Credobaptist objection
- Thread starter bnjam
- Start date
- Status
bnjam
Puritan Board Freshman
This only works if the OC is treated as a self-contained system that was supposed to save on its own. We know this isn't true ofcourse.
Hebrews 9:15 does not say the OC failed because it had a different saving substance. It says Christ’s death redeems transgressions committed under the first covenant. That means the saving power for OT believers was always grounded in Christ, just as it is for believers now. The difference is not a new Savior but a new historical stage. The sacrifices under the law could not take away sins by themselves (Hebrews 10:1–4), but they were never meant to. They were shadows pointing to the same once-for-all sacrifice of Christ (Hebrews 10:14). The “lack” was not in grace but in the temporary, typological administration.
Paul says the law was added “until the Seed should come” (Galatians 3:19). This shows progression, not a change in substance. Abraham was justified by faith before the law existed (Romans 4:1–5), and David knew the blessing of forgiven sin apart from works (Romans 4:6–8). Those are NC blessings applied ahead of time through promise. So the NC does not introduce salvation for the first time. It brings clarity and fulfillment, to what was already promised and received by faith.
If the substance had changed, that would mean OT believers were not actually saved in the same way, which contradicts Hebrews 11, where saints from Abel onward are commended for the same kind of faith that unites believers to Christ. The administration changed from shadow to reality, but the saving foundation never changed. Christ was always the mediator, and His righteousness was always the basis of justification, whether before the cross in promise or after the cross in fulfillment.
Ed Walsh
Puritan Board Graduate
Maybe not, but I'm not that smart. I do the best that I can and I know I turn up lacking very often. I'm not in the same category as Matthew. Nothing can be surer than that.I don't understand how your comment fits with my comment.
TheInquirer
Puritan Board Junior
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
Or not.
We could just all go WWE Royal Rumble melee and wait until everyone is laying exhausted and rinse repeat every so often.
In danger of misappropriating the original intent of a wise man to make a similar point to his meaning when he said it:
"That's all right. These things gotta happen every five years or so, ten years. Helps to get rid of the bad blood. Been ten years since the last one. You know, you gotta stop them at the beginning."
We could just all go WWE Royal Rumble melee and wait until everyone is laying exhausted and rinse repeat every so often.
In danger of misappropriating the original intent of a wise man to make a similar point to his meaning when he said it:
"That's all right. These things gotta happen every five years or so, ten years. Helps to get rid of the bad blood. Been ten years since the last one. You know, you gotta stop them at the beginning."
RobertPGH1981
Puritan Board Sophomore
Paedobaptism reasoning:
Baptism replaces circumcision as the covenant sign. (Col. 2:11-12)
Covenant signs are applied to households, including children, unless explicitly revoked. (Jer 32:32-37; Acts 2:38-39)
Nowhere in the New Testament are children excluded, but rather its assumed by passages like 1 Cor 7:14.
Three typical objections of his;
1. It says those who believe should be baptized; children can't make a profession. I feel like the section in 1 Cor. 7, namely the statement in v14 adds much weight to the Paedobaptist position. We could ask, "Why are parents concerned about the holiness of their children? (1 Cor. 7:14)." Another counterpoint is that HOUSEHOLDS were baptized. The mention of that adds weight to the Paedobaptist position as well. Most will say that it says they believed, but the fact that they say that all need to be baptized, including your household, is covenantal language. This is sometimes missed from specific branches of Baptist theology (Dispensational). The Federalist groups recognize the covenantal language and shift more into a type of covenant. I feel like those need to be addressed separately.
2. Why should we baptize children who have no mental capacity to understand the sign they're taking? Same as above, Many Baptists point to Jer. 31:31-34 as the trump card, since the New Covenant is new and unlike the old. They point to this to justify the removal of paedo practices in the New Covenant. Many overlook Jer. 32:32-37, which highlights the new-covenantal language that includes "Children," a language repeated in Acts 2:38-39. We are commanded to baptize our household. (Acts 2:38-39).
3. I will dedicate my baby instead of baptizing him. No biblical warrant for this outside of Baptism.
Baptism replaces circumcision as the covenant sign. (Col. 2:11-12)
Covenant signs are applied to households, including children, unless explicitly revoked. (Jer 32:32-37; Acts 2:38-39)
Nowhere in the New Testament are children excluded, but rather its assumed by passages like 1 Cor 7:14.
