ZackF
Puritan Board Professor
Good advice. I don’t want to coarsen your edifying remarks but there are men who are dragging their families all over the place because they think they read another sumthin’ cooler on the internet than ever before.
From Paedo to Credo
- Thread starter Blood-Bought Pilgrim
- Start date
- Status
Blood-Bought Pilgrim
Puritan Board Sophomore
I think you are right on. The situation I’m personally in is that when I became reformed and went from Baptist to Presbyterian I didn’t understand baptist theology very well, and never read any reformed baptist stuff— and as a result I also never explored Presbyterian theology on baptism in significant depth beyond reading a couple books and articles. Now that I’m actually studying these things more deeply I’m finding myself more in line with a lot of reformed baptist ways of understanding Scripture.
RobertPGH1981
Puritan Board Sophomore
I was a Baptist from 2007-2021. I changed whenever my daughter was born for several reasons, so here is my generic list:
1. The Covenant Theology is more sound than 1689 Federalism and Dispensationalism. My church was a blending of the two (Progressive Covenantalism)
2. Exegesis of passages didn't make sense when thinking of Credo (1 Cor 10:1-4; Col 2:11-12; Jer 31:31-34 & Jer 32:38-41; Acts 2:38-39; Acts 8:12 (which is overlooked / ignored by Baptists)
3. Warning passages as a Credo felt hypothetical and not possible
4. Credo baptism aligns best with Arminian Soteriology
5. Credo baptism tends to be more individualistic, ignoring household passages.. Paedos tend to be more community and family-centric.
Thanks,
1. The Covenant Theology is more sound than 1689 Federalism and Dispensationalism. My church was a blending of the two (Progressive Covenantalism)
2. Exegesis of passages didn't make sense when thinking of Credo (1 Cor 10:1-4; Col 2:11-12; Jer 31:31-34 & Jer 32:38-41; Acts 2:38-39; Acts 8:12 (which is overlooked / ignored by Baptists)
3. Warning passages as a Credo felt hypothetical and not possible
4. Credo baptism aligns best with Arminian Soteriology
5. Credo baptism tends to be more individualistic, ignoring household passages.. Paedos tend to be more community and family-centric.
Thanks,
Blood-Bought Pilgrim
Puritan Board Sophomore
It’s funny, many of the passages you listed are have been pushing me toward a credo view.
RobertPGH1981
Puritan Board Sophomore
I dont see how the language of family and children can lead you to Credobaptism.
Andrew, do you, in the mix of things, find yourself drawn to the more conservative, and even more confessional and biblical, stance of confessional reformed Baptists (over against the PCA too many times)?
Polanus1561
Puritan Board Junior
Has anyone here mentioned the argument that it is unlikely Jewish Christians, now learning there is no covenant sign for their children after 1500 years (remember the warning against not circumcising), would have caused some uproar or debate? This would have been as important as the Gentile/Circumcision debate in Acts 15.
This is not to say that such an uproar is necessarily right (from the Baptist POV). My point is that knowing the uptight atmosphere in the early church, one should expect such an uproar (again, whether it is right or not). This would have been such a powerful argument for Jews "Look at these Christians! They have abrogated the covenant sign! Why join them and cut your children off!"
Sure, a Baptist would say 'Nope. Argument from silence'. But even they must admit it is a deafening silence from their baptism viewpoint. The argument above is by no means infallible to turn one's convictions. But one must admit some validity to it.
"If the children of believers were excluded from membership in the new covenant when they had been an integral part of the old covenant, Pentecost would have been a day of mass excommunication." - Robert Letham
This is not to say that such an uproar is necessarily right (from the Baptist POV). My point is that knowing the uptight atmosphere in the early church, one should expect such an uproar (again, whether it is right or not). This would have been such a powerful argument for Jews "Look at these Christians! They have abrogated the covenant sign! Why join them and cut your children off!"
