Donations for the month of March


We have received a total of "0" in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Forum Search
Member Spotlight
John_C
John_C
Mississippi Gulf Coast
Posts: 1,865
Joined: September 2001
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics7,780
Posts54,875
Members974
Most Online732
Jan 15th, 2023
Top Posters
Pilgrim 14,447
Tom 4,516
chestnutmare 3,320
J_Edwards 2,615
John_C 1,864
Wes 1,856
RJ_ 1,583
MarieP 1,579
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 4
John_C 1
Recent Posts
Is the church in crisis
by John_C - Wed Mar 27, 2024 10:52 AM
Jordan Peterson ordered to take sensitivity training
by Tom - Mon Mar 25, 2024 9:00 PM
Should Creeds be read in Church?
by Pilgrim - Mon Mar 25, 2024 6:30 AM
1 Cor. 6:9-11
by Tom - Mon Mar 25, 2024 12:34 AM
Do Christians have Dual Personalities: Peace & Wretchedness?
by DiscipleEddie - Sat Mar 23, 2024 1:15 PM
The When and How of Justification
by DiscipleEddie - Sat Mar 23, 2024 1:13 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,865
John_C Offline OP
Permanent Resident
OP Offline
Permanent Resident
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,865
That is credobaptist and paedobaptist.

There is a common thought that the only thing dividing them is just their view on baptism. Isn't it more than just that. I'm thinking it deals with the fact that the credos make a wider gap in the continuity of the Old and New Testaments than the paedos. IOW, credos reformed types do not ascribed to 'Covenant Theology' in its truest sense.


John Chaney

"having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith . . ." Colossians 2:7
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,516
Likes: 13
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,516
Likes: 13
Originally Posted by John_C
That is credobaptist and paedobaptist.

There is a common thought that the only thing dividing them is just their view on baptism. Isn't it more than just that. I'm thinking it deals with the fact that the credos make a wider gap in the continuity of the Old and New Testaments than the paedos. IOW, credos reformed types do not ascribed to 'Covenant Theology' in its truest sense.

whistle
Quote
IOW, credos reformed types do not ascribed to 'Covenant Theology' in its truest sense.

That would all depend on the perspective one is coming from. If one is coming from a Reformed Credo position, then they would say that Reformed Paedos haven't Reformed enough when it come to baptism and CT. Many of them would say that they have the purest form of CT. Others don’t mind not being considered CT and call themselves things such as “Particular Baptists”. For the most part I have found the differences to be a matter of semantics.
However many Paedos believe that they have the purest form of CT and Credos actually have embraced some Dispensationalism with their CT.
I am a Credo CT, so you can guess what I believe on this subject. However, other than that I find myself agreeing with my Paedo brothers and sisters more times than not.
I actually feel very at home on the Highway, as you can probably see by how many posts I have over the years. grin

Tom


Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,447
Likes: 57
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,447
Likes: 57
Originally Posted by John_C
There is a common thought that the only thing dividing them is just their view on baptism. Isn't it more than just that. I'm thinking it deals with the fact that the credos make a wider gap in the continuity of the Old and New Testaments than the paedos. IOW, credos reformed types do not ascribed to 'Covenant Theology' in its truest sense.
John,

It is true the basis for the difference(s) between the paedo and credo camps is a hermeneutical one; how one interprets Scripture. In my studies and readings I have found that there are paedobaptists who make far too much of the covenant and "see things" in Scripture through the lens of covenant that simply are not there. On the other hand, most credobaptists have less appreciation and understanding of the aspect of covenant and thus fail to appreciate the continuity of it in the New Covenant/Testament.

