# Position Change: paedo to credo



## Osage Bluestem (Apr 3, 2010)

All,

Thank God and I am pleased in my soul to report that my convictions regarding baptism have changed. I no longer hold the paedo view. I am fully convicted of the credo view that I grew up in, and am happily at peace with that! I'm glad to know my grandpa was right all along. I am no longer in misery regarding this and will most likely sleep rather well without strange dreams and waking up wanting to check a scripture or a path on the internet following a clue.

Guys, my spiritual journey has come a complete full circle! I am a Baptist pastor's kid. I have done everything from falling into secularism to falling into Roman Catholicism to falling into a liberal PC-USA church to joining a good and Godly PCA church to now being right back theologically to where I should have been if I had listened to my grandpa. Maybe God has guided me through this journey for a good reason? I am still trying to find out if I should serve as a pastor or deacon or what. I feel like I am supposed to do something. I'm not happy doing anything other than worshipping or trying to advance the kingdom or learning about God, other than spending time with my family of course. Nothing else gives me any satisfaction other than being with God's people doing God's work. I especially love to discuss Christ with those who don't know him yet. However, if it is the will of God that I serve like that someday it certainly looks like he will have me do it in a Baptist Church, like I started in. 

In regards to my present Church. I have talked this over with my wife today. We are planning to relocate soon anyway. I will quitely leave my current PCA Church when we move away and will look for a baptist church to join at our new home. 

I will now spend some time in prayer about whether to get baptized again or not. I was baptized by my grandpa when I was seven after I went down the aisle and accepted Christ. However, I lived like the devil on many occasions since then. I am sure that Christ is my Lord and Savior. I just can't pinpoint exactley when I came to faith. It is indeed possible that it was at seven, because I really did believe, but was it because of my trust for my grandpa or because of God's regenerating work is my question. I have always felt a guilt about doing wickedness when I have done it though, even when I denied the Lord from a secularist position in my early 20's. I am leaning toward getting rebaptized because I know for a fact I'm saved now and feel like I would like to get baptized to honor the Lord publicly with the sign that I am buried with him and have risen with him to walk in a newness of life and that I will never fall into the sewer again.

Thank you all for your help in this matter. I'm glad it's cleared up for me. I have changed my profile and signature to reflect my new confession the LBCF 1689.

Best Regards,

David


----------



## JM (Apr 4, 2010)

I know this wasn't easy for you.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 4, 2010)

I am not sure I would get Baptized again. Especially if you believed Jesus was the Christ and died for your sin. You didn't need to have perfect understanding. I would seek the counsel of those around you, especially your Elders and family members on whether or not you are gifted for the ministry. I would say at least live in your convictions for quite a few years under your Eldership and good disciplined training before anything else. The Elders and Church leaders are gifts from God to build the Church and we are commanded by scripture to consider what they say in Hebrews 13 and many other places. 

I don't want to throw a wet blanket on your convictions but I can imagine that you have experienced something liberating every time you had a change of position theologically. That is a motivator for changes of conviction. I have a good friend who has a similar testimony like yours in some way. He has returned to the faith of his family. He was Roman Catholic. Became Charismatic Roman Catholic. Then ended up in Reformed teaching. He is now at a lot of peace having returned to his Catholicism. I am not saying your return is necessarily wrong by scripture but one who has been through such a Journey needs some time to prove his convictions out. He also needs to be under the leadership of the Church and its care. That is very important. 

I mainly hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith for the most part but am a solid Credo Baptist. I am not one who has changed positions very much in my 30 years of walking with Christ. Not even in my Eschatology. I have grown deeper in my understanding concerning some things but I have seen many (even Pastors) make quick sweeping changes and lose credibility and harm others when changes have been quick and strongly announced. I would also encourage you to sit down with your current Pastor and speak to him about it so that you can be released to join another fellowship on good terms if that is God's will for you. Believe me, that is very important. 

