Baptism in the Early Church by Stander and Louw

[Poimen]

Yes he undermines the paedobaptist belief in the necessity of infant baptism: a command not a suggestion. I didn't say that he wasn't a paedobaptist for that reason.

Perhaps you could help me by defining what you meant when you said "He said he sincerely believed that adult baptism was the practice in the first three centuries, and that was also in line with the New Testament." I took this to mean that he believed that the NT taught credobaptism but baptized infants anyways.

If I misinterpreted this statement I made an error and I'll stand correction. If I didn't, then I think my original point stands.

 

[Archlute]

Furthermore he undermines the entire paedobaptist foundation by accomodating the credos in the congregation. Either is commanded or it is not. There is no middle position on this issue for Reformed churches.

There is no clear commandment, but theological deduction. Nor does a practice of charity undermine the foundation, since that foundation is built upon Scripture, which also places forbearance, gentleness, and brotherly love at the foremost of the church's practice of Christian virtue. It is an issue upon which the credo's in the congregation need study, persuasion, and the clarifying work of the Holy Spirit to move them along, but is it not an issue of which its practice is essential to salvation (unless one has confessional Lutheran sympathies), and therefore not a bar to membership in the body of Christ.

Unless you would like to unchurch the PCA, ARPC, and others from the Reformed world, then your statement should be tempered. This polemic is one difference between the average 3FU churches and Westminster churches that seems to be a recurring source of friction. The WCF is more temperate and studied in its language on these issues than the 3FU tend to be, and this edge (or lack thereof) seems often to come out in the voices of those who represent that particular confession.

So, to clarify, there is (ideally) no middle ground in understanding by the ministers of those congregations, but there is in fact a practice of accommodation to the consciences of our brothers and sisters while they are yet growing in Christian understanding and discipleship.

 

[Poimen]

Adam:

I have to respectfully disagree on the issue of the command. There is a command - Genesis 17:9; Matthew 28:19

I fully agree that we need charity on the issue. This extends to those outside of the congregation who are not paedobaptists but need to be educated on the issue to see the holistic approach to the Bible to understand paedobaptism.

However, as Reformed churches we require that members baptize their children. If a person wants to become a member they must believe in and live according to the paedobaptist doctrine. This is in keeping with historic, Reformed practice which many may see as wrong or misguided but is nevertheless the practice of our Reformed communions.

I don't want to now or ever unchurch others in other denominations over whom I have no authority. I am just stating a simple fact about the necessity of paedobaptism.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Yes he undermines the paedobaptist belief in the necessity of infant baptism: a command not a suggestion. I didn't say that he wasn't a paedobaptist for that reason.

Perhaps you could help me by defining what you meant when you said "He said he sincerely believed that adult baptism was the practice in the first three centuries, and that was also in line with the New Testament." I took this to mean that he believed that the NT taught credobaptism but baptized infants anyways.

If I misinterpreted this statement I made an error and I'll stand correction. If I didn't, then I think my original point stands.

Read the book Pastor and see what he is saying. It is better to get what he believes the historical documents reveal by his own pen. But as I said before I don't know anyone who came to a conclusion that Paedo Covenantal Baptism was biblical by reading the Early Church Fathers or Early Church documents. They came to it by reading reformation theology.

 

[Poimen]

Randy:

I appreciate the sentiment about reading the book. Really I do! But I wasn't responding to what he said or wrote but what you said he believed. I would still appreciate correction if I was wrong on the above point because I think it would get the discussion back on track but if you don't want to clarify that is okay too.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Adam:

I have to respectfully disagree on the issue of the command. There is a command - Genesis 17:9; Matthew 28:19

I fully agree that we need charity on the issue. This extends to those outside of the congregation who are not paedobaptists but need to be educated on the issue to see the holistic approach to the Bible to understand paedobaptism.

