# Credo/Paedo Hybrid-Something new?



## B.J. (Jan 27, 2007)

My investigation of this debate has led to many interesting dialogues with friends on both sides. In recent discussions with a Baptist brother it was brought to my attention that he believed that children are members of the New Covenant: However, they are not, in his estimation, to be baptized until they profess faith.


This is not a typical "Reformed Baptist" view as I am aware. Typically Reformed Baptist exclude their children from being members, that is unless they die, and then they fight for the notion that they were in the New Covenant without a profession. Whats interesting about this view is that it is Paedo in hermeneutic, and Credo in practice. So to recap....

God has not abbrogated children from the New Covenant, but they dont recieve the sign until they profess. Is this non-sense, or is it something to be taken seriously?

What say you? Anyone.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 28, 2007)

Well, I guess one thing that's different (from a Reformed Baptist perspective) is the idea that your friend is confident that he knows people that are in the New Covenant.

From a practical standpoint, Baptists treat their kids like they are Covenant members all the time. They bring them into Church and into intimate contact with the Body life of the Church. They pray with them and have them pray. They teach them things of God and expect them to obey it. They sing praises to God and expect their children to be participants.

The difference between your friend and his peers in Reformed Baptist congregations is that he's not practicing something completely contrary to what he confesses regarding his children. I've never met a Baptist, thankfully, that does treat his children like tiny pagans.

Now, as I've stated elsewhere, the real issue is the significance of the sacrament itself. If Baptism is a sign of adult faith that has no initiating significance with respect to the New Covenant then it is not formally a contradiction. In other words, Reformed Baptists acknowledge that Baptism does not join a person to the New Covenant. If it did then it would join the Reprobate to it for every baptized believer that proves to be apostate. Most Baptists see the sacrament as a sign of something within the believer and not a ministerial act in which God's promise is signified.

So, for this man who is actually speaking out loud the way most Baptists treat their kids naturally, the issue of Baptism has no significant bearing. Because it represents not a promise of God outside of the person but a sign of something within that person then it's acceptable for him to wait until that something is manifest.


----------



## KMK (Jan 28, 2007)

B.J. said:


> In recent discussions with a Baptist brother it was brought to my attention that he believed that children are members of the New Covenant:



Children in general or Children of believing parents?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 28, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I've never met a Baptist, thankfully, that does treat his children like tiny pagans.


 
By denying them the sign that is exactly what they are doing. Its the epitome of treating them like pagans - excommunication via non-application.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 28, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Well, I guess one thing that's different (from a Reformed Baptist perspective) is the idea that your friend is confident that he knows people that are in the New Covenant.
> 
> From a practical standpoint, Baptists treat their kids like they are Covenant members all the time. They bring them into Church and into intimate contact with the Body life of the Church. They pray with them and have them pray. They teach them things of God and expect them to obey it. They sing praises to God and expect their children to be participants.
> 
> The difference between your friend and his peers in Reformed Baptist congregations is that he's not practicing something completely contrary to what he confesses regarding his children. I've never met a Baptist, thankfully, that does treat his children like tiny pagans.



and this is the major inconsistency/fracture in the credo theological road map. This is the pothole in the road that they just can't avoid. In fact, it was enough to drive me to Presbyterianism.


----------



## Gryphonette (Jan 28, 2007)

Maybe they're thinking their children are like females in the OC, who clearly would be members of it but without the covenant sign?

T'would appear the sign of the covenant cannot be _strictly_ required, since half the population was excluded from it under the OC.

Mind, I agree that those who _are_ being discipled _ought_ to be baptized, which was what took me from credo to paedo. 

Still, perhaps the "wait on it" view comes from RBs reflecting on all those who were in the OC without the covenant sign.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 28, 2007)

Gryphonette said:


> Maybe they're thinking their children are like females in the OC, who clearly would be members of it but without the covenant sign?



Ann,
females in the old covenant DID have the covenant sign upon them; by proxy, through the federal head, i.e. their father, i.e. the reproductive organ and the passing of the seed. Those that were able to have the physical sign placed, i.e. male children, had it placed. This keeps things consistent.



> T'would appear the sign of the covenant cannot be _strictly_ required, since half the population was excluded from it under the OC.



Who was excluded?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 28, 2007)

Actually there are two schools of thought:

Quoting Dr. Clark


> Circumcision was a type and shadow (Hebrews uses these categories). By definition a type and shadow is imperfect and an imperfect indicator of things to come.
> 
> One of the imperfections of the type and shadow circumcision is that, by its nature, was restricted to males.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gryphonette (Jan 28, 2007)

Perhaps the RBs are assuming the proxy aspect is still in force, with their children being in the covenant because the parents are in the covenant, like the females were in the covenant because their federal heads were in the covenant?

