Roach said:


> I find it hard to regard a fellow Christian as my brother or sister if they are set-in-stone Arminians.



Look at it this way, Tom. Since there is only one way of salvation, all so-called Arminians got saved the same way everybody is saved: they, being numbered among the elect, were regenerated by the Holy Spirit, making it possible for them to hear the gospel and obey it, God having granted them the faith with which to believe. They are saved because God saved them.

Now, they may not believe that or accept that, but that's how they were saved - whether they like it or not - since God saves sinners in only one way.

So, Tom, you see: a genuinely-saved Arminian is really a Calvinist in denial!


----------



## Davidius

Ok, you guys have all been reformed a lot longer than I have. One thing I like about the Reformed camp is that we care about knowing what we believe and why we believe it, and we don't dogmatically force people to assent to something and keep them from asking questions. I, as the poll will attest, did not vote that Baptists are not saved (I'm also not the one who voted "I'm not sure"). However, this whole discussion raises a few questions in my mind.


Everyone seems to keep harping on the fact that "we don't need a perfect theology to be saved." Well, that's great, especially when we're talking about obscure issues like Eschatology and Lapsarianism. But aren't we talking about something of a little more imminence? Most Presbyterians I know would assert that a person who refuses to baptize their children is breaking a commandment of God first established in Genesis 17. What I'm saying is, this is not an issue like Postmillenialism vs. Amillenialism where no one would say (as far as I know) that the other side is _in sin_ for holding to their position. And in a context such as that, I can certainly see how the "I'm glad we don't need a perfect theology to be saved" statement applies. But it seems to me that a Presbyterian who is being consistent has to say that a Baptist who refuses his entire life to baptize his offspring has lived in willful, conscious, unrepentant sin. Why, at this point, do we say that this sin is different from something like stealing, or adultery, especially considering the magnitude it must carry by being tied to the Covenant of Grace? No one would say to a professing Christian who lived in an adulterous relationship his entire life and never repented: "Well that's okay, I'm sure glad we don't need a perfect theology of sex to be saved." No, because that is an issue of sinning and not sinning, whereas those other kinds of lofty, less-imminent issues aren't. 

So what makes the sin of not baptizing one's offspring different from other sins? I guess this is what I want to know. I can't say that Baptists aren't saved but I want to be able to defend it with good reason and not just because it would sound bad/mean to say that.


----------



## Tom Roach

BaptistInCrisis said:


> What do you mean by a "set-in-stone Arminian?" Most free willies on the credo side would not fit the definition of Arminian, ala the Remonstrants. We are quick to use the Arminian label on anyone who is not a TULIP keeper. I recommend a study of historical Arminianism and then decide whether all of todays "Arminians" share the same theological boat.



I refer to Christians who believe they reach out to God and include God in their lives, based on a decision they made on their own behalf. Reaching out, meaning God won't accept them until they accept God. And set in stone, being they hear why they are wrong but they don't believe it, because they can't understand how God could cause them to reach out--they believe they do it on their own.

A special thank you for reminding me to research historical Arminianism to compare it with the different modern-day Arminianism. I saw that distinction pointed out last month on the PB (maybe you were the person who wrote about it?  )


----------



## Dagmire

I voted yes, because all I really know is that the Lord knows those who are his. I just try to view the fruit they produce and judge righteously. God knows if I judge righteously, though.


