How do you view 1 Corinthians 10:1-4 and 1 Peter3:18-22 in light of a credo position? Many Israelites were baptized without faith. Noah's family was baptized because of Noah's faith.
True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]And I think that I think a close reading of the entirity of the New Testament would lead to the defense of credobaptism.</font><hr></blockquote><p> Please name ONLY one N.T. verse for discussion that supports the credo view "beyond question." Strange you said N.T ONLY....you mean the O.T. does NOT support the credo view? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/idea.gif" alt="idea" title="idea[/img]
Lest you think I am ignoring the Old Testament, which I in no way intend to do, consider this article and its conclusion:<br><br>http://www.palmdalereformedbaptist.org/prbc/ede_Paedoism.asp<br><br><blockquote>Conclusion<br><br>This pamphlet has suggested that a proper understanding of Covenant Theology supports a Reformed Baptist position concerning the subjects of baptism and that to get anywhere in this debate with a paedobaptist, one must approach the issue from the stand point of Covenant Theology. Starting with the Old Testament’s doctrine of the New Covenant, it was shown that this covenant is not identical with all previous covenants in that this covenant would produce a covenant community in which all know the Lord savingly thus invalidating the traditional paedobaptist argument from the covenant for baptizing infants. This argument from Covenant Theology adheres to and seeks to consistently apply the Reformed hermeneutical principle-unless rescinded, then binding. The doctrine of infant inclusion is rescinded and therefore not binding and the New Testament is not silent but very vocal and supportive of this argument. It is hoped that those toying with paedobaptism would be kept from it and those convinced of it would go back to the Scriptures and see if these things be so.</blockquote>
True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
Nice quote, but inaccurate, and I STILL see no textual argument?<br><br>Let us do more than exchange articles select a text to discuss!--Your Choice???<br><br><blockquote>[color:blue]What I have to say next is critical to understand. I see four main reasons why I was a Reformed Baptist: 1) I was dispensational to some extreme in my thinking because of an abrogation of the Old Testament covenant in an extreme manner, 2) I studied the doctrine of the “covenant” from the New Testament backwards to the Old Testament, 3) I defined the “sign” of Baptism strictly as, “the outward sign of the inward work of regeneration,” and 4) I thought that the terms "salvation" and "new covenant" were coextensively the same thing.<br><br> In point “1”, there is much to explain and most “Reformed Baptists” will vehemently deny this as I did (I can already hear them mumbling to themselves in consternation!) Suffice it to say that I will be addressing this in future articles. My “Reformed Baptistic” theology, from a covenantal perspective, was dispensational – I could not escape this to some extent even though I did not see how this could possibly be. <br><br> Point “2” is more prevalent. If you attempt to understand the Bible beginning from the New Testament and work backwards into the Old Testament you will almost always end up Baptistic. If you argue from the New Testament backwards then you have begun with a wrong hermeneutic. This idea is very important. I had, in reality, neglected it. <br><br> Point “3” is also very important. The very ideas associated with the ordinance of baptism in the new covenant for me as a Baptist were different than one who believes in Covenantal Theology. This is a result of the manner in which I understood what “covenant” theology is all about. I was in error about my understanding of covenant theology. This again will be addressed in future articles.<br><br> Point 4 is critical. If you think the New Covenant is coextensive with salvation, you will always wind up Baptistic. This is probably the most serious error in trying to understand the arguments here. Every covenant in the Bible, from Adam forward, included unbelievers. The New Covenant, in this respect, is no different. That is why Christ can promise salvation and damnation in the same breath to those in the New Covenant. (1 Cor. 11, Heb. 6 and 10). Until the Baptist comes to grips with this, there is no way for him to understand Covenant Theology because he radically transforms the nature of God's covenant when he deals with the New Testament.<br><br>In my “switch” I realized that as a Baptist I continually and forever argued against secondary notions and not by the basic and key ideas which are foundational for the rest of biblical interpretation. I was arguing about the color of the horse when all along I should have been arguing about the structure of the cart he was pulling.</blockquote></font color=blue> My Retraction, A 15 year Reformed Baptist turns Paedo-Baptist
You know what, we could sit here and debate this and I don't think either of us would change our minds. So, brother, let's move on to other discussions. Please don't think it is a "cop out." It's just that I've giiven you all I can give you on the subject.