If you have any questions or just want to ask me anything just contact Private Message me. I hope I am not throwing a wet towel on your fire but in my experience and by the rule of scripture changes do have processes in order to protect us and each other. God made it so. 

Your Brother in Christ.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 4, 2010)

> One thought here since it has been touched on. I use to say the same thing John MacArthur use to say about Presbyterians not reforming enough. The Reformed Presbyterian view of paedo Baptism is thoroughly reformed in thought and so far away from Roman Catholicism and the early Churches doctrine of necessity that I don't see how it can't be reformed enough. I do think it is unbiblical via who is baptized in scripture and who we are commanded to baptize. I also believe the Credo Only position is the correct one based upon Covenant Theology and who is a member in the Covenant of Grace. And we can discuss this till we are blue in the face. After all, it does say go and baptize making disciples. Just a side note.... *It doesn't say make disciples first and baptize them in Matthew 28*. Believe me. I know the arguments. At the same time, I am solidly a Credo only Baptist. You can find this out reading my blog.
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/
> 
> ...



Dave,
I posted this in another thread and just want you to see this also.


----------



## Herald (Apr 4, 2010)

David,

As a Baptist, I certainly welcome your change of conviction, but I am concerned even more about the entirety of your belief system. I urge you to become more acquainted with the confessional and covenantal aspect of the Reformed Baptist faith. There is only one God (existing in three persons), and one revealed source of truth, the bible. Because men are sinful and finite we follow different convictions on some issues. One day we will be united in all truth, and our faith will be perfected. Until that day we must see the truth as best we can. Within the Baptist genre there are Baptists and then there are Reformed Baptists. The distinctives of Reformed Baptists is a covenantal view of scripture and a commitment to confessional subscription. The books I mentioned to you previously are good resources. Our confession, the 1689 LBC, will provide you insight into the theological framework that binds us together. But more important than all of that is a church that will not only teach you properly, but hold you accountable. I am going to PM you a link to a Reformed Baptist Church in the Dallas, TX area. You want to check them out. It is important that the breadth of your belief and practice is supported by a strong local church that accurately divides the word of truth. 

Blessings.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 4, 2010)

DD2009 said:


> I am fully convicted of the credo view that I grew up in...





DD2009 said:


> ...now being right back theologically to where I should have been if I had listened to my grandpa.





DD2009 said:


> ...I will now spend some time in prayer about whether to get baptized again or not. I was baptized by my grandpa when I was seven after I went down the aisle and accepted Christ.


Was your Grandpa right all along or not?


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 4, 2010)

In addition, are there any "quirks" to your grandpa's theology that you will become convinced of later? I do not say this in the least to offend you intentionally, only for you to consider matters carefully (which I know you have thus far). Was he a dispensationalist like MacArthur, who seems to have done the most to convince you on this matter? If so, does that mean you will drift to that area? Was he Arminian? If so, will you later become convinced that Calvinism is false and adopt his beliefs here as well?


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 4, 2010)

One other thing, David: on another thread, I suggested that you should discuss this matter with your pastor. I don't see anywhere in your post where you have said you did that, only that you are moving away anyway so you will quietly leave the church. If that is so, I am concerned that you have made this decision w/o even consulting with the person (or persons, considering the elders) who has primary spiritual oversight over you.


----------



## lynnie (Apr 4, 2010)

Plenty of PCAs are significantly Baptist filled. You can't make this your main qualification for a church if the teaching stinks. We've been five years in two PCAs because the baptist churches were -ahem, well, never mind. But don't make this the first priority in finding a church.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Apr 4, 2010)

Marrow Man said:


> In addition, are there any "quirks" to your grandpa's theology that you will become convinced of later? I do not say this in the least to offend you intentionally, only for you to consider matters carefully (which I know you have thus far). Was he a dispensationalist like MacArthur, who seems to have done the most to convince you on this matter? If so, does that mean you will drift to that area? Was he Arminian? If so, will you later become convinced that Calvinism is false and adopt his beliefs here as well?



I take no offense. Thank you for your concern on this.

