Why I have switched from Paedo to Credo

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dawn - To be part of the church children must have come to faith in Christ, not just have been born into a "covenant family." Paul's instruction to children would have included all children capable of understanding the command, but I don't buy the reasoning that all children were part of the visible church. Regeneration is synonymous with becomeing part of the visible church In my humble opinion. But of course I would believe that. I'm a Baptist.

The problem is with your scheme is that regeneration and faith are not synonymous. While all those who are regenerate have faith they're not the same thing. Similarly, professing faith is not synonymous with having faith. So if regeneration is pictured in baptism, and since infants may well be regenerate, then it follows that infants should be baptized. Also, regeneration is NOT synonymous with becoming part of the visible church, your opinion notwithstanding. I'm sure there are members even in your church who are not regenerate. Just a guess. ;)
 
Sean, let's skip for the moment the assertion that infants who have not exercised faith are regenerate. We'll come back to that. I don't see how my statement that regeneration and faith are synonymous is fallacious. The faith I am referring to is saving faith, which takes places at or shortly following regeneration. I define regeneration as the sovereign act of God whereby He changes the condition of the heart so that a person may believe by faith. I believe the visible church is made up only of regenerated individuals who have believed by faith alone. For me, end of story.

Now, back to what you said:

So if regeneration is pictured in baptism, and since infants may well be regenerate, then it follows that infants should be baptized.

Infants may well be regenerate? They either are or aren't. Which is it? If infants are regenerate, does this apply to covenant families and non-covenant families. If the answer is the former, I would label that belief as covenantal semi-Pelagianism. Somehow I can't seem to trivialize Romans 10:9,10 and Ephesians 2:8-10.
 
Thus, is it your contention that none of the verses in the OT regarding children now apply to New Covenant believers and that portions or Psalms and Proverbs are "interesting" from a historical view but bear no present relevance?

This is not the usual reformed baptist view. We do apply them because we think they are for all parents who want to raise their children as God demands us to. We don't think it is for children who have a special position with God, but, sort of like you see baptism:
it is the parents who have a special position with God.

You see the children's position as being special by the covenant, but we say their membership in the covenant isn't what determines how we are to train them, it is our membership in the covenant that does.

So, yes, the OT passages about child-rearing do indeed bear present relevance. I think it would be the rare reformed baptist who would say that. And more likely from one from a SBC church that is now calvinistic or from a NCT church that adheres to all nine of the ten commandments. :)

~jenney
 
If I may interject a different spin on things:

What if the problem is how we view God's respect for those for whom the elders open and close the doors, even though they cannot know who the elect are or aren't?

Thusly:

God and only God elects;

God commissioned to the elders the keys to open and close the doors of the manifested church, and said He would respect their decisions;

each believer (which includes each individual elder too) is called to believe.

The credos put the emphasis on the third; the paedos put the emphasis on the first two.

Does that help?
 
Sean, let's skip for the moment the assertion that infants who have not exercised faith are regenerate.

You mean exercising faith like leaping in the womb (Luke 1:41)? OK, I can wait.

I don't see how my statement that regeneration and faith are synonymous is fallacious. The faith I am referring to is saving faith, which takes places at or shortly following regeneration.

Well, if faith takes place and is the result of regeneration, then it follows they're not the same thing.

I define regeneration as the sovereign act of God whereby He changes the condition of the heart so that a person may believe by faith. I believe the visible church is made up only of regenerated individuals who have believed by faith alone.

Then not only do you have a view of baptism which is counter to the examples set in Scripture, but a doctrine of the visible church that is counter to Scripture as well.

You might believe the visible church is made up only of regenerate individuals, but, again, that is counter to the plain teaching of Scripture. Jesus gives us a description of the visible church:

"The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares also among the wheat, and went away. But when the wheat sprang up and bore grain, then the tares became evident also."

I suppose Baptists are like the slaves in Jesus' parable who wanted gather up the tares and remove them from the field. Yet, the Master said; "No; lest while you are gathering up the tares, you may root up the wheat with them. Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn."

The visible church consists not of all true believers, but rather "all those throughout the world that profess the true religion" and it's not the case that all those who even profess the true religion actually believe it. You confuse the profession of faith with faith itself and the visible church with the invisible.

For me, end of story.

Again, that might be the end of the story for you, but if you want your doctrines -- which is part of your profession of faith -- to comport with Scripture you've really just begun. :pilgrim:

Infants may well be regenerate? They either are or aren't. Which is it? If infants are regenerate, does this apply to covenant families and non-covenant families. If the answer is the former, I would label that belief as covenantal semi-Pelagianism. Somehow I can't seem to trivialize Romans 10:9,10 and Ephesians 2:8-10.

