JM
Puritan Board Doctor
But Baptists don't subscribe to the WCF, so it wouldn't be an issue.
If I recall...they must subscribe to the 1689.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
But Baptists don't subscribe to the WCF, so it wouldn't be an issue.
One example among many:
How would you advise a father, who is Paedo, have his children baptized in a Credo-Only congregation?
Ridiculous?.... Don’t shoot the messenger. Our Lord the creator of all we know commands us to keep his sacraments in his Holy Word.instead of being staunchly dogmatic that the other side is "in sin"- a position I think is ridiculous and needs a review of Romans
Yes, I'd say that pretty well sums it up.
Hi- I was out all day...so anyway, one local Calvinist Baptist pastor we know (grad from WTS) has a local Presbyterian pastor who will baptize babies if people feel strongly about it. The pastors respect each other and get along and if somebody doesn't want to leave the Baptist church but wants to get a baby baptized, they go over to the local Presbyterian. I guess it is during a service but I never asked. I happen to think this is an example of how churches should relate and be willing to help, but I doubt many here would agree.
To tell you the truth we knew that quite a few people in that church had come out of the RCC. We rejoice in the marvelous fact of their salvation and becoming Protestant, but why exactly should I assume people who desire to baptize their baby have a Reformed and godly conviction? In those cases it wasn't my business and I didn't ask, but unless a person is taught, how do you know they don't have lingering vestiges of superstitious baptismal regeneration type thinking? How do you even know the desire to baptize anybody isn't Federal Vision-ish?
I've met people in the PCA who talk about communion like there is magic in the elements and the pastor has had to try to talk to them privately, and I am not sure he got through. All that to say I think the mentality among paedos can be naive, ie, assuming people baptize babies for the right reason. I hope the pastors here really know what is going on with their people when they baptize a baby and don't assume anything. I think you'd be surprised how many people in the pews ascribe some magic to baptism.
Jeri- you missed my point I think. There are endless threads here on this, year after year, and both sides make very excellent points that are fully scripture based. I choose to hold more to one side while fully accepting the other side, instead of being staunchly dogmatic that the other side is "in sin"- a position I think is ridiculous and needs a review of Romans and how to accept those whose conscience differs on disputable matters.
If this is not a disputable matter where we accept one another, then why exactly are both sides allow to post and discuss here at PB as full members in good standing? Makes no sense if one side is in sin.
It's not a slur or a judgment on anyone's character to determine that baptizing, or withholding baptism, from an infant is sin. It's simply a necessity- if the church were to give up its distinctions, whether paedo or credo, much would be lost. It may be a secondary issue but it's an important one. Brothers and sisters in Christ can and must still love and fellowship with each other, but the distinctions are necessary until the Lord comes. One view on covenant and children and baptism is right and the other view is wrong; one view reflects God's command and the other opposes it. This isn't the color of the carpet. A lot hangs on it. That's why good pastors must teach and require submission to distinct doctrinal positions in the churches. I guess we disagree on this but that's my take on it. I think good Presbyterian and Baptist churches are trying to find a way to accommodate the needy sheep outside their distinctives who need a good church, without compromising on those distinctives.Jeri- you missed my point I think. There are endless threads here on this, year after year, and both sides make very excellent points that are fully scripture based. I choose to hold more to one side while fully accepting the other side, instead of being staunchly dogmatic that the other side is "in sin"- a position I think is ridiculous and needs a review of Romans and how to accept those whose conscience differs on disputable matters.
If the act is done by faith unto God, it isn't sin on either side.
If I recall...they must subscribe to the 1689.
I've met people in the PCA who talk about communion like there is magic in the elements
What do you mean by magic?I've met people in the PCA who talk about communion like there is magic in the elements and the pastor has had to try to talk to them privately, and I am not sure he got through. All that to say I think the mentality among paedos can be naive, ie, assuming people baptize babies for the right reason. I hope the pastors here really know what is going on with their people when they baptize a baby and don't assume anything. I think you'd be surprised how many people in the pews ascribe some magic to baptism.
Understood.Grant, while I agree with you about communion, I stand my ground that there are probably quite a few people in Reformed churches bringing babies to be baptized, not for the reasons you would teach but for more magical effects akin to a Roman Catholic. Try probing this a bit if it comes up and you may find that the Federal Vision thinking is more insidiously present than you thought. Maybe my experience is not the norm, I don't know.
By the way, for what it is worth, I do not support baby dedications at all. So when we talk about Baptists, I don't include the faux baptism of dedications.
I get people have strong convictions on this topic and rightly so, it isn't trivial. However, do you know what a lot of people don't have strong convictions about? Loving one another.
If people felt as strongly about loving the Lord their God and their fellow Christian as they do about other points of doctrine, I think we might be divided less when we probably agree on 98% of everything else.
I am not asking anyone to throw out their convictions but only to hold them in the right priority in balance with what God also commands elsewhere.
I firmly believe that children born of believers (at least one) are outwardly in the covenant and ought to be baptized. But my dear Baptist friends would say no. And I would urge them to baptize their children.
Obviously, the facts speak for themselves. Baptism is an issue that divides Confessional Baptists from Presbyterians.
Baptism just isn’t something one can shrug at or be on the fence about; they must make a decision. As others have said, it does not divide us in Christ, but it does divide us in practice, as well it should.
I have previously argued that Vos' "Doctrine of the covenant in Reformed Theology" is a helpful article for both Paedobaptists and Reformed Baptists to have a discussion on. Vos is a Reformed Paedobaptist and he gives a full discussion of a Reformed Paedobaptist Covenant Theology. Yet he leaves a discussion of Infant Baptism until the end of the essay. Therefore Reformed Baptists can agree with about 80% of the essay - the final 20% would be where the disagreement arises.As has been noted already on this thread, serious pedobaptists and credobaptists regard it as too important an issue not to have a church position on.
Remember to keep the distinction between election and covenant otherwise you create other problems.Either we can treat them in charity as believers, or we cannot.
Grant, while I agree with you about communion, I stand my ground that there are probably quite a few people in Reformed churches bringing babies to be baptized, not for the reasons you would teach but for more magical effects akin to a Roman Catholic. Try probing this a bit if it comes up and you may find that the Federal Vision thinking is more insidiously present than you thought. Maybe my experience is not the norm, I don't know.
No one is going to debate that here. Especially since ,according to 1 John 5:1-3, loving God is keeping his commands. Our ( Baptist and Presbyterians) desire to be obedient to him in the sacraments is a result of our love for God and his Word.I get people have strong convictions on this topic and rightly so, it isn't trivial. However, do you know what a lot of people don't have strong convictions about? Loving one another.
If people felt as strongly about loving the Lord their God and their fellow Christian as they do about other points of doctrine, I think we might be divided less when we probably agree on 98% of everything else.
I am not asking anyone to throw out their convictions but only to hold them in the right priority in balance with what God also commands elsewhere.
There was a baby dedication at our church. My wife aptly described it as a "dry baptism".
Sounds close to when I had my daughters baptized...minus the white flower.No joke, I saw my little baby cousin get “dedicated” last year, and the pastor dipped a white flower in water, poured the water over her head, and said, “I dedicate you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”
Maybe the pastor was a closet Paedo...and had everyone fooled...
Remember to keep the distinction between election and covenant otherwise you create other problems.