From Paedo to Credo

Status
Not open for further replies.
Blood-Bought Pilgrim

Blood-Bought Pilgrim

Puritan Board Sophomore
One thing that is noticeable in the Reformed world, which I have been reminded of with a lot of my recent reading, is that movement from the Credobaptism position to Paedobaptism is FAR more common than the reverse. Why do you all think that is?

Also, if there is anyone on here who has gone from paedo to credo, I'd be very curious to hear how that came about.
 

Why I have switched from Paedo to Credo

I have recently decided that the covenantal case for believer baptism is stronger than for paedobaptism. This came about after I wrote the following article: Why Baptise Infants? By Richard Sherratt Article 27 of our Articles of Religion states that “The baptism of young children is in...
www.puritanboard.com www.puritanboard.com

Position Change: paedo to credo

All, Thank God and I am pleased in my soul to report that my convictions regarding baptism have changed. I no longer hold the paedo view. I am fully convicted of the credo view that I grew up in, and am happily at peace with that! I'm glad to know my grandpa was right all along. I am no...
www.puritanboard.com www.puritanboard.com
 
NM_Presby said:
One thing that is noticeable in the Reformed world, which I have been reminded of with a lot of my recent reading, is that movement from the Credobaptism position to Paedobaptism is FAR more common than the reverse. Why do you all think that is?

Also, if there is anyone on here who has gone from paedo to credo, I'd be very curious to hear how that came about.
Click to expand...
I think a lot of people who enter into reformed theology are coming from a background that is maybe less developed, thorough, and deep into theology. This is where you would typically see believers-only baptism. Once people step into reformed churches, they start to really try to interpret and divide the Scriptures in a more passionate way from what I've seen, and I think this unfolds the riches of theology leading to paedo baptism. I hope this is helpful.
 
I've said this on previous occasions, and it bears repeating: a certain percentage of people make a "jump" to a new position on baptism based strongly on their confidence in a theologian. Having come to trust this person's judgment in one area (say, Calvinistic soteriology) they can't help but think this person must have the best reasons to be X, as pertains to baptism. So, even if they are not sure how it is "right" to hold that position, they thrust themselves off in that direction. They "unmoor" themselves from their previous commitment to a baptismal understanding...

But they don't give much thought to how easy, how hard, or how uncertain they will be when it comes to dropping anchor again. Having "pulled themselves up by their baptism," without ever thinking of the depth of its root; they struggle with their transplant. I don't believe paedobaptism (or credobaptism) should be a practice adopted, followed by embrace of the theology that informs it. Rather, baptismal practice should be the conclusion of one's theology of baptism.

Those who have been *best* convinced to become paedobaptist are those whose minds are driven to the practice by what they find undeniable about the Bible's teaching on the sacraments generally, and baptism in particular. It ought to be an "of course" moment, not one that rests on implicit faith. I would say the same for those convinced to become credobaptist, and I suppose it often is just that. Being at first part of a paedobaptist church, but having little theological foundation as to why his church practices it, when the Baptist comes along with his reasons to doubt the practice (unfounded as it is in both minds), the first man repudiates his church's position to take hold of such reasons as the Baptist offered him.

There are so many more credobaptists of faith and conviction in the USA today, than there are paedobaptists of like faith and conviction (though, there are possibly more p-bs formally practicing the motions of infant baptism, while having a false theology or no theology undergirding the practice). Therefore, it is more common for the more numerous sort to appear to go over the other side. This appearance would likely persist, even if the percentage swing was not so different.

Yet, I also suppose that when the theologies behind the practices are known and compared, it may indeed be the case that statistically the move favors the paedobaptist camp. Without being able to state for certain why, I am of the opinion that it has to do with a perceived consistency and depth concerning several theological strands.
 
Brother, I saw your post in the credo section. I would love for you to open discussion on the newness of the NC with the paedobaptists here.
 
Contra_Mundum said:
I've said this on previous occasions, and it bears repeating: a certain percentage of people make a "jump" to a new position on baptism based strongly on their confidence in a theologian. Having come to trust this person's judgment in one area (say, Calvinistic soteriology) they can't help but think this person must have the best reasons to be X, as pertains to baptism. So, even if they are not sure how it is "right" to hold that position, they thrust themselves off in that direction. They "unmoor" themselves from their previous commitment to a baptismal understanding...

But they don't give much thought to how easy, how hard, or how uncertain they will be when it comes to dropping anchor again. Having "pulled themselves up by their baptism," without ever thinking of the depth of its root; they struggle with their transplant. I don't believe paedobaptism (or credobaptism) should be a practice adopted, followed by embrace of the theology that informs it. Rather, baptismal practice should be the conclusion of one's theology of baptism.
Click to expand...
Lots of helpful thoughts in here. I do think you are on to something. I've been re-weighing my own position recently and realizing that I think I made the jump to Paedobaptism before fully taking in all of the underlying convictions, because it seemed the natural conclusion of my theological journey.
 
