Would paedobaptism ever eliminate credobaptism?

[Scholten]

Those generations who grow up only witnessing infant baptisms of others are one step removed from the personal joy of one's own inclusion into the family.

Thanks for your comments here, Dennis, a lot of good thought-provoking remarks. I think it is also important to note that in Presbyterean and Reformed ecclesiology one cannot "grow up witnessing infant baptisms" only. In addition to each infant baptism the person must experience conversion and make their profession in order for the next generation to be baptized as infants. If we focus just on baptism, infant baptism can continue for many generations. But we must also consider these baptisms in the light of the rest of healthy Christian living.

 

[jwithnell]

Would anyone disagree that, in the final analysis, paedobaptism is for the benefit of the grownups? How ironic indeed!

This is just so foreign to anything I have seen practiced. The parents are making vows before God and face the awesome covenant responsibility that come with those vows. The other adults are promising to assist in those responsibilities. I see no vicarious, subjective benefit to the adults present. When I have felt the waters of baptism on my baby's head I have primarily experience tremendous gratitude toward God for having saved me and for giving me covenant children. As the children grow, they witness baptisms and ask questions about their own. It is an opportunity to tell them that they too were baptized and must be walking in Christ.

 

[steadfast7]

also, may I point out that infant baptism is a conclusion drawn from scripture by the church, not a command given to the church by God.

Depends on who you ask.

Genesis 17 and Colossians 2 seems to be a pretty clear command.

maybe my standards are but the fact that a minimum of 2 verses are required (that do not speak directly paedobaptism) to establish the command demonstrates that it is a second tier, derived conclusion from scripture and not an explicit command.

This is true in the same sense that there isn't a Lord's Supper command that singles out women specifically; however, the general instructions on the Lord's Supper include women among others. Likewise we believe the Great Commission commands infant baptism, but not only infant baptism specifically. So yes and no. It is commanded, but it is not commanded in isolation from general baptism commands.

the argument is fallacious and I'm surprised that Calvin came up with something so silly. It is essentially saying that a command does not need to be explicit to be obeyed because there are times when members within a set are not named, but yet are obligated to obey. By this is not how commands work. All those to whom it applies are subsumed in the whole. The Lord's supper command IS explicit to women because it is commanded of disciples, a group comprising of men and women. one only needs to interpret that the Lord's supper is for disciples in order to conclude it's for women.

Infant baptism is in a very different category. This is not a matter of a clear command but the absence of named members within a set. It is a new practice which has neither example nor instruction concerning it in scripture.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Calvin's argument isn't fallacious. The demand by the anabaptist for a verse for infant baptism was specious, and the suggestion that women would need the same sort of demand is a reductio.

But I'll just go along with your reasoning. You've stated that a group may be defined as containing certain types of individuals, and therefore not every sub-category needs an explicit mention. You say that the Lord's Supper is for disciples, which you then define as "comprising men and women." This definition should really come with some rigorous Scriptural support, instead of being assumed as "self-evident." After all, you are simply dismissing the other argument as superfluous, but you need a true basis for such a dismissal. Of course, there's more to it than that, and the criteria for partaking is more qualified than simply "discipleship" (for example, whether a person is under censure). But still, on a simplistic level, I'll play along.

Who are disciples? Disciples are those who are taught the faith, being counted as citizens of the spiritual kingdom. I say the church has had disciples since the beginning. But I'll choose an arbitrary start with Abraham. "For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of the Lord, to do righteousness and justice, that the Lord may bring to Abraham what he has spoken to him." Gen.18:19 Children down to infants are disciples by any just measure in the Old Testament. And disciples are to receive the covenant-sign that pertains to them, that sets them apart.

Has the definition of disciples changed since the New Testament? Where? How? Don't we agree that properly identified disciples should receive the covenant-sign that belongs to disciples? It seems to me you've merely changed the definition of "disciple" to suit yourself, so that anymore infants aren't presumed within it, but have in fact been excluded from it. Doesn't THAT assertion need some sort of "explicit text" in its defense? And yet we have Jesus himself taking up the brephe in his arms, declaring that the kingdom of heaven belongs to just such persons as they are.

The Great Commission text serves us just fine, as a call for infants baptism as well as for any other disciples.

 

[steadfast7]

Calvin's argument isn't fallacious. The demand by the anabaptist for a verse for infant baptism was specious, and the suggestion that women would need the same sort of demand is a reductio.