Three typical objections of his;
1. It says those who believe should be baptized; children can't make a profession. I feel like the section in 1 Cor. 7, namely the statement in v14 adds much weight to the Paedobaptist position. We could ask, "Why are parents concerned about the holiness of their children? (1 Cor. 7:14)." Another counterpoint is that HOUSEHOLDS were baptized. The mention of that adds weight to the Paedobaptist position as well. Most will say that it says they believed, but the fact that they say that all need to be baptized, including your household, is covenantal language. This is sometimes missed from specific branches of Baptist theology (Dispensational). The Federalist groups recognize the covenantal language and shift more into a type of covenant. I feel like those need to be addressed separately.
2. Why should we baptize children who have no mental capacity to understand the sign they're taking? Same as above, Many Baptists point to Jer. 31:31-34 as the trump card, since the New Covenant is new and unlike the old. They point to this to justify the removal of paedo practices in the New Covenant. Many overlook Jer. 32:32-37, which highlights the new-covenantal language that includes "Children," a language repeated in Acts 2:38-39. We are commanded to baptize our household. (Acts 2:38-39).
3. I will dedicate my baby instead of baptizing him. No biblical warrant for this outside of Baptism.
tanstaafl72555
Puritan Board Freshman
tanstaafl72555
Puritan Board Freshman
Why do baptists feel the need for a church ceremony "dedicating" their children, since no such mandate exists in the Scriptures? I am not asking this as a connfirmed paedobaptist btw. I think the issue revolves around PRECISELY the same issues that spawned the first Jerusalem council in Acts 15, which is the nature of the continuity of the covenant. The older I get and the more I look at this, the confuseder (!) I get.
You know, you could always create a thread that sets out precisely the terms of engagement you desire. I, for one, would read the conversation. Maybe even participate, though at this point in my journey I don't have much more to say or much inclination to say it outside of explaining to people who ask me, lol.
I don't know any Reformed Baptists who do child dedications. They are seen to violate the RPW.
Ok, so their identifying water baptism of the new Covenant as being equivalent to Old Covenant circumcision would be where they see us "dropping the ball?"
[automerge]1770223781[/automerge]
All who have even been saved was through the promised new Covenant , as basis of salvation was the Cross of Christ and his resurrection prophesied in OT and coming to pass in the NT
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
One thing I have recently thought about is the fact that Paul's letter to the Colossians (as with his other letters in general) is addressed to "them which are at Colosse, Saints and faithful brethren in Christ" (1.2). This included children: "Children, obey your parents in all things: for that is well pleasing unto the Lord" (3.20). So the "ye" in Chapter 2 must be including these children. In other words, he is speaking to the children in the Church at Colosse as well as the adults when he says, "ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power. In whom also ye are circumcised with circumcision made without hands, by putting off the sinful body of the flesh, through the circumcision of Christ, In that ye are buried with him through baptism, in whom ye are also raised up together through the faith of the operation of God, which raised him from the dead."
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
Isn't this a point for ability to show evidence of faith in the lives of the children rather than a blanket statement across non-comprehending and non-complying infants?
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
It is rather a point showing that children were naturally considered and assumed to be a part of the Church (so, yes, just as any other group within the Church - widows, young men, slaves, etc. - they are encouraged to show evidence of faith in their lives). But they are addressed as a particular constituency within the "Saints and faithful brethren in Christ" (1.2). Whenever Paul addresses children in his letters (see Ephesians 6.1 for another example), he speaks to them as if they are a part of the Church, not outsiders who need to repent, believe, and be baptised (and the word "children" is the same term used in places like Matthew 27:25, Acts 21:21, and I Corinthians 7:14 - it is sometimes used spiritually, but in these instances it is literally referring to relatively young humans).
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
You didn't answer my question. Isn't this a point for ability to show evidence of faith in the lives of the children rather than a blanket statement across non-comprehending and non-complying infants?
To teach children to obey by its very nature includes children in the comprehending category. Even if one says that children need only be instructed by whatever means a parent has - even the correction over the really young, you seem far removed from a positive command to baptize infants as you appeal to what amounts to be simply the existence of elect children of whom Particular Baptists affirm (1689 10.3) . I must be missing something?
To teach children to obey by its very nature includes children in the comprehending category. Even if one says that children need only be instructed by whatever means a parent has - even the correction over the really young, you seem far removed from a positive command to baptize infants as you appeal to what amounts to be simply the existence of elect children of whom Particular Baptists affirm (1689 10.3) . I must be missing something?
Last edited:
tanstaafl72555
Puritan Board Freshman
Dunno who said it upstream, and I DEFINITELY hate myself for being this way (!!!! 
), but I have to be a grammar nazi and point out that "specie" is not the singular of "species." A "specie" is a unit of coinage and does not refer to a classification of species. Species is in fact, both singular and plural.
Like I said, I hate myself for being that picky. Now you can too!
Carry on.
), but I have to be a grammar nazi and point out that "specie" is not the singular of "species." A "specie" is a unit of coinage and does not refer to a classification of species. Species is in fact, both singular and plural.Like I said, I hate myself for being that picky. Now you can too!