My Grandpa was an Amillenarian Calvinistic Southern Baptist pastor. CH Spurgeon and RG Lee were his two favorites. He used only the KJV but he wasn't a KJV onlyist he was like me a KJV supremacist, but he did pass out many less pedigreed translations to those who felt the KJV was too difficult. He gave away a lot of bibles. He thought dispensationalism was heretical and taught two ways to salvation. He was not creedal or confessional. He felt that no one should profess anything written other than the bible. He was a regulative principle sola scriptura man. He believed in the autonomy of the local Church. He spent most of his time trying to shepard his flock and lead the lost to Christ. He preached on the radio in Southwest Oklahoma for about 10 years during the 60's and 70's in addition to pastoring his Church. He spent his entire ministry in the SBC. He was a pastor for 40 years or so. He is still alive but he is quite elderly and has had a stroke and can't speak or read anymore and he is paralyzed on his right side. He is in good spirits though. Still cuts up, laughs and smiles. He still believes what he preached that if you are a christian the best day of your life is always ahead of you. It will be the day you meet the Lord. So he has always had something to look forward to.

I will not fall into Arminianism because I know it's unbiblical. It is not a consistant soteriology. I will not fall into dispensationalism because there is only one way to the Father and that is through faith in Jesus Christ.

I doubt I will ever change my amillennial view. Dr. Riddlebarger did a good job of solidifying that in his book. However, I think the only person who ever lived that had absolutley correct eschatology was Christ. So, I'm more open to change eschatology since I do not believe it is crucial. Currently I am a convicted Amillenarian. If there are any changes of my core beliefs scheduled for me in the future I'm unaware of it. I feel prettty secure and confident in the word right now.



Marrow Man said:


> One other thing, David: on another thread, I suggested that you should discuss this matter with your pastor. I don't see anywhere in your post where you have said you did that, only that you are moving away anyway so you will quietly leave the church. If that is so, I am concerned that you have made this decision w/o even consulting with the person (or persons, considering the elders) who has primary spiritual oversight over you.


 
Ok. Here is the deal with that. I don't think it's the best thing to do in my situation. Here is why. 1. The Church had some disputes before I joined it and many members including the pastor and some elders left. We are still trying to build it back up to where it was back then. I don't want to cause any issues at all. It's not the place for it and I love the people there too much for that. 2. Our pastor is only an interim. I haven't known him very long. The pulpit comittte is looking for a new pastor right now. What I understand is that it won't be the interim. 3. I have already decided the issue. I am at peace and feel like I have exhausted all available arguments. I don't think our interim will do any better against Macarthur than Sproul did. He will probably say the same things because I don't think there is anythng else left to say. Also I have already asked his advice on this months ago when I was trying to defend the paedo position. He gave me the same arguments I had already given to the credo I was fellowshiping with, I thanked him and went on. It's a done deal. I'm a credo. I'll don't plan to tell them about that. I'm just going to say goodbye when the day comes and move on. I'm moving anyway.


----------



## Scott1 (Apr 4, 2010)

David,

Without commenting on the change of view per se,

Remember, you know enough of covenant theology and covenant community to go through the process of reporting this to your elders, explaining this conviction, and seeking to transfer with their blessing.

We don't "quietly leave-" we leave only by death, transfer or ex-communication. This is the "high view" of the church, Christ's Body that we hold in reformed theology because it is what Scripture teaches.

And without commenting on the underlying doctrine, it seems right that a strong of conviction on a doctrine of this significance, knowledgeably taken and respectfully communicated is grounds for seeking to transfer churches.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Apr 4, 2010)

Scott1 said:


> David,
> 
> Without commenting on the change of view per se,
> 
> ...


 
I'd really rather not trouble them with it. It seems to me like it would just cause problems that don't need to be caused. I do not want to be a divisive person.


----------



## Scott1 (Apr 4, 2010)

That's understandable.

But ask for God to give you grace to do the right thing, respecting the authority He has placed over you, loving the brothers and sisters He has given you to love, and honoring Him in all things.