Heck, I dunno. The original poster inquired about this "hybrid" view and I'm just speculating as to what would be the rationale, that's all.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 28, 2007)

Gryphonette said:


> Perhaps the RBs are assuming the proxy aspect is still in force, with their children being in the covenant because the parents are in the covenant, like the females were in the covenant because their federal heads were in the covenant?
> 
> Heck, I dunno. The original poster inquired about this "hybrid" view and I'm just speculating as to what would be the rationale, that's all.



Not that I want to go here again, that would not be possible as if the RB's family are neglecting placing the sign upon the male children, Gods word clearly states that they are cut off.


> Genesis 17:9-14 9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. 10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. 11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. 12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. 13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.



From a previous thread on the issue:



> When did the OT not include girls?
> 
> Were girls "circumcised" in the OT? If they were not, then they are cut off from among God's people, and not allowed to participate in the Passover.
> 
> ...


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 28, 2007)

B.J. said:


> My investigation of this debate has led to many interesting dialogues with friends on both sides. In recent discussions with a Baptist brother it was brought to my attention that he believed that children are members of the New Covenant: However, they are not, in his estimation, to be baptized until they profess faith.
> 
> 
> This is not a typical "Reformed Baptist" view as I am aware. Typically Reformed Baptist exclude their children from being members, that is unless they die, and then they fight for the notion that they were in the New Covenant without a profession. Whats interesting about this view is that it is Paedo in hermeneutic, and Credo in practice. So to recap....
> ...



The idea is a contradiction; the person sounds like they are either confused or transitioning.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 28, 2007)

joshua said:


> Dr. Clark _may_ be able to affirm this (then again, maybe not), but I think that some of the Covenantal Credos are developing something along these lines (the idea that children of believers are set apart, but not to be baptized)...men like James Renihan, etc.
> 
> Is that true, Dr. Clark, or am I losing my mind?



Josh,
If it's true, they still have to deal with Gen 17, which would end up shooting them in the big toe. It reminds me of the infant dedication thingie.


----------



## 5solasmom (Jan 28, 2007)

joshua said:


> Dr. Clark _may_ be able to affirm this (then again, maybe not), but I think that some of the Covenantal Credos are developing something along these lines (the idea that children of believers are set apart, but not to be baptized)...men like James Renihan, etc.
> 
> Is that true, Dr. Clark, or am I losing my mind?



My dh and I, who were reformed baptists until last year, as RB's_did_ view our children as set apart. We didn't know what that meant necessarily, other than the fact that they were providentally put in our family and that God regarded them as "privileged" in some respect.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 28, 2007)

5solasmom said:


> My dh and I, who were reformed baptists until last year, as RB's_did_ view our children as set apart. We didn't know what that meant necessarily, other than the fact that they were providentally put in our family and that God regarded them as "privileged" in some respect.



The 'privilege' being that they were sitting under preaching and were being catechized. Outside of that, being consistant, if taken to task, they would have to admit that they were no different than any other unregenerate out there.


----------



## 5solasmom (Jan 28, 2007)

Scott Bushey said:


> The 'privilege' being that they were sitting under preaching and were being catechized. Outside of that, being consistant, if taken to task, they would have to admit that they were no different than any other unregenerate out there.



Yes, though once we began to study the paedo view, our understanding of believers children shifted to the point that we _did_ view them as new covenant members. We didn't necessarily know if that _meant_ they should be baptised as babies/children though. So I guess we were in the transition stage at that point (and very confused).


----------



## Kaalvenist (Jan 29, 2007)

This is something I've found kind of funny. Baptists will frequently attempt to show how often Paedobaptists contradict each other (T.E. Watson's book consists of almost nothing but this sort of thing), but it's usually on relatively minor points, like how to interpret this or that verse, or whether such and such argument for Paedobaptism is really valid. But they still all agree on the "big stuff," i.e. one covenant of grace in both Testaments, children are still in the covenant, baptism has replaced circumcision.

But on the other hand, Baptists will contradict each other on the "big stuff." Jewett and Kingdon both argue that baptism has replaced circumcision; and Reformed Baptists who disagree with that position will still recommend their books as among the best arguing for an RB understanding of baptism. But both authors are opposed to the idea of children in the covenant.

And I've met a couple baptistic (one ARBCA) pastors who believe that children are in the covenant (certainly not the majority RB position), but don't believe that baptism has replaced circumcision. It seems that this provides them with their basis for performing infant dedications.

