# Paedobaptists, what's the best argument against your position?



## nathanstenzel (May 29, 2021)

I was raised as a Baptist, but find the arguments for paedobaptism quite compelling. In the interest of Scriptural and intellectual honesty, I'd like to hear what arguments (if any) are most concerning to solid paedobaptists. As I consider the paedobaptist doctrine, are there any arguments or Scripture passages that should make me concerned?

Reactions: Like 1 | Love 1


----------



## De Jager (May 29, 2021)

nathanstenzel said:


> I was raised as a Baptist, but find the arguments for paedobaptism quite compelling. In the interest of Scriptural and intellectual honesty, I'd like to hear what arguments (if any) are most concerning to solid paedobaptists. A*s I consider the paedobaptist doctrine, are there any arguments or Scripture passages that should make me concerned?*


No. 

But more seriously, there are lots of things that could concern someone until one realizes that they have been answered.

I think this is important when considering any doctrinal switch or in fact holding the position on any doctrine - it's not only your confidence in the doctrine itself, but also on the ability of the holders of that doctrine to answer objections. Over time I have become convinced that the reformed camp has solid answers to the baptist objections. This has only been the product of time and research. Sometimes objections arise in my own mind, so I search out answers - and I have found the answers to make sense, biblically speaking, or that they are at least very plausible. I don't typically find answers such as "err...because Westminster says so". Usually it is a matter of simply seeing the scriptures through a different lens. For example: for many, Jeremiah 31:31-34's teaching on the NC informs much of their theology of how the NT church is constructed and has a direct impact on how they think baptism should be administered. However, having heard a sermon on those passages from a reformed minister, I could see how some of the conclusions the typical baptist would make regarding those passages did not make sense (in my mind).

On another note, I think it's important to remember that it is the baptist position that is the one that pushed against the status quo in the reformed churches, and also is a change in the status quo in how covenant signs are applied in the scriptures themselves. In my opinion, the burden of proof is upon the baptist, and therefore the default position should be the reformed one unless proven otherwise. Now obviously some people grow up in baptist circles so all they know is the baptist position. But historically speaking, at least since the 1600's and possibly earlier (I am no church history expert), the baptist position is the deviation from the teaching of the reformed churches, and not the other way around. I believe this is important.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## nathanstenzel (May 29, 2021)

Thanks for your response. You're absolutely right that a doctrine ought to be able to answer objections from the other side, which is precisely why I asked the question: I want to hear what the best and brightest of the credobaptists are saying.


----------



## Smeagol (May 29, 2021)

#1 @OP I would start here and follow the link and book recommendations.






1689 Federalism | The distinctive biblical theology of confessional particular baptists







www.1689federalism.com





#2 You have placed this in a “paedo” answers only thread. I recommend if you want to be challenged by the “best and brightest” then request the thread to be open to our Credo-Baptist friends to respond with their resources as well.

Reactions: Like 1 | Sad 1


----------



## nathanstenzel (May 30, 2021)

Grant said:


> #1 @OP I would start here and follow the link and book recommendations.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for the help. Will likely post in the credo-only thread too!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stillwaters (Jun 1, 2021)

nathanstenzel said:


> I was raised as a Baptist, but find the arguments for paedobaptism quite compelling. In the interest of Scriptural and intellectual honesty, I'd like to hear what arguments (if any) are most concerning to solid paedobaptists. As I consider the paedobaptist doctrine, are there any arguments or Scripture passages that should make me concerned?


Hi # 6666,

It was the prayerful studying of Covenant Theology when I experienced what some Reformed Paedobaptist Theologians had described as "hearing the Covenantal Language in the NT hearkening back to the OT", and then the oft mentioned words and concepts like "household" just came alive. 

It was wonderful. 

Now I feel very sorry for credos. They don't hear it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Jun 1, 2021)

Do you have children? When we had kids, pragmatically Presbyterianism made the most sense in how children are viewed and treated. My children are 5, 3, and 1, and they are disciples in Christ's Church.

Reactions: Love 2


----------



## Taylor (Jun 1, 2021)

Stillwaters said:


> Now I feel very sorry for credos. They don't hear it.


A couple thoughts on this:

1) As someone who struggled with the baptism issue for years (literally), and studied the issue fairly deeply (I think), I don't think it's fair to say that all Baptists "do not hear" the covenantal language of the OT in the NT. Many, especially those here, certainly do. The Second London Baptist Confession has plenty to say about covenant. Their paradigm is simply different.

