Are Credo-Baptists in Covenant Breach?

[Clark-Tillian]

If we grant the theological position that baptism replaces circumcision as the sign of covenantal initiation, and we grant that infants, or young children, of at least one parent with a credible profession of faith have a right to the sign, and if Old Covenant members who didn't have their sons circumcised were in violation of the covenantal strictures, then are credo-baptists technically in covenant breach? I'm not seeking to be incendiary, just wanting to know others thoughts on the matter.

 

[KMK]

If all those things are granted, then I suppose all of us credobaptist parents with an unbaptized child from age 0 to ???, who are not under church discipline, and who live within driving distance of a true paedobaptist church that is willing to baptize the infants of Baptist parents, are in breach of covenant. Was that tongue in cheek enough? Where is that emoticon?

 

[Phil D.]

If all those questionable suppositions are granted, and one determines credos are in covenant breach, then...??? Perhaps they are to be shunned or stoned as was to happen to those who refused or neglected circumscision in the OT. These strictures should of course be carried out by every paedo who believes they perfectly keep the covenant.

 

[VictorBravo]

I'm not seeking to be incendiary,

Kevin, I take you at your word and you probably don't how know incendiary the question can be. Historically, we've had near melt-downs over the topic.

Of course, if one subscribes to the WCF seriously, then those who do not baptize their children are in "great sin." WCF chap 28, section 5.

But the Baptists here, as near as I can tell, don't subscribe to the WCF. Our confession has a different take on the subjects of baptism. We would not be considered covenant-breachers for not baptizing children according to the LCBF.

The reason the question gets heated is it often boils down to: "Baptists are in great sin because they don't follow the WCF."

 

[earl40]

I'm not seeking to be incendiary,

Kevin, I take you at your word and you probably don't how know incendiary the question can be. Historically, we've had near melt-downs over the topic.

Of course, if one subscribes to the WCF seriously, then those who do not baptize their children are in "great sin." WCF chap 28, section 5.

But the Baptists here, as near as I can tell, don't subscribe to the WCF. Our confession has a different take on the subjects of baptism. We would not be considered covenant-breachers for not baptizing children according to the LCBF.

The reason the question gets heated is it often boils down to: "Baptists are in great sin because they don't follow the WCF."

The same goes for the opposite in that those who hold the LBCF think that infant baptism is not valid and those baptized as infants are in great sin because they are not really baptized.

 

[lynnie]

The search engine is your friend here. You can read threads on this for endless days and nights.

 

[Clark-Tillian]

If all those things are granted, then I suppose all of us credobaptist parents with an unbaptized child from age 0 to ???, who are not under church discipline, and who live within driving distance of a true paedobaptist church that is willing to baptize the infants of Baptist parents, are in breach of covenant. Was that tongue in cheek enough? Where is that emoticon?

As you are a Moderator, I'll respect your position, but I was hoping for zero sarcasm, as I thought I'd made fairly plain in my post.
Maybe I should have made it clearer that I was wondering what my fellow paedobaptists thought on the topic. I've run the near gamut on denominations. I was reared Roman Catholic, went Pentecostal for about a month, Conservative Baptist association for about three years, with a semester at a GARB school--where I became a Presbyterian halfway through the semester. I grasp the primary credo-baptist arguments; when I was in the CB the discussion usually hinged on the meaning of baptism and its association with circumcision.

Obviously, I do not expect LBC or other credo-baptists to adhere to the WCF; that would be a ludicrous position. Do I wish they would "crossover"? How could I not, being a confessional presbyterian? I'd think it likely that a baptist would feel the same way.

 

[Clark-Tillian]

If all those questionable suppositions are granted, and one determines credos are in covenant breach, then...??? Perhaps they are to be shunned or stoned as was to happen to those who refused or neglected circumscision in the OT. These strictures should of course be carried out by every paedo who believes they perfectly keep the covenant.