----------



## KSon (Apr 4, 2010)

Some of the finest counsel I have heard, or in this case read, regarding changes in perspectives such as this came from Bruce Buchanan. Though it was given to someone going from credo to paedo, I think the value of the counsel still stands. It is found in post #4 of this thread:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f22/becoming-paedobaptist-50960/


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 4, 2010)

Thanks for the response, David. While I cannot agree with simply leaving (and I would second Scott's comments), at least I have a better idea of the situation now.

Your grandpa sounds like a fine and faithful man and servant of God, btw.


----------



## Mushroom (Apr 4, 2010)

DD2009 said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> > David,
> ...


Shirking your duty to submit to the men God has set over you to care for your soul is not troubling them, it is troubling yourself, David. I'd have to say that this attitude is possibly borne of the very same affinity for some 'acceptable' form of autonomy that brings you to this change.

I've seen otherwise very faithful brothers and sisters hold to some error their whole lives. It does not mean they are not to be loved and respected, or even that they shouldn't be submitted to in those things in which they are not in error, but it also does not mean that we should toss the truth to accommodate those things in which they are. I'm sure we all will find that we have been holding to some error or other when we behold the Lord face to face. I remember back some years when you were debating on another forum in favor of the PCUSA. It was a great joy to see God bring you to the truth concerning that group. You know that I would say that this move is one back into error, but I know that the same God who brought you out of the first will be faithful to bring you out of this one if it is necessary.

May God continue to richly bless you, brother.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Apr 4, 2010)

Brad said:


> Shirking your duty to submit to the men God has set over you to care for your soul....


 
Well, I certainly don't want to shirk. But if I am moving to another town anyway should I really bring this up? How could that help them in any way?


----------



## Montanablue (Apr 4, 2010)

Do you think you ought to talk about this with them no matter what? I know if I was making the change from credo to paedo (I'm credo), I would feel I should talk to my elders about it - just to make sure that I hadn't over looked an argument or something I should read before making the decision. Since I'm credo, I feel like i'm playing the devil's advocate here a bit! I am sure that you've thought about this long and hard, but I do think it might be wise to just have at least one conversation with your pastor or an elder about it. If you're really secure in your belief and you're truly convicted, its not like you're going to be talked out of it. 

And then you can just say to them, "You know, since we'll be leaving soon anyway, we'd like to stay until we move and then we'll likely transfer to a Reformed Baptist Church."


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Apr 4, 2010)

Montanablue said:


> Do you think you ought to talk about this with them no matter what? I know if I was making the change from credo to paedo (I'm credo), I would feel I should talk to my elders about it - just to make sure that I hadn't over looked an argument or something I should read before making the decision. Since I'm credo, I feel like i'm playing the devil's advocate here a bit! I am sure that you've thought about this long and hard, but I do think it might be wise to just have at least one conversation with your pastor or an elder about it. If you're really secure in your belief and you're truly convicted, its not like you're going to be talked out of it.
> 
> And then you can just say to them, "You know, since we'll be leaving soon anyway, we'd like to stay until we move and then we'll likely transfer to a Reformed Baptist Church."


 
I see what you're saying. My fear is not them talking me out of my position but me wrecking theirs or offending them, and them having internal issues after I leave. Then the gossip might falsly start that we're leaving because we changed baptismal positons when that isn't the case. If I could have a confidential conversation with the interim I might, but he is real busy and has more important things to worry about than something he can't change anyway.


----------



## Mushroom (Apr 4, 2010)

DD2009 said:


> Brad said:
> 
> 
> > Shirking your duty to submit to the men God has set over you to care for your soul....
> ...


I don't see it as a matter of helping them, but as a matter of submission and fulfilling the vows you made when you joined that Church.