2) Because this is a sub-forum where only paedobaptists may participate, I don't think it's fitting to say things like, "I feel very sorry for credos." It doesn't really contribute anything to the thread, and could be taken by some as denigrating language. I know you probably didn't mean it like that, but that kind of comment almost necessarily provokes a response from those whom it targets. But, as per the rules, because this isn't a place for debate (in fact, it is setup explicitly to prohibit it), no Baptist can hop in here to defend themselves. Therefore, even though I am no moderator, I don't think saying things like this is appropriate.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## De Jager (Jun 1, 2021)

If you want to find something "concerning" about the reformed position, I suppose you could point out the fact (that no one denies) that there are no explicit passages saying "baptize your babies", or "they baptized the children" or something like that. I know lots of people who simply aren't comfortable with going beyond the explicit text. Of course, they all hold to the doctrine of the trinity, which while it has certain great supporting texts, is not explicitly laid out in the text, like "God is one God in three persons".

The WCF speaks of "good and necessary consequence". I believe that how far one takes "good and necessary consequence" will largely determine where one falls on this issue. 

Interestingly enough, my wife and I just listened to a Q and A session from the 2021 Ligonier conference. The first question was about baptism. The panel had Derek Thomas, Joel Kim, Robert Godfrey (Paedo) and Steven Lawson (Credo). I would encourage you to watch the exchange...Lawson was adamant that if you gave a person a bible, they would not naturally find the reformed position - basically that it is a product of overlearned seminarians. He said how in seminary Sproul tried to convince him of the reformed position but that Lawson was convinced that certain passages that Sproul referred to did not mean what Sproul thought they meant, and that Sproul was committing Eisegesis instead of exegesis.


----------



## Stillwaters (Jun 1, 2021)

Taylor said:


> A couple thoughts on this:
> 
> 1) As someone who struggled with the baptism issue for years (literally), and studied the issue fairly deeply (I think), I don't think it's fair to say that all Baptists "do not hear" the covenantal language of the OT in the NT. Many, especially those here, certainly do. The Second London Baptist Confession has plenty to say about covenant. Their paradigm is simply different.
> 
> 2) Because this is a sub-forum where only paedobaptists may participate, I don't think it's fitting to say things like, "I feel very sorry for credos." It doesn't really contribute anything to the thread, and could be taken by some as denigrating language. I know you probably didn't mean it like that, but that kind of comment almost necessarily provokes a response from those whom it targets. But, as per the rules, because this isn't a place for debate (in fact, it is setup explicitly to prohibit it), no Baptist can hop in here to defend themselves. Therefore, even though I am no moderator, I don't think saying things like this is appropriate.


?
I was responding to the man who posted this. 

I pray earnestly and sincerely for Credos because I used to be one and YEARN for them to experience what I experienced.

I THANK GOD that those Reformed Theologians spoke about the "hearing" of the "Covenantal Language" in the NT ( like "And all of your Household") hearkening back to the OT. It is what God used to help me to hear it too! So now I'm giving my personal testimony of also having experienced it and I hope and pray for Credos to hear it too.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jun 1, 2021)

Stillwaters said:


> Now I feel very sorry for credos. They don't hear it.





Taylor said:


> Because this is a sub-forum where only paedobaptists may participate, I don't think it's fitting to say things like, "I feel very sorry for credos." It doesn't really contribute anything to the thread, and could be taken by some as denigrating language. I know you probably didn't mean it like that, but that kind of comment almost necessarily provokes a response from those whom it targets. But, as per the rules, because this isn't a place for debate (in fact, it is setup explicitly to prohibit it), no Baptist can hop in here to defend themselves. Therefore, even though I am no moderator, I don't think saying things like this is appropriate.


Taylor is right. Please be respectful to other views.


Taylor said:


> The Second London Baptist Confession has plenty to say about covenant. Their paradigm is simply different.


Agreed. Firstly note, WCF 7:1 and 1689 Confession 7:1 are the same. This paragraph establishes the importance and need of the covenant in redemptive history.
Secondly, WCF 1:6 and 1689 Confession 1:6 illustrate the difference between the Paedobaptist and Baptist approach. 
The WCF says:
The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or *by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture*
The 1689 Confession says:
The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or *necessarily contained *in the Holy Scripture 

The Baptists did not agree with the 'good and necessary paradigm'. They argued more for truth that was 'necessarily contained'. 