Polanus1561 said:
Brother, I saw your post in the credo section. I would love for you to open discussion on the newness of the NC with the paedobaptists here.
Click to expand...
I'd be happy to, I just have been trying to limit my posts on the subject to some degree and make sure I'm asking good questions. I'm certainly looking for good discussion/input from all sides though.
 
Polanus1561 said:
I meant his statement in the credo equivalent. This thread you linked is stagnant
Click to expand...
I guess the primary reason I haven’t really engaged in-depth is because I’m still in the information-gathering stage at the moment. I’m honestly not confident enough to make an argument one way or the other right now.
 
NM_Presby said:
I guess the primary reason I haven’t really engaged in-depth is because I’m still in the information-gathering stage at the moment. I’m honestly not confident enough to make an argument one way or the other right now.
Click to expand...
So you’re NW_Presbyish for now?
 
NM_Presby said:
One thing that is noticeable in the Reformed world, which I have been reminded of with a lot of my recent reading, is that movement from the Credobaptism position to Paedobaptism is FAR more common than the reverse. Why do you all think that is?

Also, if there is anyone on here who has gone from paedo to credo, I'd be very curious to hear how that came about.
Click to expand...
I think it depends the nation we are speaking of. It can be true in the US but it's very different in France. We see a real "haemorrhage of transitions" from credobaptism to paedobaptism. Ironically Pascal Denault's book has been very useful for these transitions since it gives testimony to the coherence of the paedobaptist position.
Some other brethren came to the conclusion that 1689 federalism leaves the believer with a covenant of grace which is purely efficacious, spiritual and disconnected from all that is visible and temporal (church government, sacraments, discipline etc.) and so, practically unbearable.

As far as I know something similar is happening in South America : most of the transitions are from credo to paedo.
 
Hugues Pierre said:
I think it depends the nation we are speaking of. It can be true in the US but it's very different in France. We see a real "haemorrhage of transitions" from credobaptism to paedobaptism. Ironically Pascal Denault's book has been very useful for these transitions since it gives testimony to the coherence of the paedobaptist position.
Some other brethren came to the conclusion that 1689 federalism leaves the believer with a covenant of grace which is purely efficacious, spiritual and disconnected from all that is visible and temporal (church government, sacraments, discipline etc.) and so, practically unbearable.

As far as I know something similar is happening in South America : most of the transitions are from credo to paedo.
Click to expand...
Brother, I think there may be a misunderstanding because of the title of my post, but I’m saying that the same thing— in the US the move from credo to paedo is way more common.
 
JD said:
Interestingly I was reading Reasons of a Change of Sentiment and Practice on the Subject of Baptism by JA Haldane a few months ago and he notes excactly the opposite pattern: one of the things which drew him towards credobaptism was that people kept leaving his congregational churches to go Baptist but almost none were going to opposite direction.
Click to expand...
Hypothesis- the times matter. If the period (Haldane's?) is characterized by a widespread sentiment of the churches being formalistic with "cold orthodoxy", I can see how credo baptism would appeal to many. The converse could be the case in an age of chaos and religious individualism.
 
ZackF said:
Hypothesis- the times matter. If the period (Haldane's?) is characterized by a widespread sentiment of the churches being formalistic with "cold orthodoxy", I can see how credo baptism would appeal to many. The converse could be the case in an age of chaos and religious individualism.
Click to expand...
This theory makes a lot of sense.
 
Contra_Mundum said:
I've said this on previous occasions, and it bears repeating: a certain percentage of people make a "jump" to a new position on baptism based strongly on their confidence in a theologian. Having come to trust this person's judgment in one area (say, Calvinistic soteriology) they can't help but think this person must have the best reasons to be X, as pertains to baptism. So, even if they are not sure how it is "right" to hold that position, they thrust themselves off in that direction. They "unmoor" themselves from their previous commitment to a baptismal understanding...
Click to expand...

I have strongly suspected this for quite some time based on my limited experience with people so I was surprised you came out and said it :).

A couple of close friends of mine made the credo to pedo change and when I asked for Biblical justification, it was honestly incoherent or just repeating very simple arguments ("cuz Colossians 2..."). One guy specifically said something to the effect of "because all my heroes are paedobaptist." I was dismayed by the lack of effort and biblical conviction involved in such a big transition.
 
TheInquirer said:
I have strongly suspected this for quite some time based on my limited experience with people so I was surprised you came out and said it :).