I'm loathe to give such below the belt sarcasm the dignity of a response, but I'll do my best. Why are those suppositions "questionable"? What is your basis for making so bold an assertion? Does your statement then, in turn, imply that those who hold such dubious positions are, themselves, in covenant breach? And if so, what interaction should a credo-baptist have with such a person? What presuppositions do you bring to the table? Should a paedobaptist who moves to a locale where no NAPARC level confessional church is located, and desires to worship with fellow evangelicals in spirit and truth, be shunned by the local church? If so, how? Should their children be allowed to play together? Should communion be withheld from the adults as they (so obviously) misunderstand the covenant and its signs and seals? Or should the local church subvert those parents and seek to act in loco parento and win the children of those holding such untenable positions over to the credo position?

As for your last rhetorical flourish, I've never met a paedobaptist, myself included, who ever asserted that he kept the covenant perfectly, and I find such implicatory statements offensive. Examine my post and if you find anything in it that warrants such an accusation then please report me to Ascension Presbytery of the PCA. Anyone who would deign to think they keep the covenant perfectly would be at the height of hubris, immediately place themselves in covenant breach via 1 John 1, and force them to reassess their confessional status--WSC 82-85 for starters. In fact, such a person is no Christian at all because acknowledgement of personal sin, and the concomitant assertion of one's personal worthiness of an eternity in flames, is a prerequisite for a credible profession of faith.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

If you don't want anti paedobaptist interaction, that is what the paedo only forum is for. If you prefer the thread there, a moderator can move it.

If all those things are granted, then I suppose all of us credobaptist parents with an unbaptized child from age 0 to ???, who are not under church discipline, and who live within driving distance of a true paedobaptist church that is willing to baptize the infants of Baptist parents, are in breach of covenant. Was that tongue in cheek enough? Where is that emoticon?

As you are a Moderator, I'll respect your position, but I was hoping for zero sarcasm, as I thought I'd made fairly plain in my post.
Maybe I should have made it clearer that I was wondering what my fellow paedobaptists thought on the topic. I've run the near gamut on denominations. I was reared Roman Catholic, went Pentecostal for about a month, Conservative Baptist association for about three years, with a semester at a GARB school--where I became a Presbyterian halfway through the semester. I grasp the primary credo-baptist arguments; when I was in the CB the discussion usually hinged on the meaning of baptism and its association with circumcision.

Obviously, I do not expect LBC or other credo-baptists to adhere to the WCF; that would be a ludicrous position. Do I wish they would "crossover"? How could I not, being a confessional presbyterian? I'd think it likely that a baptist would feel the same way.

 

[Phil D.]

Rev, Bowen, I do apologize if my use of satire offended your sensibilities. If you read through various threads on the PB I think its fair to say in certain contexts such is a fairly common, and to some perhaps even an appreciated method of communication. In any event, both parts of your response seem to indicate that I got my intended points across.

Why are those suppositions "questionable"?

So, would you say they are unquestionable? I think Victor's remarks adequately addressed this.

Pax.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Kevin,

Probably better as a Paedobaptist only question. We actually had to institute a rule a while back in baptism debates that we couldn't simply boil the issue down to "You're sinning...", "Oh no I'm not, you are...", "Nuh uh!"

The fact is that we can and do have amicable friendships with baptists but this issue is very sharp and this is why, in another thread, I would never admit that a paedobaptist could be an elder in a Baptist congregation.

As Vic noted, I agree with the WCF when it states that it is a great sin to contemn or neglect baptism (just as I agree that it is a great sin for the ignorant or unrepentant to partake of the Lord's Supper).

Your question has to do with, I think, what is the relationship between something that is a "great sin" in the NC in relationship to someone who was punished in the OC.