----------



## Theoretical

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Ok, you guys have all been reformed a lot longer than I have. One thing I like about the Reformed camp is that we care about knowing what we believe and why we believe it, and we don't dogmatically force people to assent to something and keep them from asking questions. I, as the poll will attest, did not vote that Baptists are not saved (I'm also not the one who voted "I'm not sure"). However, this whole discussion raises a few questions in my mind.
> 
> 
> Everyone seems to keep harping on the fact that "we don't need a perfect theology to be saved." Well, that's great, especially when we're talking about obscure issues like Eschatology and Lapsarianism. But aren't we talking about something of a little more imminence? Most Presbyterians I know would assert that a person who refuses to baptize their children is breaking a commandment of God first established in Genesis 17. What I'm saying is, this is not an issue like Postmillenialism vs. Amillenialism where no one would say (as far as I know) that the other side is _in sin_ for holding to their position. And in a context such as that, I can certainly see how the "I'm glad we don't need a perfect theology to be saved" statement applies. But it seems to me that a Presbyterian who is being consistent has to say that a Baptist who refuses his entire life to baptize his offspring has lived in willful, conscious, unrepentant sin. Why, at this point, do we say that this sin is different from something like stealing, or adultery, especially considering the magnitude it must carry by being tied to the Covenant of Grace? No one would say to a professing Christian who lived in an adulterous relationship his entire life and never repented: "Well that's okay, I'm sure glad we don't need a perfect theology of sex to be saved." No, because that is an issue of sinning and not sinning, whereas those other kinds of lofty, less-imminent issues aren't.
> 
> So what makes the sin of not baptizing one's offspring different from other sins? I guess this is what I want to know. I can't say that Baptists aren't saved but I want to be able to defend it with good reason and not just because it would sound bad/mean to say that.




It would be an extremely helpful thing to flesh out, and honestly the inverse could be seen as true as well for all of us paedos except those who are converts (and even then maybe not if baptizo is a hang-up).


----------



## JohnV

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Ok, you guys have all been reformed a lot longer than I have. One thing I like about the Reformed camp is that we care about knowing what we believe and why we believe it, and we don't dogmatically force people to assent to something and keep them from asking questions. I, as the poll will attest, did not vote that Baptists are not saved (I'm also not the one who voted "I'm not sure"). However, this whole discussion raises a few questions in my mind.
> 
> 
> Everyone seems to keep harping on the fact that "we don't need a perfect theology to be saved." Well, that's great, especially when we're talking about obscure issues like Eschatology and Lapsarianism. But aren't we talking about something of a little more imminence? Most Presbyterians I know would assert that a person who refuses to baptize their children is breaking a commandment of God first established in Genesis 17. What I'm saying is, this is not an issue like Postmillenialism vs. Amillenialism where no one would say (as far as I know) that the other side is _in sin_ for holding to their position. And in a context such as that, I can certainly see how the "I'm glad we don't need a perfect theology to be saved" statement applies. But it seems to me that a Presbyterian who is being consistent has to say that a Baptist who refuses his entire life to baptize his offspring has lived in willful, conscious, unrepentant sin. Why, at this point, do we say that this sin is different from something like stealing, or adultery, especially considering the magnitude it must carry by being tied to the Covenant of Grace? No one would say to a professing Christian who lived in an adulterous relationship his entire life and never repented: "Well that's okay, I'm sure glad we don't need a perfect theology of sex to be saved." No, because that is an issue of sinning and not sinning, whereas those other kinds of lofty, less-imminent issues aren't.
> 
> So what makes the sin of not baptizing one's offspring different from other sins? I guess this is what I want to know. I can't say that Baptists aren't saved but I want to be able to defend it with good reason and not just because it would sound bad/mean to say that.



David:

Let me give a try. Maybe it'll help and maybe it won't. 

This is different because Baptists are not deliberately breaking the commandment of God. They are not Baptist because they want to disobey a part of the Bible, but because they believe that part differently. 

Why there is a roadblock there we can't seem to figure out. To me it's pretty simple, but to a dyed-in-the-wool Baptist it's pretty simple the other way around. Where I run into problems is in two areas: first, that there are a number of Baptists who are really good Christians, and even good Christian leaders. Their Biblical knowledge is very much worth listening to. So I do not doubt that they are sincere, and so are not deliberately trying to go against the Bible. They honestly believe their view on baptism, and do so because they believe the Bible. 

The second problem is that I don't find a comparably better respect for the Word of God among Presbyterians. Though they might be right about baptism, they are much more wrong about other things than a lot of Baptists I know. If you're talking about integrity in the Word, you have to talk about more than just baptism. When we're not talking about baptism on the PB, Presbyterians have nothing on Baptists, nor the other way around. We're pretty even. 