De Jager said:


> The panel had Derek Thomas, Joel Kim, Robert Godfrey (Paedo) and Steven Lawson (Credo). I would encourage you to watch the exchange...Lawson was adamant that if you gave a person a bible, they would not naturally find the reformed position - basically that it is a product of overlearned seminarians.


I am not convinced that using Steven Lawson is a helpful comparison when comparing covenantal Paedobaptists and covenantal Baptists. Lawson is a dispensationalist who rejects covenant theology. A good example of a covenantal Baptist approach is the essay produced by Sam and Micah Renihan. https://thelogcollege.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/rb-cov-theo-renihans.pdf

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Jun 1, 2021)

De Jager said:


> Lawson was adamant that if you gave a person a bible, they would not naturally find the reformed position


I can sympathize somewhat with Dr. Lawson’s sentiment, but to paraphrase the late Dr. Bahnsen, “that’s not how you do theology.”

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Stillwaters (Jun 1, 2021)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Taylor is right. Please be respectful to other views.
> 
> Agreed. Firstly note, WCF 7:1 and 1689 Confession 7:1 are the same. This paragraph establishes the importance and need of the covenant in redemptive history.
> Secondly, WCF 1:6 and 1689 Confession 1:6 illustrate the difference between the Paedobaptist and Baptist approach.
> ...


???
I have not disrespected anyone's view. 

My comment was directed specifically toward the person who started this thread.

Because I know the reason I can now "hear" the CT in th NT hearkening back to the OT and became a Paedo is because others were willing to publicly say the same exact things.


----------



## De Jager (Jun 1, 2021)

Eyedoc84 said:


> I can sympathize somewhat with Dr. Lawson’s sentiment, but to paraphrase the late Dr. Bahnsen, “that’s not how you do theology.”



Yeah. I can too. But in response to his line of argumentation, there are a lot of things in the Bible that I would not understand without the help of pastors and teachers...i.e. seminarians.

The reformation put the Bible in the hands of the laypeople but did not eliminate the need for qualified teachers and preachers who can plumb the depths of the Bible more than the average person.


----------



## JTB.SDG (Jun 1, 2021)

Stillwaters said:


> ???
> I have not disrespected anyone's view.
> 
> My comment was directed specifically toward the person who started this thread.
> ...


Friend, can't you just say a quick "okay, will do" and move on?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Stillwaters (Jun 1, 2021)

JTB.SDG said:


> Friend, can't you just say a quick "okay, will do" and move on?


No! I'm glad I said it even if it is the last thing I am permitted to say on the PB. This is because those same words are what opened up my ears to hear the CT Language in the NT. Romans 9:6 even explains the Visible & Invisible Church that Credos misunderstand. "Not all Israel is Israel". But Romans 9:6 can't be understood unless one hears the CT Language. So hopefully God will use those words to open up someone else's ears to hear.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Jack K (Jun 1, 2021)

To answer Nathan's question... I find the strongest argument against baptizing babies to be this: Where we have accounts of baptisms in the Bible, evidence of repentance and faith comes first. Since children are incapable of giving us a credible profession of repentance and faith, we should not baptize them. Nowhere in the Bible do we hear of anyone being baptized first and only coming to express faith at a point later in life.

Of course, those of us who would baptize babies have good responses: The approach is too individualistic and fails to account for the faith of the parents. It also fails to consider the whole range of meanings tied up in baptism, which is much more than an expression of one's conversion. A handful of examples don't make a rule. And so on—we could give more. But passages like Acts 2:37 and Acts 16:14, where personal faith appears to lead into baptism, must be addressed, especially in our individualistic culture.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Colin (Jun 2, 2021)

Stillwaters said:


> Hi # 6666,
> 
> It was the prayerful studying of Covenant Theology when I experienced what some Reformed Paedobaptist Theologians had described as "hearing the Covenantal Language in the NT hearkening back to the OT", and then the oft mentioned words and concepts like "household" just came alive.
> 
> ...


12 Questions to Ask Yourself Before Posting Something Online​1. Will it edify or significantly inform a useful conversation (Mark 12:29–31; 1 Cor. 14:26)?

