Reasons for Historical Paedo/Credo Ecclesiology Differences

[Theoretical]

In short, why is that while Doctrines of Grace believing infant baptisers have historically associated under a number of different polities (episcopal, presbyterian, and independent/congregationalist) that credobaptists historically have solely acted under independency?

Basically is there anything fundamentally peculiar to Credo theology that would preclude the bulk of its adherents building Presbyterian ecclesiastical structures? I know the FPC permits outright credo/paedo liberty, but it is still operating as a historically padeo church with completely tolerance for credos (correct me if I am wrong).

 

[Contra_Mundum]

You know, Scott,

This is a very interesting question. I'd like to hear an answer from a baptist perspective.

Just as an initial supposition, I think that typical baptist polity is largely an historical-theological issue. And I think this is borne out in the differences between English baptists (from which most American baptist churches descend) and the continental anabaptist tradition (whence comes other baptist-type denominations--whether Mennonite or Brethren or other such.

If I'm not mistaken (and I well could be), the continentals would probably have a more structured, denominational polity, with less emphasis on local autonomy from the rest of the sister churches. American baptists come from the English side, and Independency or Congregationalism was part-and-parcel of their Confessions of Faith from the beginning.

So even after confessions were largely abandoned, and loose Associations had become more organized Denominations among some baptist churches, still the distinctive of local autonomy remained a preculiar identifier of Baptist identity.

I think we could conclude that in the future, it might be possible to find a baptist denomination that retained the distinctive meaning/mode of baptism practiced in those churches, but which adopted another polity, whether that was episopal or presbyterian. However, it strikes me that would require a lot of water under the bridge, and a certain amount of cutting-off of that Baptist name from its English roots. Indeed, the continental strain is the natural historic root of baptist-with-another-polity. And they name themselves differently because of it.

But I would appreciate reading several baptist responses to the question.

 

[Blueridge Believer]

Here's a series of works that might shed some light as to why we're so crazy brothers. Check out the pice by Bow "What baptists believe". There's also some stuff by Carroll on eclesia. Hope this helps.

http://www.pbministries.org/Theology/theological_studies.htm

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It appears to me that Baptist view of Federal headship and the nature of the New Covenant lends itself to independancy. I know that sounds pejoratiave but that is not my intent. This is all my musings on it. I know Baptists will give Scriptural reasons for their views but I obviously disagree with their Scriptural reasons because those reasons are underpinned by their basic understanding of Covenant which I believe is faulty (and they obviously do not).

I would also note that one can come up with historical abuses to explain "...why we are staunch independents..." but orthodox Presbyterians have been the victims of overreaching and un-Biblical authority but still didn't cast aside their polity. Demonstrating examples of abuse of particular polity doesn't help the independent cause given that either side can provide mountains of "evidence" of the failings of a particular polity. I think the real reason for Baptist independancy is more fundamental and related to their underlying theology.

Even the Baptists that retain a strong sense of God's sovereignty tend to see God's work as God moving individual by individual instead of according to any kind of household promise where God covenants with a man and his family. The "popular" expression of that idea makes the process wholly democratic. The most crude statement of that idea is the popular "God doesn't have any grandchildren...."

Since they completely eschew the notion of a familial relationship with God and covenantal authority at even the most basic institutional level, it follows that they would have a problem with any other type of federal authority. That is, if Dad has no real federal authority over son then it undermines every other authority structure. It may be one thing for Baptists to submit to immediate elders that they chose but trusting and submitting to a more extended headship is a bridge too far.

Even the Baptist notion of Baptism makes the sacrament a response to the individual instead of something that the Church declares on behalf of the individual. In many Churches, the Baptism is all about the individual. They don't want to get baptized in the Church but somewhere more significant. I've been at my current Church for almost a year and a half and the baptistry has not been used once. Instead, people get baptized in the South China sea or in the Kadena Marina. It's their event. The Church can choose to participate if they have time on a Sunday afternoon, after worship, to go to the event.

It's a roundabout way of saying, in my estimation, that Baptist theology lends itself to individualism and egalitarianism. Be it primitive Baptists that don't believe there is any such thing as Elders, Southern Baptists who make deacons the real authority, or the more "benign" forms that "federate" with no real external authority, Baptist theology moves in the direction of independancy.