Sure, a Baptist would say 'Nope. Argument from silence'. But even they must admit it is a deafening silence from their baptism viewpoint. The argument above is by no means infallible to turn one's convictions. But one must admit some validity to it.
"If the children of believers were excluded from membership in the new covenant when they had been an integral part of the old covenant, Pentecost would have been a day of mass excommunication." - Robert Letham
Polanus1561
Puritan Board Junior
I am all for including 'general statements' like that into the discussion, be it from credo/paedos for the credo/paedo view. Adds more variety, further than issues like investigating the households in Acts.
Blood-Bought Pilgrim
Puritan Board Sophomore
This is not directly to your point, but I was thinking about this argument while reading John Murray's Christian Baptism the other day. At one point, Murray is discussing how the disciples thought small children unimportant and that they had nothing to do with the kingdom, but Jesus told the disciples to let the little children come to him because the kingdom belongs to them.
It struck me that this argument is entirely contradictory to the argument from silence, which Murray also makes; if it would have been obvious to first century Jews that children should be in the covenant, and if what Jesus says about the kingdom here has to do with being in the covenant, why on earth would the Jewish disciples be so opposed to the little children coming to Christ? It seems that both the argument from silence and the argument about the little children coming to Jesus cannot be correct. Either the situation with the children is dealing with a different issue, or 1st century Jews weren't all making the assumption paedobaptists claim.
Blood-Bought Pilgrim
Puritan Board Sophomore
I am on the more conservative side, but I would not say that has been much of a moving issue in this case. The thing that really caused me to examine this issue again was questions which had been raised in my mind about covenant theology.
Let's not allow the thread degenerate into a series of fruitless challenges, with first one side then the other presenting their "irrefutable" postulates and prooftexts.
That which strikes you (whomsoever) as clear-and-convincing, as definitive, as the last straw that broke your own resistance to change--your experience is not likely to move someone else to a similar mind shift. Most of your previous tribe look on with confusion, pity, or horror. Here, the major dilemma comes into full view: if your reasons are comprehensible to them, you must have lost your mind; if your reasons are incomprehensible to them, Babel has come again for you now speak an unknown tongue.
There's a big temptation for us (all together in the big Puritan tent) to assume we surely have in common one thing, namely a way of reading the Bible for our guide. This is, unfortunately, the wrong assumption. We agree on the Bible itself, and on sola scriptura as a principle of sorts; and that's about the end of it. I don't want to overstate the difference or its consequence; but overlooking it leads to constant and confusing friction, and plenty of talking past each other.
We come up to the heights of theology by different approaches, and survey or stake out nearly the same ground on the peak. There is our common confessional commitments, praise the Lord. But overlap is not identity, and the route taken to the top is part of our theological enterprise, part of what we think is right and good. We have different hermeneutical commitments, which leads to different convictions on some substantive points.
That which strikes you (whomsoever) as clear-and-convincing, as definitive, as the last straw that broke your own resistance to change--your experience is not likely to move someone else to a similar mind shift. Most of your previous tribe look on with confusion, pity, or horror. Here, the major dilemma comes into full view: if your reasons are comprehensible to them, you must have lost your mind; if your reasons are incomprehensible to them, Babel has come again for you now speak an unknown tongue.
There's a big temptation for us (all together in the big Puritan tent) to assume we surely have in common one thing, namely a way of reading the Bible for our guide. This is, unfortunately, the wrong assumption. We agree on the Bible itself, and on sola scriptura as a principle of sorts; and that's about the end of it. I don't want to overstate the difference or its consequence; but overlooking it leads to constant and confusing friction, and plenty of talking past each other.
We come up to the heights of theology by different approaches, and survey or stake out nearly the same ground on the peak. There is our common confessional commitments, praise the Lord. But overlap is not identity, and the route taken to the top is part of our theological enterprise, part of what we think is right and good. We have different hermeneutical commitments, which leads to different convictions on some substantive points.
