Paedo-Baptism Answers Credobaptist to Paedobaptist Transition

Status
Not open for further replies.
Speaking as a paedobaptist, I certainly hope you don't study paedobaptism, find it a suitable notion, and adopt it. One's baptismal practice should be a conclusion flowing from one's theology. If someone adopts a practice with an inadequate foundation, one may easily backfill the "basis" for it with some very peculiar and pernicious nonsense. This concern is the reason why SF proposed you should study some solid theology prior to poking around in some heretical swamp.

How does one's theology change if not by study and prayer? I would think that most of what I've read is solid. I have read the Canons yes. Albeit roughly 5 or 6 years ago when I first came to faith. It is difficult to have only been in churches that essentially teach that all of these issues are not worth debating about. "The focus of the church should be the gospel and evangelism." That's all that gets discussed in the few churches I've been a member of. So baptism and all of these doctrines I have been left to study on my own, with others only purporting that such is only a cause for divisiveness. Forgive me if I have come across as arrogant or if my studying of these topics is worrisome. These are topics I am unfamiliar with is all. And maybe my theology as a whole needs to be seriously considered.

Thank you for your replies and resources. They have been nothing but helpful.
 
How does one's theology change if not by study and prayer? I would think that most of what I've read is solid. I have read the Canons yes. Albeit roughly 5 or 6 years ago when I first came to faith. It is difficult to have only been in churches that essentially teach that all of these issues are not worth debating about. "The focus of the church should be the gospel and evangelism." That's all that gets discussed in the few churches I've been a member of. So baptism and all of these doctrines I have been left to study on my own, with others only purporting that such is only a cause for divisiveness. Forgive me if I have come across as arrogant or if my studying of these topics is worrisome. These are topics I am unfamiliar with is all. And maybe my theology as a whole needs to be seriously considered.

Thank you for your replies and resources. They have been nothing but helpful.
What I mean is that, in my experience, more harm results (rather than more blessing) when someone gets "pulled up" by his baptism. Uprooted, unmoored (as from an anchor). Many Christians don't realize their baptism has "roots." Baptist folk (I say this as a friend) will often regard their own baptism as just one (the first!) of many external faith-displays. Like a plant growing on the surface of the ground. And maybe they "rethink" the practice, and decide to switch their conviction (i.e. the practice) based on a few arguments and verse/passage interpretations that felt authentic. And they rip that plant off the surface of their religious and theological ground--in so doing, tear it away from the roots that, unseen, were slipping down into the soil.

Plop it down in another place. "These folk believe as I now believe." But here they have roots too. The soil here is a bit different. Can you start again to put down roots? These folk may have started a bit different, too. They were like tiny seeds planted deep; the water came, and their roots went down even as their shoot went up trying to find the sunlight, until it broke through the surface, a seedling with roots. Sure, you can put down roots, and become indistinguishable from the rest of these folk. But I've also seen some get blown and tossed. They pulled up their anchor, and began to drift. They drifted right on through the harbor of Reformed Theology and right out to sea. When they drop their anchor, they are in a strange harbor, and their old friends from the Reformed country wouldn't recognize them.

I'd rather people were transplanted, and made more of an organic change to practices that conform to their deep theological commitments.

I'm glad you're a student, and someone who seems motivated to get down into the substance of things. Some people start someplace they don't ultimately belong, and so they should find the best fit. Study and prayer is the correct method, but the choice of path is also important. So is the equipment. I hope you do already have a good beginning to finding your long-term home. Reading well is one good way of preparation, exercise, and growth in the journey of faith. Pray for a good church and good guides. Just stepping into the marketplace, latching onto the first guy who speaks English, could get you half-way up the mountain before it's clear he's a bad idea; or get you killed in an alley before you got ten steps.

Your instincts (apparently agreeable to our sentiments) have helped you along this far, and landed you among us. I'd call it grace, and not luck, and not your innate gift. Someone you might expect has your best interests in mind recommends you read and absorb a couple more good books. He's trying to tell you to build up some more of a foundation in a particular area, and then you will be better prepared to deal with a certain challenge. It's the voice of experience--the old soldier--that's speaking to you, and warning you. Might be a good idea to try out what he's suggesting.

Blessings,
 
What I mean is that, in my experience, more harm results (rather than more blessing) when someone gets "pulled up" by his baptism. Uprooted, unmoored (as from an anchor). Many Christians don't realize their baptism has "roots." Baptist folk (I say this as a friend) will often regard their own baptism as just one (the first!) of many external faith-displays. Like a plant growing on the surface of the ground. And maybe they "rethink" the practice, and decide to switch their conviction (i.e. the practice) based on a few arguments and verse/passage interpretations that felt authentic. And they rip that plant off the surface of their religious and theological ground--in so doing, tear it away from the roots that, unseen, were slipping down into the soil.

Plop it down in another place. "These folk believe as I now believe." But here they have roots too. The soil here is a bit different. Can you start again to put down roots? These folk may have started a bit different, too. They were like tiny seeds planted deep; the water came, and their roots went down even as their shoot went up trying to find the sunlight, until it broke through the surface, a seedling with roots. Sure, you can put down roots, and become indistinguishable from the rest of these folk. But I've also seen some get blown and tossed. They pulled up their anchor, and began to drift. They drifted right on through the harbor of Reformed Theology and right out to sea. When they drop their anchor, they are in a strange harbor, and their old friends from the Reformed country wouldn't recognize them.

I'd rather people were transplanted, and made more of an organic change to practices that conform to their deep theological commitments.