The bottom line is this... personally I see no possibility of reconcilation between the two groups, especially on the credobaptist side. The main reason for this is that baptism, as their use of the name surely shows, is far too important to them. In some cases even the "mode" of adult baptism means the difference between salvation and damnation. So while I don't mind sharing my views on baptism with a credobaptist, I rarely have any interest in debating the subject. Over the years I have found it is nothing more than an exercise in futility and most often results in alienation. This isn't to say that I concede to credobaptist's suppositions nor their conclusions. It's just not worth wasting time trying to convince a credobaptist of their hermeneutical error. grin

For a very informative and irenic debate between two excellent opponents on this subject, I highly recommend you listen to the following:

"Debate on ‘Infant Baptism’" - Dr. Robert B. Strimple vs. Dr. Fred Malone - WSC March 10, 1999
- "Infant Baptism - Part I"
- "Infant Baptism - Part II"
- "Infant Baptism - Part III"
- Download all three parts (MP3) in a .zip file HERE


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 21
Journeyman
Offline
Journeyman
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 21
Well, it's been a while since I have been on here, but this thread peaked my interest. Good to see Pilgrim and Tom still posting away :-).

I am a Credobaptist that is calvinistic soteriologically (TULIPian). I guess it is safe to say that I'm not reformed in the strictest sense. I don't know if Pilgrim will remember (we have known each other for about 15 years on here and he is older tham me, hehe), but years ago he once called me a "dispy-lite" which is probably pretty accurate, LOL. I have had deeper thinkers than I say that I am CT. However, I personally believe that Paedo CT's have the burden of proving scripturally that circumcision for 8 day old boys was changed to baptism of infant boys and girls, and that such passages as Acts 2:37-41 and Col.2:11-13 fail to do that. I also think that paedobaptism is inconsistent with the regulative principle of worship, but maybe that's just me :-).

Having said all of that however, I have also been told that I'm not a true Baptist for two main reasons. First, because while it is still different than the Presbyterian scheme with the Sessions, we do hold to a plurality of elders appointed, on a local church level. Second, I do not find any scriptural basis for saying that immersion as a believer is a prerequisite for being a member of a local church, but justification by faith only. So at the two church starts I serve the Lord as an elder at, we will receive paedobaptists if they we willing to tolerate the credobaptist teaching when it comes up in the text in book/chapter/verse by verse preaching, and not undermine the elders by teaching against the credobaptist view.

When I served the Lord as pastor/elder at a church in SW Idaho, there were two men that were paedobaptist when they first attended and became members. Both men came to me and asked to be immersed as believers and we complied ;-).

I agree with Pilgrim about debating the difference. I have seen and heard of Christians changing baptism views in both directions as a result of personal study, but I have never heard of them changing as a result of a debate.

Speaking of debates, there is also a good one between James White and Bill Schisko. I don't have the direct link, but it should be on White's Alpha and Omega website at www.aomin.org.

Blessings and Soli Deo Gloria


Brother Bret Lovitz

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,516
Likes: 13
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,516
Likes: 13
Welcome back brother Bret grin Please stick around; I for one miss your posts.

You said:
Quote
Having said all of that however, I have also been told that I'm not a true Baptist for two main reasons. First, because while it is still different than the Presbyterian scheme with the Sessions, we do hold to a plurality of elders appointed, on a local church level. Second, I do not find any scriptural basis for saying that immersion as a believer is a prerequisite for being a member of a local church, but justification by faith only. So at the two church starts I serve the Lord as an elder at, we will receive paedobaptists if they we willing to tolerate the credobaptist teaching when it comes up in the text in book/chapter/verse by verse preaching, and not undermine the elders by teaching against the credobaptist view.

I also believe in the plurality of elders. My pastor and a few of the deacons also believe this. One of the things I have come to realize is that in many Baptist Churches, such as where I attend, many of the deacons roles actually should be done by elders.
I suspect however, that my pastor and at least one of the deacons are trying to change this at the board level, via examining how the Church does things and comparing that with Scripture.
My pastor has only been at the Church for about a year and he is taking his responsibility as pastor very seriously. He has a very high view of Scripture and preaches it expositionally.
Although the Churches statement of faith is clearly Calvinistic soteriolically, not all of the membership including some in leadership are.
My pastor is trying to change this, by being clear in his teaching. What I am finding a little strange however, is that though my pastor is very clear, some Arminians don't seem to recognize that the pastor is teaching Calvinistic soteriology.
Or perhaps, they like what he is doing in other areas so they are willing to put up with it? shrug
If there is one thing that I am praying about, is that the pastor doesn’t burn himself out.

