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."
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
