Paedo-Baptism Answers Differing paedobaptism beliefs

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jrfail

Puritan Board Freshman
Hey guys,

From my study, I have noticed that there seems to be a greater unity in beliefs when it comes to credobaptism, than there is on the paedobaptism (oikobaptism) side.

I was curious if someone could lay out for me, or give me resources to all the different “flavors” of paedobaptism.

Here is an example of what I am looking for..

Gregg strawbridge.. from what I understand, unless I misunderstood, would baptize an unbelieving spouse of a believer.

That’s a quite different understanding of household baptism than those that would only baptist the children of believers.

This seems to flow out from the federal vision view.. I know very little about federal vision.

Anyway, any help on this would be appreciated! Also, I am new here. So If this has been discussed already, than a simple link to that discussion would suffice!

Thanks,

Josh.
 

Jeri Tanner

Administrator
Staff member
Hey Josh, welcome to the PB! Please fix your signature per PB rules. You can follow the hyperlink below my signature.
 

Charles Johnson

Puritan Board Sophomore
I doubt that credobaptists are really so united unless one takes a very narrow definition of a credobaptist, restricting it to baptist protestants. After all, plenty of heretical sects only baptize adults, including the oneness pentecostals, the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses, and the seventh day adventists.
 

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
Even among Protestant Baptists, there are vast differences in methodology when it comes to baptism. For example, a Dispensationalist Baptist is going to employ different arguments to someone who adheres to 1689 federalism.
 

Jrfail

Puritan Board Freshman
Even among Protestant Baptists, there are vast differences in methodology when it comes to baptism. For example, a Dispensationalist Baptist is going to employ different arguments to someone who adheres to 1689 federalism.
Maybe I should rephrase.. from what I can tell though credobaptist vary very widely in their overall doctrine, and in their argumentation that they would use for baptizing only professing believers.. their practice when it comes to how baptism is administered and to whom seems more unified than the paedobaptist world.

Of course, I am completely open for correction here!
 

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
Maybe I should rephrase.. from what I can tell though credobaptist vary very widely in their overall doctrine, and in their argumentation that they would use for baptizing only professing believers.. their practice when it comes to how baptism is administered and to whom seems more unified than the paedobaptist world.

Of course, I am completely open for correction here!

Right, I see what you are getting at. Superficially, that conclusion would appear to be accurate. I do think, however, that if you scratch the surface a little, more differences will emerge. For instance, at what age should someone be baptised? How long after someone's conversion ought they to receive baptism? Questions such as these do not receive uniform answers from Baptists.
 

Jrfail

Puritan Board Freshman
Right, I see what you are getting at. Superficially, that conclusion would appear to be accurate. I do think, however, that if you scratch the surface a little, more differences will emerge. For instance, at what age should someone be baptised? How long after someone's conversion ought they to receive baptism? Questions such as these do not receive uniform answers from Baptists.
That’s true! I agree! Of course, I see no issue with the variation of beliefs from paedobaptist (I am a paedobaptist), but I was just curious what all the differing positions were.

I hold to the belief that children of atleast one believer should be baptized, and not partake of communion until they profess faith in Christ.

However; I have recently become more aware of other positions from the reformed perspective, such as the position where unbelieving spouses are baptized.

I didn’t know if there was a good summary of all the different positions and maybe the theological foundations for those differences??

Just from the surface, it seems that a lot of the differences comes down to federal vision. Which I haven’t looked into almost at all yet.
 
Last edited:

Romans922

Puritan Board Professor
Gregg strawbridge.. from what I understand, unless I misunderstood, would baptize an unbelieving spouse of a believer.

That’s a quite different understanding of household baptism than those that would only baptist the children of believers.

This seems to flow out from the federal vision view.. I know very little about federal vision.
This isn’t the federal vision view though I’m sure some FVers would hold it, this is the position of those who hold to Covenant Theology. 1 Cor. 7:14.

So I’d say your mistaken as to your understanding on that point.
 

Jrfail

Puritan Board Freshman
This isn’t the federal vision view though I’m sure some FVers would hold it, this is the position of those who hold to Covenant Theology. 1 Cor. 7:14.

So I’d say your mistaken as to your understanding on that point.
I hold to covenant theology though. Isn’t Federal Vision essentially covenant theology applied in ways that it hasn’t been historically applied??

Maybe, it has to do more with the understanding of “household” baptism, and what is meant by that then?
 

Romans922

Puritan Board Professor
I hold to covenant theology though. Isn’t Federal Vision essentially covenant theology applied in ways that it hasn’t been historically applied??

Maybe, it has to do more with the understanding of “household” baptism, and what is meant by that then?
It is exactly household baptism…applied to the whole household. :)
 

Eyedoc84

Puritan Board Freshman
I hold to covenant theology though. Isn’t Federal Vision essentially covenant theology applied in ways that it hasn’t been historically applied??
FV is monocovenantal. They reject the CoW. But what practically happens is turning the CoG into CoW, when they think they are doing the opposite.

Regardless, I believe the whole household should be baptized if willing, even if unbelieving, with the attendant warnings of becoming a covenant breaker. You aren’t going to kidnap and force an unwilling spouse, but call to repent, believe, and come to the font.
 

Jerusalem Blade

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I don't think baptizing an adult household member (parent, son, daughter, spouse) who has no profession of faith in Jesus Christ – Matt 10:36, "a man's foes shall be they of his own household" – is acceptable.
 

Andrew35

Puritan Board Sophomore
I doubt that an unbelieving adult would even submit himself to baptism willingly if they really understood what it means.
Depends. In modern, Western cultures, perhaps not. In older and more exotic traditions, the notion that the wife/family/tribe/nation would follow the choice of their head regardless of personal belief might be pretty much a given.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top