As far as I can tell, all we have to do is get some Baptists to argue for baptism replacing circumcision, and other Baptists to argue that children are in the covenant, put the two arguments together, and we'll have a book arguing for Paedobaptism.


----------



## Theoretical (Jan 29, 2007)

This will be a truly stupid question, but I've always wondered this. Are there any paedobaptists who are immersionists, immersing even the infants for a brief bit. Sorry, just a nagging question.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 29, 2007)

Theoretical said:


> This will be a truly stupid question, but I've always wondered this. Are there any paedobaptists who are immersionists, immersing even the infants for a brief bit. Sorry, just a nagging question.



I _think_ the Greek Orthodox Church is.


----------



## Theoretical (Jan 29, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I _think_ the Greek Orthodox Church is.


Indeed they do, how about that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church#Chrismation.

Thanks for the info.


----------



## S. Spence (Jan 29, 2007)

I've chatted to a few RB's about this. This is how they put it.

They say God is sovereign and in His sovereignty it Has pleased Him to place children into a Christian home. Those children are privileged to be raised under the word of God and so in some sense are different to other children. However they also say that until those children make a profession of faith they are outside the covenant, as in their estimation only the redeemed are in the NC.

Hope that sheds some light on the situation.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 29, 2007)

S. Spence said:


> I've chatted to a few RB's about this. This is how they put it.
> 
> They say God is sovereign and in His sovereignty it Has pleased Him to place children into a Christian home. Those children are privileged to be raised under the word of God and so in some sense are different to other children. *However they also say that until those children make a profession of faith they are outside the covenant, as in their estimation only the redeemed are in the NC.*
> 
> Hope that sheds some light on the situation.



How does the profession of faith indicate to them that they are redeemed?


----------



## Machaira (Jan 29, 2007)

S. Spence said:


> I've chatted to a few RB's about this. This is how they put it.
> 
> They say God is sovereign and in His sovereignty it Has pleased Him to place
> children into a Christian home. Those children are privileged to be raised
> ...



I was once a "Reformed Baptist" so I can say that your summary about 

covers it. There is one other thing. Because we believed that children of at 

least one believing parent were in some sense sanctified, we would have 

an "infant dedication" ceremony, but not baptism. It's like trying to have your 

cake and eat it too.


----------



## Gryphonette (Jan 29, 2007)

> How does the profession of faith indicate to them that they are redeemed?



I daresay they're thinking of Romans 10:9 "... if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved", as well as 1 Corinthians 12:3 " Therefore I am informing you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, 'Jesus is cursed,' and no one can say, 'Jesus is Lord,' except by the Holy Spirit."

If an apparently-valid profession of faith isn't generally taken to be indicative of a renewed heart (granting it isn't always), what _would_ be the criterion for baptizing an adult?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 29, 2007)

Gryphonette said:


> I daresay they're thinking of Romans 10:9 "... if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved", as well as 1 Corinthians 12:3 " Therefore I am informing you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, 'Jesus is cursed,' and no one can say, 'Jesus is Lord,' except by the Holy Spirit."
> 
> If an apparently-valid profession of faith isn't generally taken to be indicative of a renewed heart (granting it isn't always), what _would_ be the criterion for baptizing an adult?



But he didn't say the New Covenant consisted of those who had _indications_ of a renewed heart. He stated that the New Covenant consisted solely of the Redeemed.


----------



## S. Spence (Jan 29, 2007)

Rich,

I agree with you that a profession of faith does not necessarily mean that someone is redeemed, I'm just using the lingo that the RB's use when discussing this. I guess they go down this route in an effort to keep the Church 'pure,' that is, so the visible church will be a closer reflection of the invisible church. 

I must say for many years I personally held to this view and found it very, very difficult to give up.


----------



## Gryphonette (Jan 29, 2007)

The credobaptist believes the New Covenant is superior to the Old Covenant in that, while one could be in the Old Covenant yet still be eternally lost, _everyone_ in the New Covenant is eternally saved. To be saved _is _to be in the New Covenant.

Clearly there is no way to accurately identify all those who are actually in the New Covenant, but the credobaptist gives it his best shot, relying upon an apparently valid profession of faith to indicate "presumptive regeneration."

I thought it was interesting when it first occurred to me here's _one_ area in which credos and paedos are the same: when they baptize an adult, they do so on the basis of presumptive regeneration, using a profession of faith as a means test, so to speak. Both groups recognize the profession of faith might not be valid, but the credos would say the baptized nonbeliever wasn't actually placed into the New Covenant, while the paedos would say he was.