In my opinion, there is something to consider on the topic you note relative to the question of baptism, but in one of those ancillary ways where the conclusion makes some corroborative impact. On the business of "argument from silence," I think the contradiction you detect arises from the ease with which our minds fill in the gaps, regardless of our perspective.
Mk.10:13-16 (along with Lk.18:15-17) gives us a scene of Jesus rebuking his disciples for restricting little children's access to him. He famously declares that the kingdom he brings is "of such." Mark ch.9 contains the Transfiguration atop the high mountain, and the begining of the Savior's descent into hell that ends at the cross. Ch.10 takes place on Jesus' way to his final confrontation in Jerusalem. By the end of the ch, he is on his way out of Jericho on his last leg of the journey.
In the course of the trip, Jesus several times predicts his death, but the disciples are incapable of grasping his meaning. They are blinded by their own visions of the kingdom, and their part in it, and to be honest their weak faith (Mk.9:18-19). They know this trip is momentous for the ministry of Christ, but their expectations are clouded, and nearly all of them are given to pride, see Mk.10:35-45. This hardness of heart (v5) is not unique to the disciples, but to their nation and humanity as a whole. It is sin that makes the disciples opposed to the fathers who brought their children, not the working out of their OT (or NT) theological ideas.
Mk.10:1-16 combined actually presents us with the reality of Jesus declaring that the building block composition of his kingdom is husbands, wives, and children. These, and not the "top dogs," are the essence of the kingdom--a lesson that the disciples absorb only with much difficulty. They are only too happy to have someone like the Rich Young Ruler offer to hitch his money and influence onto Jesus' kingdom movement, but are astonished when Jesus rebuffs him, v24. Vv29-30 gives further confirmation that the kingdom administration, continuing for a while in this world, still has place in it for the blessing of family.
None of the particulars noted make the case for infant baptism; I do not claim that the continuity Jesus alludes to means that our children now should receive the covenant sign of this age, the way the sons of the covenant received the covenant sign of prior ages. But Jesus is teaching continuity of some kind, and so one must layer his understanding of the kingdom from many passages to obtain the clearest picture of that continuity, and any discontinuity that accompanies it.
TheInquirer
Puritan Board Junior
Oh dear, what kind of Baptists were you hanging around? #2 & #4 are especially concerning.
Yeah, let's do that in another thread
.
Eyedoc84
Puritan Board Sophomore
I agree, they should be concerning for a baptist!
TheInquirer
Puritan Board Junior
I agree, they should be concerning for a baptist!
Not at all - I found the claims that Baptists ingore these passages (Jeremiah 31:31-34 - are you serious??) and that credo best aligns with Arminianism to be ludicrous statements. But Bruce suggested we not do this kind of back and forth in this thread so go ahead and start another if you want to fight about it.
RobertPGH1981
Puritan Board Sophomore
The Baptists I would associate with disagree with my general/generic outline. These are conclusions that I made whenever I made an honest assessment as a 13 YEAR Baptist under 1689 Federalism and Dispensationalism teachings. Happy to speak with you about it if you prefer.
To explain further.
#2, places all of Israel was baptized under the cloud and drank the spiritual waters that flowed, which was Christ. Israel's believers and unbelievers, children, and adults benefited and were connected to Christ. As a former Baptist, I would say only believers can be connected to Christ under the New Covenant. This text demonstrates that people are still connected to Christ through the means of Grace offered through the sacraments and preaching.
#4, the ordo salutis starts with God and not man. It isn't man's decision whenever somebody comes to Christ. Baptists theologically will ignore children based on this fact and rely solely on professions made by the person as they grow up. Presbyterians do the same for adults, but an important distinction must be made: Children of Believers are treated as outside the covenant community. Household passages in Acts speak to the inclusion of children and the strong language in the Old Testament carried in the New Testament (connected Jer 31:31-34 with Jer 32:38-41).
Credobaptism focuses too strongly on an individual and not the community as a whole.