2. Will it be easily misunderstood (John 13:7; 16:12)?

3. Will it reach the right audience (Mark 4:9)?

4. Will it help your evangelism (Col. 1:28–29)?

5. Will it bring about unnecessary and unhelpful controversy (Titus 3:9)?

6. Will it embarrass or offend (1 Cor. 12:21–26)?

7. Will it convey care (1 Cor. 12:21–26)?

8. Will it make people better appreciate someone else (1 Cor. 12:21–26)?

9. Is it boasting (Prov. 27:2)?

10. Is the tone appropriate (2 John 1, 12; Col. 4:6; Eph. 4:29; 2 Tim. 2:24–25)?

11. Is it wrong to say nothing (Rom. 1:14)?

12. What do others advise (Prov. 11:14; 15:22; 24:6)?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## py3ak (Jun 2, 2021)

There are several arguments that can have a pretty substantial impact, although ultimately they fail to disprove paedo-baptism:

1. Something so important ought to be more clear in Scripture. If God wanted babies to be baptized, why not make it as clear as in the case of circumcision? (The comeback is that if you understand the connection between baptism and circumcision, there's not the need for repetition.)

2. Advocates of paedo-baptism sometimes behave badly and/or make terrible arguments.
(This is not a strictly logical objection, but for people wrestling with these questions it can raise difficulties. The comeback is that so do anti-paedo-baptists sometimes.)

3. Advocates of paedo-baptism can emphasize the covenant to the exclusion of election, and close their eyes to the manifest wickedness of their covenant children.
(This is another guilt-by-association argument that isn't strictly logical; but it can be a stumbling block for those wrestling with the issues. The comeback is that paedo-baptist failures don't negate the basic argument. In embracing paedo-baptism you're not required to embrace every distortion of its import or absurdity alleged in its defense.)

4. Historically, advocacy of paedo-baptism is frequently tied to very unfortunate doctrinal views and other terrible practices.
(This is really similar to what's above, only moving in the realm of history instead of experience. Calvin's view of baptism ought to be judged differently than Augustine's, just as Bunyan's view of baptism ought to be judged different than Balthazar Hubmaier's.)


----------



## Gwallard (Jun 2, 2021)

Colin said:


> 12 Questions to Ask Yourself Before Posting Something Online​1. Will it edify or significantly inform a useful conversation (Mark 12:29–31; 1 Cor. 14:26)?
> 
> 2. Will it be easily misunderstood (John 13:7; 16:12)?
> 
> ...


In the interest of keeping civil dialogue, what would you have rather him done, brother? These are good directives, but he was answering the question directly without trying to foment. Perhaps I am simply hardened in how I speak or hear others speak.

These are very disputed things, what ought paedo or credo to do, while still keeping a relatively free expression?


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jun 2, 2021)

Eyedoc84 said:


> I can sympathize somewhat with Dr. Lawson’s sentiment, but to paraphrase the late Dr. Bahnsen, “that’s not how you do theology.”





De Jager said:


> Yeah. I can too. But in response to his line of argumentation, there are a lot of things in the Bible that I would not understand without the help of pastors and teachers...i.e. seminarians.
> 
> The reformation put the Bible in the hands of the laypeople but did not eliminate the need for qualified teachers and preachers who can plumb the depths of the Bible more than the average person.



Ephesians 4 tells us that pastors and teachers are given for the purpose of doctrinally and practically stabilizing and building up the body. It follows that if pastors and teachers are not involved in the instruction process, the church is without Christ's authorized guides, and will certainly err.

I can hardly think of any doctrine where I did not need a lot of help. About eleven years ago I strayed on justification by faith alone. That's about as primary of a doctrine as you can get. I've needed help on election, assurance, the nature of faith, many others.

I also have to wonder, if you leave the layman to himself, if he will confess, "There are three persons in the godhead--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one God, the same in essence, equal in power and glory, although distinguished by their personal properties." That statement is the product of massive labor of countless teachers and guides throughout New Covenant times. The doctrine of the Trinity relies on good and necessary consequence from multiple statements placed throughout the NT. Although you will not find the quoted paragraph in any particular verse, yet all the church has acknowledged that this is a line in the sand that separates the orthodox from the heretic, inside the church vs. outside.

