Baptism Flip/Flop?

[Tertullian]

[quote:a1a72c40f6][i:a1a72c40f6]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:a1a72c40f6]
[quote:a1a72c40f6]
My father wasn't Presbyterian
[/quote:a1a72c40f6]



Mine, neither. My dad doesn't even know why he's a Baptist. [/quote:a1a72c40f6]

I was speaking about John Calvin

 

[luvroftheWord]

Would you be shocked if I told you I NEVER read John Calvin on this issue until AFTER I had already accepted paedobaptism?

 

[Tertullian]

[quote:3d29fb5278][i:3d29fb5278]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:3d29fb5278]
Would you be shocked if I told you I NEVER read John Calvin on this issue until AFTER I had already accepted paedobaptism? [/quote:3d29fb5278]

Not really, I think that most Paedobaptist who argue for the practice have completely different arguements then John Calvin, which makes the practice all the more questionable because it is a practice looking for an arguement... and every Paedobaptist has their own version of an arguement for it. My main point is that if Calvin had taught credobaptist most Prestbyterians today would be credobaptist (but that is just my unprovable beleif)

[Edited on 3-21-2004 by Tertullian]

 

[luvroftheWord]

[quote:f026065498]
which makes the practice all the more questionable because it is a practice looking for an arguement
[/quote:f026065498]

I see. Interesting OPINION you have there.

 

[Tertullian]

[quote:b8213dd6cd][i:b8213dd6cd]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:b8213dd6cd]
well, am I thankful that you comended me for arguing like Calvin in the other thread.....and here I was beginning to think that my practice was questionable.

-Paul

[Edited on 3-21-2004 by Paul manata] [/quote:b8213dd6cd]

We will save you a seat on the Reformed Baptist side of the table we would love to have... just keep on checking this tradition with Scripture and you are on the right track

-Tertullian

 

[Puritan Sailor]

[quote:d28bab21a8][i:d28bab21a8]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:d28bab21a8]
p.s. my hymn, "when we've been here ten thousand years...trying to recall all the debates I had with the baptists will be like trying to recall a hiccup I had once in 1975. [/quote:d28bab21a8]
An excellent analogy Paul! :thumbup:

 

[Halliday]

Charlemagne's forced baptism of the Saxons.

 

[Halliday]

I forgot to mention I am a paedo.

 

[a mere housewife]

I was born & raised in a paedo-baptistic family, and have changed to credo baptism. Since then, I have been "phased" by paedo arguments many, many times. I can honestly say that it is not because of any hostility to the position that I haven't re-changed my mind. But I am still a credo-baptist because:

1. The command to circumsize was wider in scope than infant children of believers, or even those to whom the promise was made:
Ishmael, Abraham's servants, and Abraham's servants' children were none of them the "child of promise." Some of them were not children at all. Some of them were not biologically related.

2. The promises are wider in scope than the practice of paedobaptism, also:
Genesis 17:7 "And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you."
Psalm 103:17-18 "But the steadfast love of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear him, and his righteousness to children's children, to those who keep his covenant and remember to do his commandments."
The children talked about in these verses are not just biological infants, but biological children of any age, along with those children's children right on through to the end of the age. This is the thinking that was behind the "half-way" covenant: if somewhere back along the line there were believing ancestors, the children had a right to be baptized, whether their parents were believing or not.
Proverbs 3:33 "The LORd's curse is on the house of the wicked, but he blesses the dwelling of the righteous."
This would also include servants, and every person who was a part of the household.

3. The language of the promises is interpreted differently depending on to whom it is addressed:
Peter preached that the "promise is to you" to every person in attendance on the Day of Pentecost. Yet the only ones who were baptized were the ones who received the word with gladness. "The promise being to" language in this case is not taken as a grounds to presume salvation, but merely as a statement of the extent of the promise: it extends to you. It is also taken as a statement of extent "to them that are afar off." Yet it is taken as grounds to presume either regeneration or election when it is addressed "to your children."

4. Abraham was a father in two senses: a natural sense, and a spiritual sense:
I am a spiritual child of Abraham, but am still distinguished from the family, and from the covenant practices, that ran along natural lines.

5. Not all those who were circumcised were disciples:
The first circumsized child ever was not a disciple.

6. The household language of the NT is rare enough to lend credence to the possibility that everyone in the house believed and was baptized:
In the instance of the Phillippian jailor, there is reason to believe that everyone in the household was of a discerning age, because Paul preached to all (each one) of them. Also, in another household instance, the household was mentioned afterwards as those who were ministering to the saints. This would indicate that those in the household were old enough to do so. In the instance of Lydia, it is just as easy to assume that she was unmarried and had no children.

7. If the households included unbelievers, they would also reasonably have included unbelieving adults.

8. As has been mentioned by others, women being baptized indicates a difference in the economy of the covenant:
The heads of households & prospective heads of household were no longer the ones to whom the covenant sign was given. The new covenant sign emphasizes the individual in covenant, rather than the household.



[Edited on 3-23-2004 by a mere housewife]

 

[pastorway]

We're not debating here.....only telling what we hold to and why.


Phillip

 

[blhowes]

I've been a credo pretty much ever since I was saved (1976). I was basically always taught that believer's baptism (after a person professes faith) is biblical and that churches that practice infant baptism did so because they just couldn't break away from the catholic church.

For the last two years or so, I've been trying to understand why paedos baptize infants. Much of what I've learned about covenant theology so far makes sense to me. Its funny how, since I've started studying covenant theology, the word "covenant" seems to pop up everywhere as I'm reading through the Bible (whereas before it went unnoticed).

It is very humbling trying to come to grips with this issue. As I read and listen and ponder the scriptures, I can only see what I'm able to see. Thus far, I still see the baptist position. Some may say "Amen, no need to look any further" while others may say "Just keep looking and soon you'll see".

In addition to not yet seeing some of the scriptures the way my CT brother/sisters see them, there's also a "tradition" (for lack of a better word) that is most difficult to accept. The idea that the catholic baptism is acceptable because they used the "trinitarian formula" is probably the last (and highest) hurdle I'd have to jump over if I were to switch camps. It makes no sense to me.

Anyway, that's where I'm at now.

Bob