The focus on individualism highlights man's belief and not GOD's mysterious work of the spirit (John 3). Baptism is an appeal to God for a clear conscience (1 Peter 3:21-22). We believe he will save our children by faith because he promises to do this (Jer 32:38-41; Acts 2:38-39). All Baptists would agree that we need to raise our children in the fear and admonition of the LORD; I view the approach as inconsistent with the OLD and NEW pattern (Col 2:11-12).
Last edited:
It’s troubling to me when a conversation that was generally irenic and interesting predictably degenerates into something similar as sports fans bickering, or investors arguing over international allocations in their portfolio on a forum.
We’re talking about biblical convictions and we all have our own churches; the divide, albeit ecclesiastically necessary, already exists. No point in dwelling on it here as that clearly was not the OPs intent.
We’re talking about biblical convictions and we all have our own churches; the divide, albeit ecclesiastically necessary, already exists. No point in dwelling on it here as that clearly was not the OPs intent.
RobertPGH1981
Puritan Board Sophomore
Sorry if I wasn't clear on this point; Baptists ignore Jer 31:31-34's connection to the following chapter, 32:38-41.
Jer 32:38 And they shall be my people, and I will be their God.
Jer 32:39 I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever, for their own good and the good of their children after them.
Jer 32:40 I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them. And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me.
Jer 32:41 I will rejoice in doing them good, and I will plant them in this land in faithfulness, with all my heart and all my soul.
No Other Name
Puritan Board Sophomore
Rather I think the problem here is the generalization of your statement. Perhaps "some Baptists with whom you have previously discussed" might be more accurate?
RobertPGH1981
Puritan Board Sophomore
This wasn’t intended to be a polemic. I did use general in my language. It was my perspective. many of my Baptist friends would disagree of course.
D
Deleted member 13126
Guest
But he doesn't promise to save any or all of our specific progency at all. Is it anyone here's lived experience that all of their children and grandchildren came to faith in Christ, persevering until the very end? Can we trace that hypothetical, unbroken, ancestral chain of faithful Christians backwards and forwards? If so, what do the rest of us say for ourselves? What do we say to David and Absalom?
I think the verses you cite in Jeremiah can be read generally as referring to the next generation, and the tail end of Acts 2:39 helps cement my point. It has been and always will be 'as many as the Lord our God shall call'. If we take that text any other way, I can't see how you don't end up with universalism, since the 'promise' in that reading is also to 'all that are afar off' (albeit, Calvinists know all doesn't always mean all, just like olam doesn't always mean 'forever' but rather, 'for the time apointed').
Last edited by a moderator:
RobertPGH1981
Puritan Board Sophomore
I used to speak the same way.
It's not done lightly since I was a Baptist for 13 years. I don't believe either view is airtight, but I do see more creditability when approaching the text as a pedobaptist. 1 Covenant under two administrations makes a lot more sense theologically. 1689 Federalism never fully convinced me with their covenant theology. They borrow a lot from Progressive Covenentalism, which is more dispensational in its approach.
TheInquirer
Puritan Board Junior
Thank you for the clarification Robert, I understand your thinking better.
None of the 1689 Fed guys borrow anything from Progressive Covenantalism actually but we can talk about that elsewhere.
None of the 1689 Fed guys borrow anything from Progressive Covenantalism actually but we can talk about that elsewhere.
RobertPGH1981
Puritan Board Sophomore
We can take this to a separate thread, but here are the places in Samuel Renihan's book "The Mystery of Christ, His Covenant, and His Kingdom," where he quotes Stephen Wellum's book, Progressive Covenantalism. It is an abridged version of his larger work with the Gentry called "Kingdom through Covenant".
refer to pages 27, 40, for Wellum/Gentry...
page 28, 30, uses James M. Hamilton who is another PC'er.
Quotes a lot of Schriner as well who I believe is a PC'er too.
- Page 35 - about the nature of the covenants in the Bible.
- Page 47 - in reference to the typology of Adam and Christ.