So though I might disagree with Baptists about baptism, and though I would disagree more with some Presbyterians about other things, I have to admit that the desire for the Word is not a lot different between the two. They both love the Lord, and both are trying to follow Him according to His Word. 

I've added a few posts here and there to see if I could maybe make a difference to the discussions about baptism. Maybe it helped, and maybe it didn't. But I don't doubt that they are justified by Christ the same as I am. I wonder to myself what it is that I am being so stubborn about in my lack of understanding. Christ does not welcome me because I'm better than Baptists, I know that. 

One thing that I've noticed over the years is that the Credos and Paedos need each other, just so that they don't go off the deep end and get snobbish with their beliefs. I know that the Paedo view is right, but also that a lot of Paedos don't know what they're talking about when it comes to baptism; not any more than Baptists do. And I found out that I don't know near as much as I could know. I was born knowing the old form for baptism from the Synod of Dordt. And now, 54 years later, I'm still just getting past scratching the surface of what that document reveals. I read along every time it is read every time another child gets baptized, and I am awed even more than before. And I come to realize that my own best defence of Paedo baptism was a very, very poor attempt in comparison. But I can't forget that it was the Credos that brought some of the issues to my attention in their debating this topic. I needed them. And I think we all do. 

Maybe that's why there are Credos. And for Credos, maybe that's why there are Paedos. Just to keep us on the straight and narrow. Just to keep us from getting snobby about OUR theological knowledge. The theological novice is no less saved than the theologically mature. And sometimes we forget to be humble.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Greetings:

As I understand it: A person is saved based only on a correct Soteriology. Whether he/she is a credo or paedo Baptist is immaterial.

-CH


----------



## Davidius

JohnV said:


> David:
> 
> Let me give a try. Maybe it'll help and maybe it won't.
> 
> This is different because Baptists are not deliberately breaking the commandment of God. They are not Baptist because they want to disobey a part of the Bible, but because they believe that part differently.
> 
> Why there is a roadblock there we can't seem to figure out. To me it's pretty simple, but to a dyed-in-the-wool Baptist it's pretty simple the other way around. Where I run into problems is in two areas: first, that there are a number of Baptists who are really good Christians, and even good Christian leaders. Their Biblical knowledge is very much worth listening to. So I do not doubt that they are sincere, and so are not deliberately trying to go against the Bible. They honestly believe their view on baptism, and do so because they believe the Bible.
> 
> The second problem is that I don't find a comparably better respect for the Word of God among Presbyterians. Though they might be right about baptism, they are much more wrong about other things than a lot of Baptists I know. If you're talking about integrity in the Word, you have to talk about more than just baptism. When we're not talking about baptism on the PB, Presbyterians have nothing on Baptists, nor the other way around. We're pretty even.
> 
> So though I might disagree with Baptists about baptism, and though I would disagree more with some Presbyterians about other things, I have to admit that the desire for the Word is not a lot different between the two. They both love the Lord, and both are trying to follow Him according to His Word.
> 
> I've added a few posts here and there to see if I could maybe make a difference to the discussions about baptism. Maybe it helped, and maybe it didn't. But I don't doubt that they are justified by Christ the same as I am. I wonder to myself what it is that I am being so stubborn about in my lack of understanding. Christ does not welcome me because I'm better than Baptists, I know that.
> 
> One thing that I've noticed over the years is that the Credos and Paedos need each other, just so that they don't go off the deep end and get snobbish with their beliefs. I know that the Paedo view is right, but also that a lot of Paedos don't know what they're talking about when it comes to baptism; not any more than Baptists do. And I found out that I don't know near as much as I could know. I was born knowing the old form for baptism from the Synod of Dordt. And now, 54 years later, I'm still just getting past scratching the surface of what that document reveals. I read along every time it is read every time another child gets baptized, and I am awed even more than before. And I come to realize that my own best defence of Paedo baptism was a very, very poor attempt in comparison. But I can't forget that it was the Credos that brought some of the issues to my attention in their debating this topic. I needed them. And I think we all do.
> 
> Maybe that's why there are Credos. And for Credos, maybe that's why there are Paedos. Just to keep us on the straight and narrow. Just to keep us from getting snobby about OUR theological knowledge. The theological novice is no less saved than the theologically mature. And sometimes we forget to be humble.