Is it unreasonable to require a clear text laying out the command or providing an example of what it looks like? Do we obey any other commands that are of this variety? ie. two or more texts that do not not refer to the act itself, but are read and combined within a theological framework in other for it to work. I know of no other commands that bind our consciences but the kind that is stated explicitly, or an example given, in Scripture alone. it seems that paedobaptism stands out as being named as a command but is not "cut from the same block" as all other commands.

that women shall partake of the Supper answers the question: who must obey this rule? As with all commands, they are to obey it to whom it applies. We know that the command was technically given to the 12, and by extension, those who believed because of their testimony. That includes women. Inference is the means of answering this question, if not, the Bible would become nothing but a bunch of lists. In the 10 Commandments, God does not list the 12 tribes of Israel in the introduction to make sure they all know that it applies to them. If you belong to the group that the command is given to, then it applies to you. A personal command to all members would be impossible.

that believers must baptize their infant children answers the question: what must we do? This is a very different question, the answer of which must come from scripture alone, either explicitly, or by example - not by inference. This is how we determine the answer to this question in every situation of this sort. Where do find the scriptural command or example that infants are to be splashed with water?

Calvin erroneously equated these two very different question-types.

You say that the Lord's Supper is for disciples, which you then define as "comprising men and women." This definition should really come with some rigorous Scriptural support, instead of being assumed as "self-evident."

Acts 9:36, "Now there was in Joppa a disciple named Tabitha, which, translated, means Dorcas. She was full of good works and acts of charity."

Who are disciples? Disciples are those who are taught the faith, being counted as citizens of the spiritual kingdom. I say the church has had disciples since the beginning. But I'll choose an arbitrary start with Abraham. "For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of the Lord, to do righteousness and justice, that the Lord may bring to Abraham what he has spoken to him." Gen.18:19 Children down to infants are disciples by any just measure in the Old Testament.

The paedobaptist is not exempt from problems with definition. Because you use verses that do not actually contain the word "disciple", you must (arbitrarily, as you admit) assign the definition of "disciple" according to your framework. You are right that children have been commanded to be taught the faith and be raised in the fear and admonition of the Lord. But technically speaking, "disciple" is a New Testament term. The best scriptural definition comes from the Great Commission. Regardless of age, a disciple is made when he/she is baptized as is taught to obey everything the original disciples of Jesus were commanded. It is important that they are not merely passively taught the faith, but are capable of actively obeying it. There are certainly a few hints as to who is capable of being included in this set. Are infants taught the faith? how? Do infants obey Jesus' commands? how?

 

[Ne Oublie]

It is important that they are not merely passively taught the faith, but are capable of actively obeying it. There are certainly a few hints as to who is capable of being included in this set. Are infants taught the faith? how? Do infants obey Jesus' commands? how?

I have always found it interesting how quick we are to underestimate what a child understands and their capabilities to 'actively' obey. Does this not correlate to what the Lord has said regarding the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these?

On an experience note, I have seen such great example of obedience to our Lord, just as much if not more so, from my 1, 3, 5 and 12 year old children. Just as any new believer, the infant is discipled by the Word of God and taught what it is they are to obey. And, although an adult can appear to be more competent and active in doing so by the time they profess, they were once infants in their faith just the same.

 

[steadfast7]

It is important that they are not merely passively taught the faith, but are capable of actively obeying it. There are certainly a few hints as to who is capable of being included in this set. Are infants taught the faith? how? Do infants obey Jesus' commands? how?

I have always found it interesting how quick we are to underestimate what a child understands and their capabilities to 'actively' obey. Does this not correlate to what the Lord has said regarding the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these?

On an experience note, I have seen such great example of obedience to our Lord, just as much if not more so, from my 1, 3, 5 and 12 year old children. Just as any new believer, the infant is discipled by the Word of God and taught what it is they are to obey. And, although an adult can appear to be more competent and active in doing so by the time they profess, they were once infants in their faith just the same.

I'm certainly open to God revealing himself to infants in ways beyond our understanding, but is this what scripture has in mind for us in defining a "disciple"? I'm not sure. I am assuming that the sampling is coming from the cross section of those who are able to apprehend truths and obey.

Taken to the logical conclusion, infant baptism should lead us to be much more open to baptizing unbelieving spouses far in advance of their hearing the gospel and being discipled - for they, like the infant, have every right to be baptized in like manner.

 

[Ne Oublie]

lead us to be much more open to baptizing unbelieving spouses far in advance of their hearing the gospel and being discipled - for they, like the infant, have every right to be baptized in like manner.

Can you explain to me how this hypothetical, would actually be possible? I cannot imagine someone not having the time to share the gospel but yet have the time to baptise them?

A very strange conclusion...

 

[steadfast7]

lead us to be much more open to baptizing unbelieving spouses far in advance of their hearing the gospel and being discipled - for they, like the infant, have every right to be baptized in like manner.

Can you explain to me how this hypothetical, would actually be possible? I cannot imagine someone not having the time to share the gospel but yet have the time to baptise them?

A very strange conclusion...

very prevalent in the practice of mass baptisms in church history. The conversions of the Vikings, Celts, and other Barbarian nations. Few, if any, communicants were presented with the gospel to the degree where they understood it sufficiently prior to their baptism.