I'm not asking you to trivialize Romans 10:9,10 or Eph. 2:8-10, just not to make these verses say more than they do. If you really want to be consistent in applying these verses in isolation to the rest of Scripture, I suppose you could use Rom. 10 to exclude mutes from the Kingdom too. The point is we don't know which infants are regenerate, but we do see in Scripture that God generally works through believers and their seed; their offspring. However, another point you miss is that the administration of the sign is not as strictly annexed to the thing signified as you presume. Otherwise, why would God command Ishmael and Esau, not to mention countless other unregenerate Jewish boys and men, to be circumcised?

For what it's worth we don't know which adults are regenerate either and this is something none of us can validly infer even with a credible profession coupled with an exemplary life. That's because the act of faith, even the exercise of faith, often cannot be seen. Conversely, often what we consider to be fruits of genuine faith turn out to be anything but. Only God can see in a man's heart and I'm pretty sure Baptists weren't given any special gift in this regard. ;)

So, basically, Baptists are out to do the impossible and along the way have been disobedient to the commands and examples of Scripture as I've explained (see my longer post above).
 
Last edited:
So, basically, Baptists are out to do the impossible and along the way have been disobedient to the commands and examples of Scripture...

Sean...funny...I was thinking the same thing about paedo's. Kudos to you for saying it first.
 
I believe the visible church is made up only of regenerated individuals who have believed by faith alone. For me, end of story.

This doesn't make any sense to me. If the visible church is made up of regenerate individuals then you're saying that every single individual who is a member of a true church is regenerate. Do you really believe that? What happens when it turns out that someone wasn't truly regenerate after all?
 
This doesn't make any sense to me. If the visible church is made up of regenerate individuals then you're saying that every single individual who is a member of a true church is regenerate. Do you really believe that? What happens when it turns out that someone wasn't truly regenerate after all?

David - I suppose it is how you define terms. If by "visible church" you mean all that claim to be saved, then it is obvious that not all are saved. There are always goats in the midst of the sheep. When I use the term "visible church" I mean all true believers. Technically speaking a goat cannot be a sheep. The goat may dress as a sheep but can never be a sheep. A more appropriate term would probably have been "invisible church." If I applied the wrong term then I stand humbly corrected, but I think you now understand what I mean.

Thanks for pointing out the mix up in my terminology.
 
Bill, All of the passages cited are referring to natural gifts, like food and clothing. When a paedobaptist says that children are a gift, they mean covenanted gift, so that children are literally the heritage of the Lord. This is a precious teaching which makes a world of difference in the raising of a child when it is believed and acted upon. I pray our only wise God will let you into this secret.

Matthew - I am not at all pinning my argument on Psalm 125 alone. James writes:

[bible]James 1:17-18[/bible]

And good gifts are not limited solely to the righteous.

[bible]Matthew 5:45[/bible]

[bible]Romans 1:20[/bible]
 
David - I suppose it is how you define terms. If by "visible church" you mean all that claim to be saved, then it is obvious that not all are saved. There are always goats in the midst of the sheep. When I use the term "visible church" I mean all true believers. Technically speaking a goat cannot be a sheep. The goat may dress as a sheep but can never be a sheep. A more appropriate term would probably have been "invisible church." If I applied the wrong term then I stand humbly corrected, but I think you now understand what I mean.

Thanks for pointing out the mix up in my terminology.

No prob! :handshake: I was just confused, and thought that you surely meant to say "invisible church." It's all cleared up for me now. :D
 
Andrew, I don't think you attacked me. I'm not offended by you or anything. I just thought you didn't deal with my posts. I interacted with your posts and showed them to be self-refuting. If you think otherwise, by all means, offer a reply, not a sentence which makes me have to guess wildly at the relevance of it with what I said.

You are right.

I'll need more time :)
 
Call for closing comments

This thread has gotten a bit too big to be useful at this point. If you have some closing thoughts then please add them. If there are strings that you wish to pick up in a new thread then you're welcome to do so.

I know I've been asked some questions upstream in this thread but that's the nature of time zones. Going back now after the conversation has flowed downstream wouldn't be very useful.

To Richard (the creator of this thread): If after this thread is closed, you wish to add any parting comments, let me know and I'll get them in there for you.

Blessings,

Rich
 
This thread has gotten a bit too big to be useful at this point. If you have some closing thoughts then please add them. If there are strings that you wish to pick up in a new thread then you're welcome to do so.

I know I've been asked some questions upstream in this thread but that's the nature of time zones. Going back now after the conversation has flowed downstream wouldn't be very useful.

To Richard (the creator of this thread): If after this thread is closed, you wish to add any parting comments, let me know and I'll get them in there for you.

Blessings,

Rich
Rich RULES!!!:up: :up: :up:
 
May our Lord use the discussion in this thread for His glory. I extend the right hand of fellowship to my brothers and sisters in Christ, regardless of which side of the debate they are on. :handshake:
 
it because the baptist says these "children" are only the "professing" children.

Hence



is just for professing children

and,



is just telling fathers how to treat their professing children.

:D

It's all so complicated if you're a baptist

Congrats on your 5000th post! :cheers:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top