John,

Thank you for writing all that. You mentioned that your contributions to discussions on baptism may have helped or they may not have. Well, I can say that your posts in discussions on baptism and other sensitive issues have been greatly helpful to me in adding to my knowledge but even more in being an example of kindness and Christian charity. I haven't been on the board for very long but I've already run into issues where I've said things I wish I hadn't. Your posts are always refreshing in this regard and I appreciate the model you set for younger guys like myself.

Overall, I very much understand what you're saying here. I have greatly benefited from reading the work of some godly Baptists since I started to study Reformed theology, and many baptists on this board have also been great guys to get to know and read. But I still feel a little awkward about this whole issue, for the specific reason concerning sin that I mentioned. Can baptists be members of presbyterian churches without coming under discipline? Can Presbyterians be members of Baptist churches without the same happening? I just have trouble, not following with what you're saying about not needing to be theologically mature to be saved, but what the implications are of acknowledging that neglecting infant baptism _is sin_ (if you're a paedo) or, on the other hand, that practicing it is sin (if you're a credo). It just seems like there has to be _some_ difference in the way we approach this from the way we approach topics like the ones I mentioned above (eschatology, lapsarianism, etc.)


----------



## Herald

Gentlemen: I have been disagreed with before on what I believe, but I still hold to it. I do not see it as a matter of sin. I see it as making the best of limited understanding. Credos hold to believers baptism because, in our understanding of God's word, it is the biblical method of baptism. Paedos hold to infant baptism because, in their understanding, it is the biblical method of baptism. Both groups are convinced in their own minds that their baptismal position is an accurate reflection of the biblical commandment. 

I suppose this argument may be used on any doctrinal issue, but it is not that simple. There are only a few sacraments of the church (ordinances, if some of my Baptist brethren are hung up on the word). Adam was spot on when he said it is a hermeneutical issue. It is. Since both hermeneutical systems elevate Christ and embrace the doctrines of grace, I do not see the baptism issue as one of sin. I do however, see it as a matter to break fellowship over within the context of a local church. A church that is split over baptism will have chaos. It is best to separate. The PB is a different dynamic. It is not a local church. We have the liberty of coming and going as we please without damaging the church.

I've articulated this position before with few PB members agreeing with me. That's fine. But it's worth revisiting.


----------



## JohnV

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Gentlemen: I have been disagreed with before on what I believe, but I still hold to it. I do not see it as a matter of sin. I see it as making the best of limited understanding. Credos hold to believers baptism because, in our understanding of God's word, it is the biblical method of baptism. Paedos hold to infant baptism because, in their understanding, it is the biblical method of baptism. Both groups are convinced in their own minds that their baptismal position is an accurate reflection of the biblical commandment.
> 
> I suppose this argument may be used on any doctrinal issue, but it is not that simple. There are only a few sacraments of the church (ordinances, if some of my Baptist brethren are hung up on the word). Adam was spot on when he said it is a hermeneutical issue. It is. Since both hermeneutical systems elevate Christ and embrace the doctrines of grace, I do not see the baptism issue as one of sin. I do however, see it as a matter to break fellowship over within the context of a local church. A church that is split over baptism will have chaos. It is best to separate. The PB is a different dynamic. It is not a local church. We have the liberty of coming and going as we please without damaging the church.
> 
> I've articulated this position before with few PB members agreeing with me. That's fine. But it's worth revisiting.



David and Bill:

I understand what both of you are saying. I agree that there is always in the background the insinuation of sin on the part of the person holding the other view. 

But if we just go with the idea that this is a hermeneutical problem for now, then it may be helpful just to point out that we first have to be concerned about our own hermeneutical shortcomings before we start lobbing missiles of hermeneutical error at the other view. This lack of humility is more of a problem, then, than the difference in baptism itself, it seems to me. 