Also on your second point, I lean towards that view myself.

Tom

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 10
Plebeian
Offline
Plebeian
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 10
John C,

Quote
"There is a common thought that the only thing dividing them is just their view on baptism. Isn't it more than just that. I'm thinking it deals with the fact that the credos make a wider gap in the continuity of the Old and New Testaments than the paedos. IOW, credos reformed types do not ascribed to 'Covenant Theology' in its truest sense."

As a credo baptist, I would argue the opposite. I think PB blur, to a degree, the distinction in the covenants. What I've also found that's fascinating to me is that all PB are CB, at least when it comes to deciding what adults should be baptized. Also, all of the Biblical examples used by PB as to why a non-believer might be part of the covenant is an example with an adult, not an infant. Yet, both of these approaches conflict with each other, and conflict with the PB position.

A lot of people argue about the covenants without stating why it's important. I think it's a secondary matter, but is important because it deals with how one views the sacrament and what it represents. I think it's more than being part of the bennefits of the church (as Alistar Begg puts it), but is being part of the bennefit of salvation. Why can't we still dedicate our children to a Christian community, but let baptism be for those who believe and repent?

Cameron

Last edited by Cameron; Mon Jun 06, 2011 11:28 AM.

Death is not the beginning of the end, but the beginning of awe! ~ Self
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 416
Addict
Offline
Addict
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 416
Originally Posted by Cameron
Why can't we still dedicate our children to a Christian community, but let baptism be for those who believe and repent?

Real quick, because; the promises are for the believing repenter and their household..... including servants. smile

Which is why I believe that live in maids, gardeners and butlers should be baptized! smile


Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. - Galatians 2:16
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 10
Plebeian
Offline
Plebeian
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 10
Reformation Monk,

I would argue politely that in Acts there's no evidence that infants are in the households. There are always qualifiers in Acts such that it's ones believing that are baptized. And if you believe maids should be baptized, then I wonder if all PB accept this. It's easier to consult Biblical criterion to know who's a believer than it is to figure out who's in the PB's view of the new covenant. It would depend on each PB's criterion. Alister Begg defines it as being "part of the bennefits of the church". But if the church's mailman is an atheist and the mailman's infant comes to the potluck can it be baptized?

And I'll repeat what I said earlier: "What I've also found that's fascinating to me is that all PB are CB, at least when it comes to deciding what adults should be baptized. Also, all of the Biblical examples used by PB as to why a non-believer might be part of the covenant is an example with an adult, not an infant. Yet, both of these approaches conflict with each other, and conflict with the PB position."

Cameron

Last edited by Cameron; Tue Jun 07, 2011 11:17 AM.

Death is not the beginning of the end, but the beginning of awe! ~ Self
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,447
Likes: 57
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,447
Likes: 57
Originally Posted by Cameron
I would argue politely that in Acts there's no evidence that infants are in the households. There are always qualifiers in Acts such that it's ones believing that are baptized. And if you believe maids should be baptized, then I wonder if all PB accept this. It's easier to consult Biblical criterion to know who's a believer than it is to figure out who's in the PB's view of the the new covenant.
Of course, any self-respecting PB would deny your contention that no infants were in any of the households mentioned. That it is empirically impossible to prove is conceded, but it is equally unprovable that no infants existed. Statistically, the weight falls on the side of there being children. Families with no children have always been the exception rather than the rule from the beginning of time. But some of us PBs don't base our position upon the debatable household baptisms. wink

Originally Posted by Cameron
And I'll repeat what I said earlier: "What I've also found that's fascinating to me is that all PB are CB, at least when it comes to deciding what adults should be baptized. Also, all of the Biblical examples used by PB as to why a non-believer might be part of the covenant is an example with an adult, not an infant. Yet, both of these approaches conflict with each other, and conflict with the PB position."
As you might expect, I beg to differ with this blanket statement as well. giggle The fact is, most all PB I know would point to 2000+ years of Israelic history to show that infants were included in the covenant; deemed members of the OT Church. The covenant sign was commanded to be administered to infants of covenant members upon penalty of expulsion for refusing to do so (Gen 17:11,14).