----------



## toddpedlar (Apr 4, 2010)

As Brad noted - it's not a matter at all of your helping them. It's a matter of their being shepherds over your soul - and as such, it is simply a matter of your being a sheep under their care that you should discuss such a fundamental change in your convictions with them. It sounds to me like you simply want to walk away and not deal with your elders in the faith concerning such a significant change that you have made more or less on your own without input or discussion with them. That is, it seems to me, problematic.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Apr 4, 2010)

toddpedlar said:


> As Brad noted - it's not a matter at all of your helping them. It's a matter of their being shepherds over your soul - and as such, it is simply a matter of your being a sheep under their care that you should discuss such a fundamental change in your convictions with them. It sounds to me like you simply want to walk away and not deal with your elders in the faith concerning such a significant change that you have made more or less on your own without input or discussion with them. That is, it seems to me, problematic.


 
What I would like to hear an elder in the faith say is "Congratulations, I'm glad that God has shown you the truth about baptism." If I go to a baptist church where there are elders that see the topic the way I do that's what I'll hear. If I talk to my presbyterian interim pastor about it it's just going to bother him. I really don't see the sense in disturbing people needlesly about something I know they aren't going to like when I'm leaving anyway because I'm moving away. Do you see what I'm saying? They won't change my moind anyway. I'm comfortable with the credo position it is logical and consistant with my calvinistic soteriology.


----------



## Mushroom (Apr 4, 2010)

David, do you remember making this vow?:



> 5. Do you submit yourselves to the government and discipline
> of the Church, and promise to study its purity and peace?


What you would like and what the Lord has ordained are not always going to be the same. The Body of Christ is not some cafeteria where you pick and choose from what you like and discard the rest. It's not cable TV where when you get tired of one show, you just change the channel. I submit to you that your desire to avoid facing the shepherds *the Lord has set over you* on this matter is a form of rebellion that a man whose heart has been transformed by the Gospel would realize is grave sin. God is sovereign over the 'situation' your Church is in, He is sovereign over the fact that regardless of that situation those Officers are occupying that position and therefore qualified to handle whatever 'trouble' you imagine this might bring, and He is sovereign over you and your joining of this Church and making the vows you made. Your desire to slink away unnoticed is not unnoticed by your God. It is cowardly and rife with rebellion, regardless of what color dress you drape on it. Vow-breaking is not the behavior of a faithful Christian man, dragging one's wife and children into that behavior is even lower. Please have the courage to rethink this decision, and go have a talk with your Elders. I'm not saying this to you in hopes that your mind will be changed, I'm saying it to you in hopes that you will not wilfully commit this sin.


----------



## Theoretical (Apr 4, 2010)

DD2009 said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> > As Brad noted - it's not a matter at all of your helping them. It's a matter of their being shepherds over your soul - and as such, it is simply a matter of your being a sheep under their care that you should discuss such a fundamental change in your convictions with them. It sounds to me like you simply want to walk away and not deal with your elders in the faith concerning such a significant change that you have made more or less on your own without input or discussion with them. That is, it seems to me, problematic.
> ...



The worst thing I ever did was using a valid, secondary premise (helping a friend find a church) as a justification for leaving my methodist church, rather than at least telling my Sunday school teacher (closest thing I had to elder there) why I was leaving. I was scared to death of doing it, especially since he was a seminary professor, but I've regretted it ever since. The second worst was when I told some laymen and an non-serving elder that I was leaving but not the elders themselves. The best was when I told an LCMS minister who had taken me under his wing that after study I had become convinced strongly enough of Presbyterianism I needed to go Presbyterian. He warmly wished me well in Presbyterianism.

Just disappearing is not helpful and also goes against your vows as a member:

#5 Do you submit yourselves to the government and discipline of the Church, and promise to study its purity and peace?

They need to know of your change, and part of being a member of a Presbyterian church is that you somewhat "stuck." You can't expect your elders to be thrilled with the switch to credo, but as you are remaining within the Christian fold after discussing the issue with you they'll may even try to find you a Reformed Baptist church.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Apr 4, 2010)

Brad said:


> David, do you remember making this vow?:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Brad do you understand the situation? I'm leaving anyway. How can I be under the government of that Church if I'm not there! 
*If I was planning to stay in the Church then of course I would talk to them!* That is only proper.