- Page 94 - in reference to the continuity and discontinuity of the covenants in the Bible.
refer to pages 27, 40, for Wellum/Gentry...
page 28, 30, uses James M. Hamilton who is another PC'er.
Quotes a lot of Schriner as well who I believe is a PC'er too.
Last edited:
TheInquirer
Puritan Board Junior
Hmm, I don't see any of those quotes in my copy. To note, the Kingdom Through Covenant guys have actually criticized the 1689 Feds for only doing Historical Theology and not anything new like they are. There are places where the two approaches agree with one another - is that what you are seeing in Sam's book?
RobertPGH1981
Puritan Board Sophomore
Yes, they overlap in typology and somewhat in continuity/discontinuity. I know they differ since the 1689 Federalists provide videos on their website. Since I understand Presbyterian Covenant Theology better, I can see how PC & 1689 are closer together than Presbyterian Covenant Theology.
I think the main thing that drives the conversation for KTC/1689 is the styles of covenants (Royal Grant, Suzzerine Vassal). It comes from the work of Meredith Kline, which they both borrow from. I reject that perspective since it presupposes a historical human perspective of covenants. Us in the RPCNA treat all the covenants as divine covenants (nothing like Royal Grant or SV Covenants).
It makes me uncomfortable to pull out of history in ways the scripture doesn't clearly define. Since the scripture doesn't make historical covenantal distinctions, we shouldn't either.
Mr. Great-Heart
Puritan Board Freshman
I deleted my prior post on this thread because upon further reflection, it was not helpful. However, I did want to follow up on one item because this thread is not the first time I've seen the following quote.
Much more could be said in response to this quote / argument, but that one aspect was all I wanted to highlight.
A dramatic statement, to be sure. I won't debate semantics, though that would be valid. What I think is interesting is the inordinate focus on children. What of the Jewish men and women who were excluded from the new covenant? "Those who had received his word were baptized." What of those that didn't? Well, to position it in Letham's words, they were also part of the mass excommunication.
Much more could be said in response to this quote / argument, but that one aspect was all I wanted to highlight.
Last edited:
iainduguid
Puritan Board Junior
Hi Robert,
This seems a remarkably strong statement. Does the RPCNA really have an official position regarding ancient Near Eastern covenant treaty forms? I myself think that Kline overstates the differences between the Abrahamic covenant and the Sinai covenant, but there are surely certain similarities between these covenants and ancient Near Eastern equivalents that are suggestive - not least as evidence supportive of a second millennium BC date for Deuteronomy. (I also think the underlying scholarship on ancient Near Eastern covenant backgrounds has moved on since the strongly bifurcated position of the 1960's - 1980's, on which Kline based much of his work.)
To be sure Scripture determines our theology, not ancient Near Eastern backgrounds. Meredith Kline would not have disagreed with that for a moment. But are there no ways in which such studies might illuminate our knowledge of God's Word?
RobertPGH1981
Puritan Board Sophomore
When you say it's a strong statement are you referring to my opinion regarding the connection between treaty forms?
I am unaware of the RPCNA making official statements regarding the treaty forms. Perhaps I shouldn't have said this specifically, "Us in the RPCNA treat all the covenants as divine covenants (nothing like Royal Grant or SV Covenants)." However, the concept is still upheld in traditional reformed theology.
Since I came from a Baptist background, I try to avoid the external covenantal treaty forms since they seem to bring more confusion. I remember that being highlighted in Sam Reinhihan and Wellum's writings.
Last edited:
iainduguid
Puritan Board Junior
I'm sorry that that has been your experience. I think there are some illuminating and important parallels (and differences) between the Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern covenants even if - like many parallels - they can be misapplied and misused. There is nothing inherent in these covenantal forms that requires a significant recasting of traditional Reformed theology, but since the original audience would inevitably have been familiar with such forms, it seems unwise to dismiss out of hand the possibility of any overlap between them.
- Status