I suppose one could say the sins are equivalent. I don't think people in the OC had a credo-circumcision view and would neglect or contemn the sacrament of circumcision but might do so out of ignorance or idolatry or idolatry. I believe that a lot of the OT laws are given to demonstrate the seriousness of sin and we may gasp at times at the corporal consequences for something seemingly inconsequential that God ultimately sees as very important. From an object lesson perspective we can see that God takes His sacraments seriously even if we don't have national borders to protect any more that would mean you cannot have a "foreigner" in your midst.

I'm working right now with some people who still don't understand the nature of sacraments and don't take the Lord's Supper. Are they refusing a sacrament that Christ ordained for their spiritual nourishment? Yes. It's not high-handed but it's still very sinful because they consider something arbitrary that the Lord Himself set up for their good. Do I have the authority to compel or imprison or corporally punish? No.

I think there is a place for continual "discipline" in the form of admonishment. They know where we stand and as long as they don't leave they'll have to be under teh admonishment that the Lord has ordained certain things. We let the Lord work on their consciences, Who is ultimately Lord thereof.

Even as I believe they are sinning I also believe it is not of a nature that the Lord Himself does not save them from calling His gifts something other than they are. In other words, it's not an unforgivable sin. It doesn't make it a light sin but it's not overcome-able.

 

[Clark-Tillian]

Rev, Bowen, I do apologize if my use of satire offended your sensibilities. If you read through various threads on the PB I think its fair to say in certain contexts such is a fairly common, and to some perhaps even an appreciated method of communication. In any event, both parts of your response seem to indicate that I got my intended points across.

Why are those suppositions "questionable"?

So, would you say they are unquestionable? I think Victor's remarks adequately addressed this.

Pax.

Apology accepted. No hard feelings. I do notice that sarcasm is sometimes employed on the PB; it's used everywhere in our society, as far as I can tell. However, I'm personally guilty of that particular sin and fight it on an almost hourly basis. I find it not only unhelpful, but outright damaging; our exchange is a case in point. Think of the "unredeemed time". Yes, your points were obvious.

Do I think them "unquestionable"? Not necessarily, but I've never seen them refuted. I brought the point up, because I often pose it as a hypothetical during ordination exams. The fact is...one of the two camps has seriously misunderstood the sign and we will discover who on the other side of Jordan.

 

[Clark-Tillian]

Chris,

I have no problem with interaction, debate, discussion, or dissent. I was objecting to the sarcasm--which I find inimical to wholesome interaction.

If you don't want anti paedobaptist interaction, that is what the paedo only forum is for. If you prefer the thread there, a moderator can move it.

If all those things are granted, then I suppose all of us credobaptist parents with an unbaptized child from age 0 to ???, who are not under church discipline, and who live within driving distance of a true paedobaptist church that is willing to baptize the infants of Baptist parents, are in breach of covenant. Was that tongue in cheek enough? Where is that emoticon?

As you are a Moderator, I'll respect your position, but I was hoping for zero sarcasm, as I thought I'd made fairly plain in my post.
Maybe I should have made it clearer that I was wondering what my fellow paedobaptists thought on the topic. I've run the near gamut on denominations. I was reared Roman Catholic, went Pentecostal for about a month, Conservative Baptist association for about three years, with a semester at a GARB school--where I became a Presbyterian halfway through the semester. I grasp the primary credo-baptist arguments; when I was in the CB the discussion usually hinged on the meaning of baptism and its association with circumcision.

Obviously, I do not expect LBC or other credo-baptists to adhere to the WCF; that would be a ludicrous position. Do I wish they would "crossover"? How could I not, being a confessional presbyterian? I'd think it likely that a baptist would feel the same way.

 

[Clark-Tillian]

Rich,

I did not think that my query was of the "you're sinning" variety. Nor was that my intent, as my qualification at the conclusion of the original post made clear. I proposed it as a series of conditional hypotheticals that I'd hoped would lead to reasoned discussion. I realize, ex post facto, that it should've been on the paedo only forum, as that would have likely lead to the discussion I was seeking. As at least 4 moderator/administrator authorities have weighed in on my query I'll leave it up to their discretion if it should be moved.