I'm not leaving the Church because of my view change. I was leaving ANYWAY for work reasons.


----------



## Montanablue (Apr 4, 2010)

David, I understand where you're coming from and I also understand why you wouldn't want to rock the boat. But your elders are going to know anyway when you request a transfer to a Reformed Baptist church instead of another PCA or another paedo church. Don't you think it would be better to tell them in person rather then having them find out in such an impersonal way?


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Apr 4, 2010)

Montanablue said:


> David, I understand where you're coming from and I also understand why you wouldn't want to rock the boat. But your elders are going to know anyway when you request a transfer to a Reformed Baptist church instead of another PCA or another paedo church. Don't you think it would be better to tell them in person rather then having them find out in such an impersonal way?


 
That's a good point. Alright. I'll tell the preacher next time he has a minute.


----------



## lynnie (Apr 4, 2010)

I assume his PCA church will be understanding. But let's be honest here. Anybody who reads the PB often probably knows about the thread on Dr Clark saying he would discipline a member who left his paedo church for the Reformed baptists. And they also probably read the one where Mark Dever said he could never go to a paedo church. Its pretty hot out there sometimes over paedo credo, with men who have national visibility. 

If somebody thinks that telling their elders that they have gone from paedo to credo (or vice versa) is going to be like pouring gasoline on a fire, they are perhaps very intuitively discerning. People are not afraid of going to good shepherds. I've been around the type you can disagree with and the type that you can't. Nice Christians have no desire to stir up strife.

Now I think he should tell them regardless of how they handle doctrinal conflict if he wasn't moving away. No question. But his reluctance may be a godly desire for peace, not "cowardly and rife with rebellion". Judging motives is wrong.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Apr 4, 2010)

lynnie said:


> Now I think he should tell them regardless of how they handle doctrinal conflict if he wasn't moving away. No question. But his reluctance may be a godly desire for peace, not "cowardly and rife with rebellion". Judging motives is wrong.


 
Thank you. Peace is my desire. I'm not cowardly. 

So, I'll let the preacher know and hope he understands.


----------



## Montanablue (Apr 4, 2010)

How can you discipline someone who has had a change of convictions? I don't understand... I thought it was permissible to be a credo in the PCA as long as you were not in a church office. (Perhaps not desirable, but permissible)


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Apr 4, 2010)

Montanablue said:


> How can you discipline someone who has had a change of convictions? I don't understand... I thought it was permissible to be a credo in the PCA as long as you were not in a church office. (Perhaps not desirable, but permissible)


 
I was told you could be a member of the PCA with Credo convictions as well. I won't be disciplined over this at all. It will probably just cause needless strife when I talk to them about it., but I will indeed talk to them before I leave.

---------- Post added at 08:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:13 PM ----------

Thanks you all for your advice and concern regarding this issue. I value your opinions greatly.

Can a mod close the thread now? Thanks.


----------



## Mushroom (Apr 4, 2010)

DD2009 said:


> Brad said:
> 
> 
> > David, do you remember making this vow?:
> ...


I understand the situation, David. But using relocation as a cloak for not honestly addressing these things with the shepherds God has set over you is NOT appropriate. As mentioned, holding to a credo view of baptism is not cause for discipline in a PCA Church. There are credo members of my PCA Church. But the act of not bringing this change of position to them is sin. When you move, it is appropriate for you to inform your shepherds and request from them a letter of dismissal. How could you do that in good conscience without telling them of this change? Again, this is not cable TV. You made vows. You have obligations. Keep them.

Brother, I hope you know from our past that I love you. In fact, you are very dear to me. My aim is not to judge your motives, but to plainly tell you that your plans were sinful. Your being RB will not ever detract from the love I have for you. I believe it to be error, but not such as to warrant division. I just want to save my brother from the sorrow of commiting sin if I can. I am greatly relieved that you are going to discuss this with your Teaching Elder.