To answer the OP @nathanstenzel , an argument likely to shake you up is that the credobaptist says he is making his claim on clear, direct examples which speak plainly for his case, and some will say it doesn't make sense to apply good and necessary consequence in this matter (not all Baptists will say that). I would only say that doctrines much more foundational than baptism depend on good and necessary consequence. If it is applicable for the Trinity, it is applicable for baptism. And even so, Christ only needed to quote Exodus 3, which doesn't have any explicit word on the physical resurrection, and even the liberal-minded Sadducees had to admit it was an astounding argument. Any argument that disallows GNC would not allow the style of argument made by Christ, meaning effectively the Savior would not have met the burden of proof. And even besides GNC, the PB claims the household baptisms as his direct examples.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## nathanstenzel (Jun 2, 2021)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Do you have children? When we had kids, pragmatically Presbyterianism made the most sense in how children are viewed and treated. My children are 5, 3, and 1, and they are disciples in Christ's Church.


No children yet, but as I've considered how I want to raise my children, I've found that paedobaptism (and its accompanying view of the covenantal family) is quite compelling.


----------



## Colin (Jun 2, 2021)

Gwallard said:


> In the interest of keeping civil dialogue, what would you have rather him done, brother? These are good directives, but he was answering the question directly without trying to foment. Perhaps I am simply hardened in how I speak or hear others speak.
> 
> These are very disputed things, what ought paedo or credo to do, while still keeping a relatively free expression?


My suggestion @Stillwaters was in regards to her, _"Now I feel very sorry for credos. They don't hear it." _I don't see any fruit growing from that type of dialogue.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## 83r17h (Jun 2, 2021)

I think there are two things I've heard that sounded more compelling than other arguments. 

1. Spiritualization of the genealogical principle. Instead of natural children, the children of the new covenant are spiritual children. Not birth, but rebirth. 

2. Different covenants with Abraham. The genealogical principle only applied to one covenant, which dealt with land and was only typological. 

I don't think either position holds up, but those are the strongest general arguments I've heard.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## De Jager (Jun 2, 2021)

nathanstenzel said:


> No children yet, but as I've considered how I want to raise my children, I've found that paedobaptism (and its accompanying view of the covenantal family) is quite compelling.



A lot of baptists raise their children in a covenantal way, although in my experience some do not like to use that type of language.

I would just encourage you to do a comprehensive study on the topic of the children of believers - and not just NT believers - but throughout the whole bible. Look into their status, how their parents are to view them, how their parents are to instruct them, etc. This might not end up changing your view on baptism, but it will help you raise your children in a more biblical way.

Children of believing parents in the OT were holy, and so are children of believing parents in the NT era. The status of the children really doesn't change at all. They are holy - that is, set apart by God, for God. And just as in the OT, so in the NT one can be outwardly holy or consecrated and yet inwardly unholy. 

I find that if people have a disconnect between how they view children in NT and children in the OT shows that they have dispensationalist presuppositions. Ask yourself, why would I even assume that the status would be different? Why would I assume that God would treat them in any different way? What pre-suppositions are leading me to think in that way? Analyze your presuppositions to see if they hold up under scrutiny.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Jun 2, 2021)

Colin said:


> "Now I feel very sorry for credos. They don't hear it."


I see some pushback against this statement. However, I do not see anything in it that is especially objectionable, except perhaps a lack of nuance. In my [real-life] experience, though, credobaptists most certainly "do not see it."

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## J.L. Allen (Jun 3, 2021)

That Spurgeon quote about babies wetting themselves. 


But really, the point that @83r17h makes about birth/rebirth is a decent challenge. The pattern that is seen in much of the accounts of baptism from the NT being repentance then baptism is another. Yet, also as was pointed out, there are strong rebuttals to those points. Honestly, as hard as it was, the biggest challenge that I _personally_ faced when making the change from Baptist to P&R was the feeling that I was doing something wrong because I had been a Baptist my whole Christian life up that point. Trust me, my pastor at that time (Baptist Acts29) spent more energy and time trying to talk me out of it than he had shepherding me prior to my conviction crisis. After I got over internal turmoil and external hammering with prayer and searching Scripture, I don't look back. I can't describe the confidence in the consistency of my Christian faith after that because words fail, but it truly was like my eyes were opened.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jw (Jun 3, 2021)

Can’t think of any. Sorry. Not sorry.

Reactions: Love 1 | Amen 1


----------