Credos believe that in the post-resurrection world, there are two classifications of people: the regenerate, who are those in the New Covenant, and the unregenerate, those who are not.

Paedos, if I've understood 'em correctly, believe there are essentially three classifications: the unregenerate _outside_ of the New Covenant; the unregenerate _in_ the New Covenant; and the regenerate, who are in the New Covenant.

Now, of course, everyone will pile on and tell me where I'm wrong.


----------



## Gryphonette (Jan 29, 2007)

*I was giving it some more thought...*

....and upon reflecting that one of the presuppositions held by paedos is that it's possible to accurately identify those in the New Covenant, while credos presuppose the opposite, i.e. that many of those presumed to be in the NC aren't, and adding to _that_ the presupposition by paedos that _not_ everyone in the NC is saved, but the credos presuppose the opposite, i.e. that everyone in the NC _is_ saved, and it dawned on me the FV is actually melding the paedo presupposition that those in the NC can be accurately identified with the credo presupposition that everyone in the NC is saved.

[apologetically] I just thought it was interesting, that's all.


----------



## 5solasmom (Jan 29, 2007)

Theoretical said:


> This will be a truly stupid question, but I've always wondered this. Are there any paedobaptists who are immersionists, immersing even the infants for a brief bit. Sorry, just a nagging question.




Yes. We have friends who believe in immersion and PB.


----------



## S. Spence (Jan 29, 2007)

Calvin!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 29, 2007)

Gryphonette said:


> ....and upon reflecting that one of the presuppositions held by paedos is that it's possible to accurately identify those in the New Covenant, while credos presuppose the opposite, i.e. that many of those presumed to be in the NC aren't, and adding to _that_ the presupposition by paedos that _not_ everyone in the NC is saved, but the credos presuppose the opposite, i.e. that everyone in the NC _is_ saved, and it dawned on me the FV is actually melding the paedo presupposition that those in the NC can be accurately identified with the credo presupposition that everyone in the NC is saved.
> 
> [apologetically] I just thought it was interesting, that's all.



Yes. That's why Dr. Clark calls them crypto-Baptists because both groups conflate the sign (sacrament of Baptism) with the thing signified (union with Christ).

I'm not going to pile up on you but I just wanted to point out that it is quite impossible for a Reformed Baptist to link New Covenant membership with the sacrament of Baptism. In the end, they're left saying: "Well we're trying to do our best to have the best presumption regarding regeneration."

That's a far cry from:
a. The New Covenant is only the elect
b. Therefore, only the elect will be baptized.

It's as I've argued over and over. Baptists continually argue for the perfection of the New Covenant _as if_ they are then able to make that leap into the visible Church and now prescribe whether or not a flesh and blood person standing before them is a qualified candidate for Baptism. After getting done arguing for the fact that only the Elect are in the NC, one might expect the minister to ask the person: "Are you Elect?"

Of course such a question is silly (hence the argument from the perfection of the NC to the proper recipient). The real thing they're looking for is "Do you profess?" That may be the only valid qualification but the fact that it's the only valid qualification needs to be established from the Scriptures and not by a "...well we do our best to baptize only believers."

Well, so do Paedobaptists who are serious about the Sacrament and its Covenantal implications. Being careful is not unique to Baptists.


----------



## Gryphonette (Jan 29, 2007)

[mildly] Alright, Rich. I wasn't promoting the credo view, ye ken, simply referencing it.


----------



## S. Spence (Jan 30, 2007)

I know it's not quite the same, as what has been discused on this thread, but the Free Presbyterian Church baptises infants and believers by pouring, sprinkling and immersion. To many of its ministers mode is not an issue.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Feb 16, 2007)

B.J. said:


> This is not a typical "Reformed Baptist" view as I am aware. Typically Reformed Baptist exclude their children from being members, that is unless they die, and then they fight for the notion that they were in the New Covenant without a profession.



Actually, that's your thought on it brother. There are many that i know that hope their childeren are in heaven, but they don't know for sure. They will not fight for it, but only hope. Even a Paedo cannot be sure of their child being in heaven. They can only hope.


----------



## AV1611 (Feb 16, 2007)

Baptism, as I understand it, does not _make us _part of the Covenant but rather testifies that we are within it.

We know that we are in the covenant when we receive the blessings of it being repentance and faith (obviously there are others but they would be irrelevant to this discussion). Those then ought to be baptised.

The issue then arises as to whether infants are a part of the covenant. The elect ones are and now the issue becomes, accepting that elect infants are in the covenant should they be baptised? 

My answer, which I am currently reassessing, is yes they should be but because we do not know which of our seed are elect we then should baptise them all.