From some of the things that I've read in discussions here on the PB, some people who accuse the other side of error are not a whole lot less in error in the way they present or represent the issue. So we're cut off at the pass before we really get going in any serious way. It has been shown that the obstacles between the two views are not insurmountable, but some peoples' attitudes are. 

Again, I would feel more at home in a Baptist church which practices the RPW, though perhaps not acknowledging that that is what it is, than in a church that stands very strongly on the RPW, but only in order to flagrantly break it by adding rules and regulations. I would be more at home in a Baptist church that practices oversight of the ministry of the Word than a church that opens her pulpits to men preaching their opinions as Bible doctrine. 

To me these things are like a child of mine that comes to me complaining of being hit by his sibling, excusing himself for having hit him in return. I always am more strict with the one who returns the hit than with the original offence because it is always a worse offence to repay evil for evil, and to do so knowingly. If someone makes himself a champion of something, then to be the guilty party on that issue is simply inexcusable. I can see people being simply wrong about some things, but to stand on them, to claim to know them, and then to be the ones in error on those things, that's much worse than simply being wrong. 

I've been one to hold to the view that where Pentecostals make their error is right on the thing they are standing on, Pentecost. Where Baptists make their error is right on the thing they stand on, baptism. Where Presuppositionalist make their error is on the very thing they stand on, presuppositions. It's all very elementary, but it helps to have a simple and firm foundation. 

I was just fortunate that way, growing up in a church that was not just new, but new to this continent, new to the language, new to a new life, new to a new world. It had only the foundations at first, and that was what was preached and practiced. It was a far different world than what we live in now, just a half century removed. I was fortunate to have been in a somewhat cloistered atmosphere, being grounded in the fundamentals of Reformed theology, before any other thing came into the picture, because my original church had no time or room for anything other than the fundamentals at that time. It is difficult to describe to you the cultural influences of a people who have fled their own culture, who are rebuilding a whole way of life, not just bringing their culture with them. We weren't just Dutch immigrants; that grossly misrepresents who these people were and what they were doing. I can see this as a very good way to rebuild the churches again. 

If we're going to tackle some of the issues that face us, and do so as brothers, then I believe that our different views, if we hold them as correctable only to truth, and are willing to be corrected by truth, are valuable assets to tackling them. We are much better equipped in that way than any other generation before us. We are taking a rich thing to the table, not stumbling blocks. It is my conviction that we need to know what the solid foundations are, and that we build on these. And if we realize that we have nothing to lose but our own errors, then we can put these things on the table and have a truly beneficial discussion. We won't be interested in changing each others's minds, but in make each other better Christians. 

It would be expected of me, for example, to make better Baptists out of the Baptists, and that I be willing to be made a better Presbyterian by my Baptist brothers. And we know that being a better Baptist may eventually mean becoming Presbyterian, or becoming a better Presbyterian may eventually mean becoming Baptist. We're not afraid of the truth, or to be led into the truth. We have to rely on the Spirit to lead us, and then we will not fail. It is when we become adamant that other things take priority over the Spirit and the Word that we run into trouble. 

Anyways, that's my thoughts on this.


----------



## Larry Hughes

Most definitely, unequivocally YES they are. I'm not sure I know, have known or met any in person, online or other wise who would say no, excepting cults which would say the same of any Christian.


----------



## non dignus

_'Creedo or Speedos_, you guys are barely covered.


----------



## terry72

I voted Yes.

Blessings in Christ,
Terry W. West


----------



## reformedman

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Ryan:
> 
> Paedo-baptism = infant baptism
> credo-baptism = believers baptism



I think the credobaptist has to be defined a little more, because even though I am a baptist (I believe that the ordinance of baptism is for believers only), that I don't think that all credos agree with my view. Since this topic has to do with the ordinance of baptism, and looking at this in a legal broad sense, a credo can be not saved even though he has the correct view of baptism. So if he believes in believers baptism but is a devil worshipper, then hmmm maybe not. Obviously jk. 

All I mean to say is, as everyone else has said above, this doctrine does not define the proof of salvation for the inidividual.