Carry on.
DNM300
Puritan Board Freshman
But for Fathers, to be taught to disciple their children… is immediate and universally applicable.
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
Of course. What's the point? Do you imagine we disagree? That fathers should not disciple their children right away?
DNM300
Puritan Board Freshman
My point is: Christian Fathers are to view all their children as Christian disciples. The children by virtue of being Christian children have achieved the status as “Christian disciple.”
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
What do you mean by "viewing their children as Christian disciples"?
or being "Christian children"?
If by that you mean: a non-comprehending child corrected by a father using as close as one can get to the level of comprehension as they can handle in the Christian context of a Christian home, again, that's fine. You know we agree yes? You have to do likewise as well, yes?
If you mean that a "Christian child" must mean one that is baptized into the New Covenant in some manner, some way that is "outward" but not "inward" then we are just simply back to square one. Don't try to make your conclusion seem true by working a definition of a "Christian child" rather than evidence.
What difference is there in the original sin nature of the baptized child vs. the non-baptized child given they are both raised in a Christian home and both with the goal of discipling and training them in the way of our Lord and earnest prayers for the salvation of both? No difference? Big difference? If so, what? How do you know? where is it defined?
or being "Christian children"?
If by that you mean: a non-comprehending child corrected by a father using as close as one can get to the level of comprehension as they can handle in the Christian context of a Christian home, again, that's fine. You know we agree yes? You have to do likewise as well, yes?
If you mean that a "Christian child" must mean one that is baptized into the New Covenant in some manner, some way that is "outward" but not "inward" then we are just simply back to square one. Don't try to make your conclusion seem true by working a definition of a "Christian child" rather than evidence.
What difference is there in the original sin nature of the baptized child vs. the non-baptized child given they are both raised in a Christian home and both with the goal of discipling and training them in the way of our Lord and earnest prayers for the salvation of both? No difference? Big difference? If so, what? How do you know? where is it defined?
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
Do you have children? I'm not sure what "the comprehending category" is, but my children, even as infants, could receive instruction, comprehend it, and obey or disobey.
My point was not concerning their election or really even focused on baptism - my point was that Paul considers children to be members of the Church, addressing them in his letters. If you want to bring in baptism, then I would have to ask why people regarded as part of the Church would not also be baptised.
JvMill
Puritan Board Sophomore
What difference is there in the redeemed nature of the baptized adult vs. the non-baptized adult given they are both born again and both have the goal of discipline and training in the way of our Lord with earnest prayers for their sanctification? No difference? Big difference? If so, what? How do you know? where is it defined?
Either baptism matters or it doesn’t. This doesn’t seem to have any bearing on infant baptism’s validity or lack thereof.
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
As a father myself, I don't see this as remotely credible, unless you have a different definition of the word "infant" than I do.
What spiritual advanatage would a n infant baptized have over one not infant baptized, if both of them have Christian parents and being raised in a bible believing church?
[automerge]1770240303[/automerge]
Water baptism seemed to be more of a badge of a Christian publicly witnessing and declaring that they have been saved, and was used as a public sign to being part of as local assembly
If that is the case Peter would not have said that baptism now saves us in a way analogous to the waters of the flood. No doubt it functions along with a visible profession of faith but it is doing more than that in the NT. Hence the apostles choose the word "baptised" to mark believers in Christ as having certain benefits as in Rom. 6, 1Cor. 12, and Gal. 3. Baptism means something to the individual and the church. It is not simply a visible badge.
Last edited:
1689owen
Puritan Board Freshman
He has accomplished salvation for the elect, and it is applied to the elect because they are united to Christ. But they are not united to Christ by baptism. (I am still struggling with the relation of union with Christ and faith, which one precedes the other, and it what sense—but different views on this don't invalidate my aforementioned point.)
So, I would agree with everything quoted, but this doesn't lead to baptizing believer's infants. In the same manner, one could argue that all humans/infants should be baptized because some of all are elect and salvation is going to be applied to them at a later time.
No Reformed paedobaptist is claiming that baptism unites anyone to Christ in the sense you are describing. The point is much simpler and more covenantal: baptism is the sign and seal of that union, not the cause of it. The point about "all humans/infants" does not work. We don't baptise infants because "some of them might be elect;" we baptise them because God has placed them inside the visible covenant community, just as He placed the infants of Israel inside the covenant community under Abraham. The sign belongs to the covenant community as such, not only to those in whom the inward grace is already operative. So I agree with your soteriology entirely; I just don't think it touches the paedobaptist argument, because the argument is not about who is already united to Christ, but about whom God commands to receive the covenant sign.
- Status