 

[Paul1976]

Both credo- and paedobaptists affirm the importance of the covenant sign of baptism. Many great minds who sincerely love God, hold a high view of scripture, and examined his word closely have come to differing positions on how this sign is to be performed. I've heard both sides and personally find the credobaptist position more convincing, but not conclusively so. I'm probably not entirely unbiased as I was raised credobaptist, but few of us could honestly claim to come at this issue without bias.

For whatever reason, I think we need to conclude that the scriptures are clear on the importance of baptism, but less clear on some details than we would like. We also have to conclude that the scriptures as we have them are exactly what God wants for us to have. This difference in interpretation could have been avoided by some clarity on the subject, but it isn't there. (Yes, I know people on both sides will try to correct me, but that would simply prove my point).

As such, to my mind, paedo- vs. credobaptism must simply fall under the disputable matters of Rom. 14.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Moved to Paedobaptist answers only.

As at least 4 moderator/administrator authorities have weighed in on my query I'll leave it up to their discretion if it should be moved.

 

[Clark-Tillian]

Paul,
Yes, good men and great minds have stood on opposite sides of the aisle on this and other issues. As for bias, I think neutrality is neither possible, nor preferable, in questions of great importance. However, the context of Rom. 14 is dealing primarily with the issue of dietary laws, and the weaker brother who seems to think that those statues still bind him. In other words, his conscience forbids him from partaking of certain foods, and we should bear with his frailty in Christian love. Therefore, I do not think that text can be utilized to assert that the subject of a possible covenant breach via neglect of infant baptism is a "disputable matter". Example--a person who feels the dietary laws are still binding (or thinks we should be vegetarian because pre-fall Adam was)is not in covenant breach; there is no New Covenant injunction against voluntary, personal diet choices. The only lesson I can see us inferring from Rom. 14, in this context, is to deal with each other in a spirit of love.

Both credo- and paedobaptists affirm the importance of the covenant sign of baptism. Many great minds who sincerely love God, hold a high view of scripture, and examined his word closely have come to differing positions on how this sign is to be performed. I've heard both sides and personally find the credobaptist position more convincing, but not conclusively so. I'm probably not entirely unbiased as I was raised credobaptist, but few of us could honestly claim to come at this issue without bias.

For whatever reason, I think we need to conclude that the scriptures are clear on the importance of baptism, but less clear on some details than we would like. We also have to conclude that the scriptures as we have them are exactly what God wants for us to have. This difference in interpretation could have been avoided by some clarity on the subject, but it isn't there. (Yes, I know people on both sides will try to correct me, but that would simply prove my point).

As such, to my mind, paedo- vs. credobaptism must simply fall under the disputable matters of Rom. 14.

 

[Clark-Tillian]

Chris,

I assume this means that our credo-baptist friends may not interact/respond? If so, that wasn't my intent, but I respect your decision. I did perform a "thread search" before posting using "covenant breach" as the search mechanism. Possibly, I was not thorough enough.

Moved to Paedobaptist answers only.

As at least 4 moderator/administrator authorities have weighed in on my query I'll leave it up to their discretion if it should be moved.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Rev. Bowen, have you read my good friend Dr Jonathan Moore's Westminster Theological Journal article "The Westminster Confession and the sin of neglecting baptism" (2007)? If not, then feel free to PM me.

 

[Clark-Tillian]

Daniel,

I have not read that article, and I will be messaging you directly after this post. Thank you.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Correct; this needs to stay in PB only for now.

Chris,

I assume this means that our credo-baptist friends may not interact/respond? If so, that wasn't my intent, but I respect your decision. I did perform a "thread search" before posting using "covenant breach" as the search mechanism. Possibly, I was not thorough enough.

Moved to Paedobaptist answers only.