A couple of close friends of mine made the credo to pedo change and when I asked for Biblical justification, it was honestly incoherent or just repeating very simple arguments ("cuz Colossians 2..."). One guy specifically said something to the effect of "because all my heroes are paedobaptist." I was dismayed by the lack of effort and biblical conviction involved in such a big transition.
Click to expand...
Mine wasn’t quite at the level of the last one you mentioned, but I’ve personally been realizing my own change was a lot more culturally influenced and less theologically influenced than I thought at the time. Hence the re-examination.

I think for many making that switch may have just been part of the momentum of the YRR trajectory.
 
TheInquirer said:
I have strongly suspected this for quite some time based on my limited experience with people so I was surprised you came out and said it :).

A couple of close friends of mine made the credo to pedo change and when I asked for Biblical justification, it was honestly incoherent or just repeating very simple arguments ("cuz Colossians 2..."). One guy specifically said something to the effect of "because all my heroes are paedobaptist." I was dismayed by the lack of effort and biblical conviction involved in such a big transition.
Click to expand...
I've written it on this board more than once, but I've been on the board for a long time too.

To be fair, some people may have accepted the argument(s) they've been exposed to, but lack the sophistication to replicate verbally what they have intuited as true; or they understand certain texts play a big role (Col.2:11-2 for one side, or Act.8:12 for the other), and so they rest there but do not actually grasp how practiced teachers move from text to application.

In my judgment, I do not believe many Christians across the moderate-to-serious spectrum (concerning the faith) actually think about the mark of baptism, or about how "deep" it goes. To them, it is like a dandelion plant, looking for all the world like surface vegetation. And to be honest, I think many churches present it in an essentially shallow manner. "Baptism is a human work." "Baptism is a statement I make to God or the world." "Baptism is something I did, a few years ago, kind of like my H.S. graduation and drop-in party on my parent's porch. There are a few cards in a box, I spent the money I got, I have a diploma on the wall (or it's also in the box), I don't think about it hardly at all, but I am baptized (just like I am a H.S. graduate)."

Well, I say baptism (regardless of the theological soil) may have a deceptive, surface presentation; but in fact has a taproot that has sunk down to the very core of one's theological identity, putting out many filaments that one scarcely acknowledges into a thousand crevices. So, "pulling oneself up by his baptism" is quite far from rearranging the furniture of one's theological house. But few teachers tell their students this reality, or encourage the pupils on a regular, reminding basis to "improve your baptism." I think some teachers are afraid, if they make too much of baptism their hearers will adopt a quasi-sacerdotalist attitude toward baptism. So instead, they put a major effort into teaching the opposite, constantly insinuating that baptism mustn't be over-valued.

If baptism is mainly superficial, more than window dressing but not much more than a milestone--or so men are taught--then when they are moved to switch out, they don't think it will be a major transplant at all. Probably some people who experience the transition never remember it later as traumatic. Others go through a lot more tribulation than was necessary, if they had only been better served by their spiritual healthcare provider. And some people experience such difficulty they start to drift theologically, unable to root properly again (no fault of the soil in the pot). It's happened more than once right before our eyes on the PB.
 
Incorporating what's been said already, what do you think about this hypothesis :detective: -

On the one hand, there has in recent times been a big resurgence of reformed theology in many popular Christian circles and many believers either see that their favourite reformers like John Calvin or modern day theologians like RC Sproul were paedobaptist, and so follow suit, or they take covenant theology as being essential to reformed theology and paedobaptism being the necessary and logical conclusion of the same. You might see more of these people in places like the Puritan Board because the demographic represents more closely the views of the Puritans (who obviously with rare exception all held to paedobaptism).

On the other hand, two significant factors are leading more to turn to credobaptism. These being firstly the often individualistic bent of modern society, and/or of popular evangelicalism with emphasis on the new birth and regeneration. This has caused many to reassess their own faith and salvation following their upbringing, having since experienced powerful feelings for true religion, and concluding that their baptism at infancy was only nominal. Secondly, the thought of "dead orthodoxy" and the desire to rid the church of the notion that baptism at infancy has any bearing on the spiritual state of one's soul, especially since so many churches appear spiritually dead or are simply apostate. This is as well as the fact that many, often even completely outside the Christian faith, baptise their children, and so the question is raised of what value is such a baptism at all.

I think perhaps the key, that Bruce has articulated so well, is the level of depth considered and taught in the meaning of baptism.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

sevenzedek
  • Locked
Struggles From Credo to Paedo
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
sevenzedek
sevenzedek
Simply_Nikki
  • Locked
Transitioning from Credo to Paedo
Replies
16
Views
4K
Simply_Nikki
Simply_Nikki
A
  • Locked
Why I have switched from Paedo to Credo
4 5 6
Replies
170
Views
21K
Semper Fidelis
Semper Fidelis
O
  • Locked
Position Change: paedo to credo
2
Replies
45
Views
7K
Herald
Herald
M
  • Locked
Relationship between Paedo/Credo
Replies
9
Views
2K
Moosepig
M
Back
Top