----------



## Herald (Apr 4, 2010)

David, just be honest with your TE. If is a man of God, he will understand the change in your conviction. He may try to illumine you (to what he may consider to be) your error, but that is to be expected if he is faithful to what he believes. By letting your church know of your doctrinal change you will be doing the right thing the right way. It will allow your church to bless you as you leave; committing you into God's hands and your new church. You will have maintained a sound testimony in the sight of God and men. You will not give the enemies of our Lord reason to blaspheme. Integrity and credibility is a character trait each Christian needs to diligently maintain. It is easy to lose and so hard to recapture. May the Lord honor your decision to do the right thing.


----------



## Mushroom (Apr 4, 2010)

See, now there's one RB that I love with my faltering heart (and the rest of you, too). If you join with the likes of my brother Bill, you will be very happy indeed! The Lord go before and behind you, David.


----------



## lynnie (Apr 4, 2010)

Montanablue said:


> How can you discipline someone who has had a change of convictions? I don't understand... I thought it was permissible to be a credo in the PCA as long as you were not in a church office. (Perhaps not desirable, but permissible)



If you are referring to my comment, sorry for the misunderstanding. The man who made the comment about discipline is not in the PCA, and as far as I know spoke for himself and not his denomination. I was just trying to make the point that it is real easy to anticipate strife over this subject.

Works both ways...my former PCA pastor had Calvinist Baptists who told him he must not have ever read the bible if he baptized babies. 

This is one subject I don't blame anybody for trying very hard to avoid these days.


----------



## Andres (Apr 5, 2010)

David, could you please give some of your reasons that caused you to make the change? Scripturally, what you have read/understood differently than you did before?


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Apr 5, 2010)

I will indeed speak with the Teaching Elder at my church before I go.

Thanks everyone. I love you guys.


----------



## toddpedlar (Apr 5, 2010)

DD2009 said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> > As Brad noted - it's not a matter at all of your helping them. It's a matter of their being shepherds over your soul - and as such, it is simply a matter of your being a sheep under their care that you should discuss such a fundamental change in your convictions with them. It sounds to me like you simply want to walk away and not deal with your elders in the faith concerning such a significant change that you have made more or less on your own without input or discussion with them. That is, it seems to me, problematic.
> ...


 
We all like to hear things that affirm a position we've come to. We don't like to hear from people who disagree with us. It seems to me your lack of desire to talk about this matter with the shepherds of your congregation might have as much to do with your being unwiling to listen to their contrary evaluation of the Scriptural position on baptism, than to do with your concern for "bothering them".

Your "they won't change my mind anyway" is an attitude that seems quite unfortunate. Are you willing to admit that you are fallible and that your new conviction on this could in fact be wrong?


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Apr 5, 2010)

Andres said:


> David, could you please give some of your reasons that caused you to make the change? Scripturally, what you have read/understood differently than you did before?


 
There are a lot of things that I have covered recently, but one that stands out to me is what Macarthur brought up. If you read Acts 15 where it gives the account of the council of Jerusalem you will notice that the entire council with all of the apostles present was brought together because some pharisees had been telling people in Antioch that they had to be circumcised to be saved. If ever the New Testament point was going to be made that baptism has replaced circumcision this would have been the place it appeared, however, we read nothing of the kind, nor even a hint that the apostles were thinking along those lines. Also Galatians chapter 3 clearly teaches that only those of faith are in Christ and all of those who are baptized have put on Christ so if that is the case then it must have been common knowledge that only those who have come to faith were baptized.

---------- Post added at 09:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:06 AM ----------




toddpedlar said:


> Your "they won't change my mind anyway" is an attitude that seems quite unfortunate. Are you willing to admit that you are fallible and that your new conviction on this could in fact be wrong?



Certainly, but I highly doubt that it is. I am quite confident in its consistency with scripture. I will talk to our pastor. I promise.