********edit**********
Oops I just noticed, this poll was addressed to Paedos only. Sorry.


----------



## KMK

I wholeheartedly agree with John V. As I have said before, even Presbyterians must admit that their arguments in favor of paedobaptism are not as clear as their other prebyterian distinctives. (DoG, RPW, Male Headship etc) The fact that I am not compelled by the paedo argument is either a mark of my own limited intelligence, a mark of the weakness of the argument itself, or a mark of my stubbornness and disobedience. As to the first and second, there is a great possibility. Of the third, I can assure you that it is not so.

My question would be how many of the people sitting in Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican churches understand their own paedobaptist argument? At least the credo argument is something that is clearly demonstrated in the NT. Even paedos agree that we should baptize adults if they profess faith and repentance. Right?

One other thing. All the arguing in the world does not accomplish anything outside of charity. The way some paedos argue so vehemently it makes me wonder who they are trying to convince!


----------



## A5pointer

I can't believe what I am reading here. For clarification does the poll mean by "credo" one who holds to it as a correct view of baptism or one who has been baptised credo? The poll might say "does baptism and or view of baptism save anybody"? I answer no. I am surprised this thread has not been answered this way. And by the way the view that Arminians are not brothers should be questioned. Very scarey.


----------



## MrMerlin777

I voted for choice one.

All who trust in Christ for their salvation are saved. 

One may not have all of the "I's dotted and T's crossed" theologically but still believe on Christ and be saved.

One can have a ton of "correct theological knowledge" and still depart into Hell on the judgment day.


----------



## A5pointer

MrMerlin777 said:


> I voted for choice one.
> 
> All who trust in Christ for their salvation are saved.
> 
> One may not have all of the "I's dotted and T's crossed" theologically but still believe on Christ and be saved.
> 
> One can have a ton of "correct theological knowledge" and still depart into Hell on the judgment day.



well stated brother


----------



## Herald

A5pointer said:


> I can't believe what I am reading here. For clarification does the poll mean by "credo" one who holds to it as a correct view of baptism or one who has been baptised credo? The poll might say "does baptism and or view of baptism save anybody"? I answer no. I am surprised this thread has not been answered this way. And by the way the view that Arminians are not brothers should be questioned. Very scarey.



Bruce, if you've followed the many credo vs. paedo threads on the PB you would understand the question.


----------



## A5pointer

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Bruce, if you've followed the many credo vs. paedo threads on the PB you would understand the question.



sorry brother just joined, what is your answer to the question?


----------



## tellville

Read back through some of these Baptism threads and you will realize why Bill asked this question. I actually wanted to ask this question, but was fearful of the wrath that it might bring  I'm not even sure what type of wrath I expected, I just felt it might come. Which gives you an idea of how some (not all!) of these Baptism threads were like. 

So, I was very happy when Bill asked the question, and then I was even happier at the response. It helped clear a lot of elephants that I think were lurking.


----------



## Herald

> For clarification does the poll mean by "credo" one who holds to it as a correct view of baptism or one who has been baptised credo?



It means one who holds to credobaptism as the correct view of baptism. For the sake of framing the discussion paedos would say the same thing...that their view of baptism is correct. Water baptism does not save...never has...never will, but the discussion on baptism have become so intense that I was wondering whether certain paedos believed credos were not saved. Not that baptism saves but because of the paedo view of baptism and the covenant. 

Hope this clarifies things for you.


----------



## Herald

> I think the credobaptist has to be defined a little more, because even though I am a baptist (I believe that the ordinance of baptism is for believers only), that I don't think that all credos agree with my view. Since this topic has to do with the ordinance of baptism, and looking at this in a legal broad sense, a credo can be not saved even though he has the correct view of baptism. So if he believes in believers baptism but is a devil worshipper, then hmmm maybe not. Obviously jk.
> 
> All I mean to say is, as everyone else has said above, this doctrine does not define the proof of salvation for the inidividual.



Frank - I didn't feel the necessity to drill down on the definition of "credo" given the depth and nature of past threads. When I use the term "credo" in the context of the PB, I mean all credobaptists who believe in the gospel, repented of their sins and placed their faith in Christ alone.


----------