Now, referring back to my other response to you regarding this odious error of presumptive regeneration, the circumcised children were NOT presumed to be 'saved' and neither were adults (cf. Gen 17:25; Jh 8:37; Rom 9:6,11-13). They ALL had to "circumcise the foreskin of their hearts" (Deut 10:16; Jer 4:4; Rom 2:28,29; Col 2:11). So, perhaps now you can understand my objection to defining the NT covenant sign of baptism as "an outward sign of an inward reality". The covenant sign was never understood in that manner, i.e., as an irrefutable sign of any particular individual's salvation. It was a sign of God's covenant of grace/salvation with believers, although unbelievers, both adults who belonged to the nation of Israel, with whom God had established His covenant, and their children received the sign.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 10
Plebeian
Offline
Plebeian
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 10
Pilgrim,

Quote
Of course, any self-respecting PB would deny your contention that no infants were in any of the households mentioned. That it is empirically impossible to prove is conceded, but it is equally unprovable that no infants existed. Statistically, the weight falls on the side of there being children. Families with no children have always been the exception rather than the rule from the beginning of time. But some of us PBs don't base our position upon the debatable household baptisms

I believe there's only two passages in Acts that mentions "households", namely 16:14-15, and Acts 18:8. It does say Lydia believed before she was baptized, and her household was baptized but we don't know how old they were. Crispus is said to have believed "together with his whole household". So Acts does have entire believing households.

I'm sure you agree statistics don't really matter, what matters is the Biblical data. I wouldn't expect a PB to base their entire position on these passages. I realize it's more important to look at the covenants, however, I also think it's often overlooked how the apostles utilized baptism. It seems to me to be more of a "presumptive regenerate" sense if you look through all the examples of baptism in Acts.

Quote
As you might expect, I beg to differ with this blanket statement as well. giggle The fact is, most all PB I know would point to 2000+ years of Israelic history to show that infants were included in the covenant; deemed members of the OT Church. The covenant sign was commanded to be administered to infants of covenant members upon penalty of expulsion for refusing to do so (Gen 17:11,14).

I'm sorry. It was late when I typed that. I meant to say all of PB's NT examples. Of course infants received the covenant sign in the OT.

Quote
Now, referring back to my other response to you regarding this odious error of presumptive regeneration, the circumcised children were NOT presumed to be 'saved' and neither were adults (cf. Gen 17:25; Jh 8:37; Rom 9:6,11-13). They ALL had to "circumcise the foreskin of their hearts" (Deut 10:16; Jer 4:4; Rom 2:28,29; Col 2:11).

It's an odious error in light of the OT, I agree. I don't see the apostles acting like it's an error in Acts. Do you agree? If I were to lean towards one, it would be that they didn't think it's an error.

All of the OT verses you quote I agree they're not presumed to be, and John 8:37 isn't in the context of being in the Seed of Abraham but a physical descendent. I think Rom 2:28 and Col 2:11 are descriptive not prescriptive, and even if they were prescriptive doesn't somehow imply the covenant is for all.

Quote
So, perhaps now you can understand my objection to defining the NT covenant sign of baptism as "an outward sign of an inward reality". The covenant sign was never understood in that manner, i.e., as an irrefutable sign of any particular individual's salvation. It was a sign of God's covenant of grace/salvation with believers, although unbelievers, both adults who belonged to the nation of Israel, with whom God had established His covenant, and their children received the sign.

No CB has to only define it that way. It's a statement to give a basic understanding. To be more pedantic, I'd say "it's an outward sign of what we Biblically determine to be an inward sign".

Cameron

Last edited by Cameron; Wed Jun 08, 2011 9:30 AM.

Death is not the beginning of the end, but the beginning of awe! ~ Self

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 77 guests, and 11 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
PaulWatkins, His Unworthy Son, Nahum, TheSojourner, Larry
974 Registered Users
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
March
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Today's Birthdays
There are no members with birthdays on this day.
Popular Topics(Views)
1,506,390 Gospel truth