The obvious response would be that we ought to wait until they manifest their election by bringing forth the fruits of it demontrating they belong to the covenant and then baptise them.

If you have any thoughts then feel free to let me know


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Feb 16, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> we ought to wait until they manifest their election by bringing forth the fruits of it demontrating they belong to the covenant and then baptise them.



I agree with this statement. 

I believe that Baptism testifies your repetance and turn to faith in Christ. I see that consistently throughout the bible. (This includes circumcision. Abraham didn't beomce circumcised until he was declared righteous before God. Romans 4)


----------



## AV1611 (Feb 16, 2007)

Andrew P.C. said:


> I believe that Baptism testifies your repetance and turn to faith in Christ. I see that consistently throughout the bible. (This includes circumcision. Abraham didn't beomce circumcised until he was declared righteous before God. Romans 4)



So why was Isaac circumcised?


----------



## JM (Feb 16, 2007)

RJS, would you baptize an adult if you didn't know he believed or not?


----------



## AV1611 (Feb 16, 2007)

JM said:


> RJS, would you baptize an adult if you didn't know he believed or not?



I wouldn't.


----------



## JM (Feb 16, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> I wouldn't.



What if his parents were believers?


----------



## AV1611 (Feb 16, 2007)

JM said:


> What if his parents were believers?



My gut reaction was to say no, but I suppose it would depend upon their age (how old was Isaac?)...but then there is the whole where does the age of discretion begin debate.


----------



## JM (Feb 16, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> My gut reaction was to say no, but I suppose it would depend upon their age (how old was Isaac?)...but then there is the whole where does the age of discretion begin debate.



Ok, what if you had a butler and a maid living in your house, under your roof [and you may have, I don’t know], would you baptize them?


----------



## AV1611 (Feb 16, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> The circumcision of the flesh is replaced by the circumcision of the heart.



*A. *The true Israel (the remnant) were circumcised in their heart.
*B. * Some of the circumcision of the flesh had the circumcision of the heart in the OT.

So I am not convinced it is a clear cut as that.


----------



## AV1611 (Feb 16, 2007)

JM said:


> Ok, what if you had a butler and a maid living in your house, under your roof [and you may have, I don’t know], would you baptize them?



Again my gut reaction would be to say no.


----------



## JM (Feb 16, 2007)

> ...the promises of the new covenant include that the entire covenant community would know the Lord, from the least to the greatest.



That sounds about right.


----------



## lv1nothr (Feb 16, 2007)

Ok, I'll bring it up: 

So, to all those who think only believing adults ought to be baptized, (If I'm reading the last few posts correctly) what do you do with the NT "HOUSEHOLD" baptisms? Sorry, need to ask, since I've not heard any believer's baptism only folk able to give me a valid explanation without having to inject some presupposition (ie. there were no children in the households) which does not exist in the text.


----------



## Gryphonette (Feb 16, 2007)

I'm doctrinally paedo, but to be honest, the "household" argument has always struck me as lame.

At one point Don and I had a household of several people, us plus five _elementary-school-up-to-adult_ children...no infants or toddlers, though.

The "household" verses prove nothing either way, It seems to me.


----------



## JM (Feb 16, 2007)

Paul manata said:


> Not if they didn't profess.
> 
> Even in the OT, is the slaves in the house didn't profess, if they denied that they wanted to follow Jehovah, if they wanted to continue to worship false God, etc., they were not circumcised.
> 
> Now, I guess you could argue that this idea isn't true.



Paul, I wouldn't argue with you, I've seen/heard you debate.  



> That, even granting all of the above, the slaves would be circumcised. So, we'd have, say, Moses, circumcising unwilling participants. Now, if you weren't willing, how would you feel about someone cutting parts of your member off with an ancient knife? So, was Moses running around like a manican, trapping running slaves, tying them down, and then cutting their members while they were kicking and screaming?
> 
> And then, these God haters were forced to take offerings to the priest? They were forced to repent, partake of the passover, etc?
> 
> ...



I always thought a slave did the will of his master, especially in the Biblical sense? What would happen if a slave didn't do what was asked of him?


----------



## JM (Feb 16, 2007)

Paul manata said:


> He wouldn't be included as a covenant member.
> 
> There were plenty of pagans who lived in Jewish territory, I think we can assume they were "asked" to turn unto Jehovah. If they did not, they still lived amongst the Jews, just not as a covenant member.
> 
> ...



How so?


----------



## JM (Feb 16, 2007)

I actually typed up a post, but it doesn't matter.

 

Peace,

j


----------