----------



## SemperEruditio (Apr 5, 2010)

I'm glad you're talking to your pastor. More than likely he may know of a good Calvinist Baptist church...I'm sure some exist  in the area you are relocating too. We have people in our church (PCA) who are Credo. Only one family left the church but that was a convoluted situation. The wife had issues with the fact that she was ordained but would not be in leadership in the church and did not want to be limited to "women-only" activities. After the church did a series on the paedo position in Sunday School my wife "crossed over" and so did this couple but they wouldn't join the church. They had a new baby and wanted her baptized but did not want to become members and would not become members because the wife would never be in leadership...yet they insisted that their daughter had to be baptized.

You may know your elders better than we but as one who is undercare and being mentored I know that it would come as a shock that one of our former members left the church and joined with a Baptist church. So I'm glad to see you showing your elders the respect they deserve and just letting them know that you are leaving the area and even if you weren't that your position on baptism has changed...in the wrong direction


----------



## westminken (Apr 5, 2010)

Maybe you can check out First Baptist Church of North Richland Hills if you are moving out that way. The pastor used to post here. As far as talking with the interim pastor at your church, that is a good idea. I am not going to rehash what everybody else has said but I will say that it is the proper thing to do.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Apr 5, 2010)

westminken said:


> Maybe you can check out First Baptist Church of North Richland Hills if you are moving out that way. The pastor used to post here. As far as talking with the interim pastor at your church, that is a good idea. I am not going to rehash what everybody else has said but I will say that it is the proper thing to do.


 
Thank you. It certainly looks like that will be the closest Reformed Church to me.


----------



## jbucklin (Apr 5, 2010)

The issue of paedo/credo baptism can only be _deduced_ from Scripture, since there are no direct commands regarding either. However, it appears, covenantally speaking, that in this particular case, deducing from the Scriptures by good and necessary consequence, you will find solid support for the practice of infant baptism. If the infant children of OT believers were not denied the sign and seal of the covenant (circumcision), why then should we, under a new and better covenant, _withhold_ the sign and seal (baptism) from our children? I think it would be very difficult to find support for credo baptism apart from this "whole counsel of God" approach.

Even if that does not convince you, sacrificing sound, orthodox doctrine (which hopefully your church teaches) in favor of a church that upholds credo baptism may not be the best decision. 

Btw, what area are you moving to? Maybe you already gave that info. If so, I missed it.


----------



## JM (Apr 5, 2010)

jbucklin said:


> The issue of paedo/credo baptism can only be _deduced_ from Scripture, since there are no direct commands regarding either. However, it appears, covenantally speaking, that in this particular case, deducing from the Scriptures by good and necessary consequence, you will find solid support for the practice of infant baptism. If the infant children of OT believers were not denied the sign and seal of the covenant (circumcision), why then should we, under a new and better covenant, _withhold_ the sign and seal (baptism) from our children? I think it would be very difficult to find support for credo baptism apart from this "whole counsel of God" approach.


 
It is not convincing which is why DD is looking for orthodox doctrine that upholds credo baptism. It is a _good_ decision.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Apr 5, 2010)

JM said:


> jbucklin said:
> 
> 
> > The issue of paedo/credo baptism can only be _deduced_ from Scripture, since there are no direct commands regarding either. However, it appears, covenantally speaking, that in this particular case, deducing from the Scriptures by good and necessary consequence, you will find solid support for the practice of infant baptism. If the infant children of OT believers were not denied the sign and seal of the covenant (circumcision), why then should we, under a new and better covenant, _withhold_ the sign and seal (baptism) from our children? I think it would be very difficult to find support for credo baptism apart from this "whole counsel of God" approach.
> ...


 
Thanks. You are correct JM. I do not see any cases of infant baptism in scripture all of the cases I see are clearly believers baptism. Also if baptism had replaced circumcision then we would have heard that clearly stated in Acts 15 at the Council of Jerusalem that was indeed called to address the topic of circumcision.


----------



## Herald (Apr 5, 2010)

DD2009 said:


> Can a mod close the thread now? Thanks.



Aye.


----------