I'm glad you're a student, and someone who seems motivated to get down into the substance of things. Some people start someplace they don't ultimately belong, and so they should find the best fit. Study and prayer is the correct method, but the choice of path is also important. So is the equipment. I hope you do already have a good beginning to finding your long-term home. Reading well is one good way of preparation, exercise, and growth in the journey of faith. Pray for a good church and good guides. Just stepping into the marketplace, latching onto the first guy who speaks English, could get you half-way up the mountain before it's clear he's a bad idea; or get you killed in an alley before you got ten steps.

Your instincts (apparently agreeable to our sentiments) have helped you along this far, and landed you among us. I'd call it grace, and not luck, and not your innate gift. Someone you might expect has your best interests in mind recommends you read and absorb a couple more good books. He's trying to tell you to build up some more of a foundation in a particular area, and then you will be better prepared to deal with a certain challenge. It's the voice of experience--the old soldier--that's speaking to you, and warning you. Might be a good idea to try out what he's suggesting.

Blessings,


I understand. Thank you Reverand. It means a lot to receive responses like this from you and others. The Lord has been a blessing. Thank you again.
 
Jonathan what really solidified me in my belief in paedobaptism was 1 Cor. 7 which calls the children of even one believer "holy". I personally do not see how one can be set apart, or holy without being a part of the church. Rev. Todd Ruddell has an excellent sermon that discusses this passage. I will send it to you today. As for elect infants, I confess with the WCF that there are elect infants. To me, this has the implication that there are non-elect infants. I also find the words of the Canons of Dordt comforting.

Head 1, Article 17
Since we are to judge of the will of God from His Word which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature, but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they, together with the parents, are comprehended, godly parents have no reason to doubt of the election and salvation of their children whom it pleaseth God to call out of this life in their infancy.
-
Being convinced of the truthfulness of Paedobaptism was a big transition for me. I spent my infancy and early childhood in a church that believes in baptismal regeneration, I was baptized by immersion at 9 years old in a sort of mega church (I now believe I probably was not saved when I was baptized, I knew nothing of a sinful nature or repentance) and did not know a single person who practiced infant baptism until I was sixteen (last year). The only reason I ever even encountered the doctrine was because of my Calvinistic Baptist pastor who explained that paedobaptists linked baptism to circumcision. I studied it, and found a nearby Orthodox Presbyterian mission work, where I met Presbyterians for the first time. The biggest change I learned of was that baptism is not a symbol of what we do, but instead is a mark of the work and faithfulness of our God. I pray the Spirit leads you toward the truth!
 
Jonathan what really solidified me in my belief in paedobaptism was 1 Cor. 7 which calls the children of even one believer "holy". I personally do not see how one can be set apart, or holy without being a part of the church. Rev. Todd Ruddell has an excellent sermon that discusses this passage. I will send it to you today. As for elect infants, I confess with the WCF that there are elect infants. To me, this has the implication that there are non-elect infants. I also find the words of the Canons of Dordt comforting.

Head 1, Article 17
Since we are to judge of the will of God from His Word which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature, but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they, together with the parents, are comprehended, godly parents have no reason to doubt of the election and salvation of their children whom it pleaseth God to call out of this life in their infancy.
-
Being convinced of the truthfulness of Paedobaptism was a big transition for me. I spent my infancy and early childhood in a church that believes in baptismal regeneration, I was baptized by immersion at 9 years old in a sort of mega church (I now believe I probably was not saved when I was baptized, I knew nothing of a sinful nature or repentance) and did not know a single person who practiced infant baptism until I was sixteen (last year). The only reason I ever even encountered the doctrine was because of my Calvinistic Baptist pastor who explained that paedobaptists linked baptism to circumcision. I studied it, and found a nearby Orthodox Presbyterian mission work, where I met Presbyterians for the first time. The biggest change I learned of was that baptism is not a symbol of what we do, but instead is a mark of the work and faithfulness of our God. I pray the Spirit leads you toward the truth!

Amen! Thank you!!
 
You asked why. My answer is that this is what I always do. I saw Paedobaptism as error and so I never studied it but now that I am studying it, it makes sense and I am coming around to the idea. I'm not saying I'm going to entrench myself in the teachings of error or heresy. If you look at my library, I own The New World translation of the Scriptures, the Book of Mormon, Nag Hamadi Gnostic Gospels, Quran, etc

We should always hunt for the truth. I belong to God and I'm not gonna fall away from the faith because some heresy pops its ugly head out. And I shouldn't be discouraged for wanting to hear different opinions. Otherwise I would never have joined a board that contains both Baptists and Paedos.

All of this to say, I just don't know what FV is. And when someone says they support it, I want to know what is being discussed. I met some women who support paedo communion and I disagree with it, but they wouldn't talk to me so I don't know why they believe what they believe and I wish to understand it more.

EDIT: I am unwilling to detail this thread though. My main question to come out of all of this is: Why aren't infant's allowed to take communion while being allowed to be baptized?
What I'm trying to get you to understand is that you need to understand the Confessional position before you start to study the deformities. FV was always hard to nail down. You can read the Study Reports produced by the PCA and others but then you'll run into people who claim that it didn't represent their views.
 
What I'm trying to get you to understand is that you need to understand the Confessional position before you start to study the deformities. FV was always hard to nail down. You can read the Study Reports produced by the PCA and others but then you'll run into people who claim that it didn't represent their views.
Yes I understand! Thank you!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top