As at least 4 moderator/administrator authorities have weighed in on my query I'll leave it up to their discretion if it should be moved.

 

[Clark-Tillian]

Chris,

Thanks for the update. It certainly was not my intent to start a brouhaha. I hope everyone understands that.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich,

I did not think that my query was of the "you're sinning" variety. Nor was that my intent, as my qualification at the conclusion of the original post made clear. I proposed it as a series of conditional hypotheticals that I'd hoped would lead to reasoned discussion. I realize, ex post facto, that it should've been on the paedo only forum, as that would have likely lead to the discussion I was seeking. As at least 4 moderator/administrator authorities have weighed in on my query I'll leave it up to their discretion if it should be moved.

I didn't state your query was of that variety. I was just giving some background.

 

[Clark-Tillian]

Rich,

I just re-read your post. That's true. Thank you for the clarification.

Rich,

I did not think that my query was of the "you're sinning" variety. Nor was that my intent, as my qualification at the conclusion of the original post made clear. I proposed it as a series of conditional hypotheticals that I'd hoped would lead to reasoned discussion. I realize, ex post facto, that it should've been on the paedo only forum, as that would have likely lead to the discussion I was seeking. As at least 4 moderator/administrator authorities have weighed in on my query I'll leave it up to their discretion if it should be moved.

I didn't state your query was of that variety. I was just giving some background.

 

[Scott Bushey]

If we grant the theological position that baptism replaces circumcision as the sign of covenantal initiation, and we grant that infants, or young children, of at least one parent with a credible profession of faith have a right to the sign, and if Old Covenant members who didn't have their sons circumcised were in violation of the covenantal strictures, then are credo-baptists technically in covenant breach? I'm not seeking to be incendiary, just wanting to know others thoughts on the matter.

This all boils down to your position on the sign. One of us are wrong; the one theology that is wrong would by default be in sin....

I might add, I was once a credo. This is a doctrine that is come to under much study. For me, it was a light that came on all of a sudden after researching the topic of covenant. Hermeneutic is everything. One of the pitfalls for me as a credo was how I viewed the scriptures. My propensity as a credo was to lean into the old via the new-and that would not be flawed completely. However, the propensity in viewing the scriptures this way detracts from many truths. The concept must be utilized in the same fashion i.e. interpreting the new via the old at times.

The other thing that was instrumental was in studying covenant, I had to admit that no covenant has been abrogated....

 

[Clark-Tillian]

If we grant the theological position that baptism replaces circumcision as the sign of covenantal initiation, and we grant that infants, or young children, of at least one parent with a credible profession of faith have a right to the sign, and if Old Covenant members who didn't have their sons circumcised were in violation of the covenantal strictures, then are credo-baptists technically in covenant breach? I'm not seeking to be incendiary, just wanting to know others thoughts on the matter.

This all boils down to your position on the sign. One of us are wrong; the one theology that is wrong would by default be in sin....

I might add, I was once a credo. This is a doctrine that is come to under much study. For me, it was a light that came on all of a sudden after researching the topic of covenant. Hermeneutic is everything. One of the pitfalls for me as a credo was how I viewed the scriptures. My propensity as a credo was to lean into the old via the new-and that would not be flawed completely. However, the propensity in viewing the scriptures this way detracts from many truths. The concept must be utilized in the same fashion i.e. interpreting the new via the old at times.

The other thing that was instrumental was in studying covenant, I had to admit that no covenant has been abrogated....

Exactly. Your story mimics mine (or vice versa). The basic paradigm of Covenant Theology hit me like a tsunami. Once I moved an iota past the dispensational hermenuetic, it fell into place in a matter of one week or so. And this in mid-semester at a fundamentalist bible college. those remaining six weeks were interesting, to say the least.

That is not to say the Reformed Baptist folk on the PB adhere to a dispensational hermenuetic. But I was a reformed baptist for about a weekend. Just my experience.