However, as Reformed churches we require that members baptize their children. If a person wants to become a member they must believe in and live according to the paedobaptist doctrine. This is in keeping with historic, Reformed practice which many may see as wrong or misguided but is nevertheless the practice of our Reformed communions.

I don't want to now or ever unchurch others in other denominations over whom I have no authority. I am just stating a simple fact about the necessity of paedobaptism.

If you want Pastor you can start a new thread on this topic. This thread is about this book and it's historical understanding. We have beat the issue of Genesis 17 up till we were all bloody before. It caused a major discussion that lasted many pages. You may remember it or if you want you can revisit it.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/paedobaptism-view-credobaptist-children-15435/

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Randy:

I appreciate the sentiment about reading the book. Really I do! But I wasn't responding to what he said or wrote but what you said he believed. I would still appreciate correction if I was wrong on the above point because I think it would get the discussion back on track but if you don't want to clarify that is okay too.

I am not sure I can clarify for him. I had cut and pasted part of a forwarded email that I had received which was vague in some areas. He is a paedo baptist whether or not it is in the line of the Dutch Reformed or not. And if I understood Pastor Hyde correctly, it shouldn't really matter. It doesn't add any weight since the Denomination in this region is a little out there according to him.

Concerning the book I think what matters is if they are credible and historically correct. Is what they say correct? And what should it mean to us? Well as I mentioned before many who have come to the Covenantal Paedo view have not arrived at it from reading the Early Church Fathers or Early Church Documents. At least not any of my friends have. Did you? Most of my friends arrived at the Covenantal understanding of paedo-baptism from the reformers.

 

[Blueridge Believer]

I’m only 40 pages in but I find it odd that baptism is almost always linked with baptismal regeneration.

If I remember correctly it is more along the lines of forgiveness of sin and regeneration. They believed there was a tight nit connection between the two.

I've been reading the confessions of Augustine and he definately taught and believed baptismal regeneration. How he could be so sound on some things and then embrace that is hard to understand. I guess he was a product of his times.

 

[Poimen]

Thank you Randy. I've said my piece so I'm bowing out of the discussion.

 

[Archlute]

Adam:

I have to respectfully disagree on the issue of the command. There is a command - Genesis 17:9; Matthew 28:19

I fully agree that we need charity on the issue. This extends to those outside of the congregation who are not paedobaptists but need to be educated on the issue to see the holistic approach to the Bible to understand paedobaptism.

However, as Reformed churches we require that members baptize their children. If a person wants to become a member they must believe in and live according to the paedobaptist doctrine. This is in keeping with historic, Reformed practice which many may see as wrong or misguided but is nevertheless the practice of our Reformed communions.

I don't want to now or ever unchurch others in other denominations over whom I have no authority. I am just stating a simple fact about the necessity of paedobaptism.

Thanks for clarifying what you were trying to get across, Daniel. What I was getting at regarding theological deduction vs. commandment is the reality that most of these people will only be convinced from a clear NT command - of which there is none. We see the unity of the Scriptures in a manner that they do not, and so while I agree with you on one level, getting these folk to see the connection between the signs of the Covenant of Grace is exactly where the work is to be done.

Again, our disagreement centering around our confessions and practice comes to the fore. It is not necessary to hold to paedobaptist convictions to be a member in a Reformed church, that is unless you would like to say that all of the members of NAPARC are not really Reformed. While there may be a tradition of full subscription for membership within conservative Dutch Reformed churches, even stemming from a historic practice, that does not make it "reformed" in the historic understanding of that term.

Reformation is according to Scripture as the standard, and most Reformed churches (designate them as Presbyterian, if you would like) see that Scripture bases membership in the body of Christ to an understanding of our sinfulness, and a simple and sincere profession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Doctrinal understanding is a part of the "teaching them all that I have commanded you" of discipleship. It is a gradual process, while denoms such as the URCNA insist that one understand and sign off on advanced doctrinal formulations almost before that can even begin.

I do not mean to raise your ire with that, but it is a very real (and dividing) practice between us.