True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
sbc_and_reformed, [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/hello.gif" alt="hello" title="hello[/img]<br><br>Well, I just changed from [color:red]credo</font color=red> to [color:blue]paedo</font color=blue> less than a year ago, thus there is SOME hope for individuals changing their minds. The truth does set one free. If you would do a search for Baptism here you will see where I dogmatically defended the [color:red]credo</font color=red> stance far more than I have been given the opportunity to defend the [color:blue]paedo</font color=blue>. My switch came when I had finally SEEN the error of my own biblical interpretation (hermeneutics) somewhat described in the article above and some other things I had been struggling with. Truly, while I love my Baptist brothers and sisters, they are wholly wrong on this issue. Since, you think a debate will yield no fruit, though it has proven otherwise here in this forum, here are a few more articles:<br><br>JEREMIAH 31: INFANT BAPTISM IN THE NEW COVENANT<br>Berkhof on Baptism<br>Covenant Baptism:A Contemporary Reformed Defense of Infant Baptism
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] You know what, we could sit here and debate this and I don't think either of us would change our minds. So, brother, let's move on to other discussions. </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>SBC,<br><br>I was trying to determine upon what grounds you would make this statement and I could only come up with the following:<br><br>1. The Scriptures are unclear on the issue.<br>2. You are unwilling to change your position even if it is shown to be inconsistent.<br>3. Joe is unwilling to change his position even if it is shown to be inconsistent.<br><br>Upon which of these did you reach your conclusion, or is there another one that I have forgotten?<br><br>Sincerely in Christ,<br><br>~Jason
If I may interject, I would add a #4 - Presuppositions. This is because those of us who are credo have a certain set of presuppositions, and those of us who are paedo have another set. Depending on our presuppositions regarding this issue, the Bible can strongly support the credo position, or it can strongly support the paedo position. <br><br>Steve<br>
Hi Steve,<br><br>I appreciate what you are saying, but that does not answer to the question as to why he believes neither person would be willing to relinquish those presuppositions if they were shown to lead to an inconsistent or contradictory system of thought. The fact that we hold different presuppositions on things does not mean that we have to give up sanctified debate about them.<br><br>Sincerely,<br><br>~Jason
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I do not see these verses denying believer's baptism.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Why? were there not infants there? To be sure there were unbelievers there. These passages present a dilema for credos and i'm trying to see what some say about these verses.<br><br>As far as searching the NT, well what's wrong with searching all of scriptures? Sooooo much of the NT has allusions or even direct connections with the OT. Pilgrim once stated a stat to this effect but i forget what the number is.<br><br>The gospel does not start in the NT, it starts at the beginning. We all need to start there as well.
I like what John Gill (Baptist) says about 1 Cor 10:2<br>"For instance, their following Moses into the sea, which is meant by their being "baptized into him", was an acknowledgment of their regard unto him, as their guide and governor, as baptism is a following of Christ, who has left us an example that we should tread in his steps; and is an owning him to be our prophet to teach us, and lead us the way; and it is a profession of our faith in him, as our surety and Saviour, and a subjection to him as our King and Governor. This their baptism in the sea was after their coming out of Egypt, and at their first entrance on their journey to Canaan's land, as our baptism is, or should be, after a person is brought out of worse than Egyptian bondage and darkness, and has believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, and at the beginning of his profession of him, and entrance on his Christian race."<br><br>As for 1 Peter 3:18-22, I don't see how that plays into the argument at all?<br><br>Steve
I see this as an oddity for those who tend to uphold the more extreme view of the regulatory principle. Nowhere do we see the familial structure removed for a more egalitarian unerstanding of covenantship. Just an observation. <br><br>Another observation; The London COnfession of baptist faith seems to me to exclude children in a most extreme sense.<br><br>The London Confession of Baptist Faith, Chapter XXIX<br>Of Baptism<br><br>I. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with Him, in His death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into Him;[1] of remission of sins;[2] and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.[3]<br><br>I. Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.[4]<br><br>Can only adults perform the items in section 1? Obviously this eliminates all young children from being any part of section 1. I am confused where the regulatory principle teaches these things.<br><br><br>God bless,<br><br>william
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]This is because those of us who are credo have a certain set of presuppositions, and those of us who are paedo have another set. Depending on our presuppositions regarding this issue, the Bible can strongly support the credo position, or it can strongly support the paedo position. </font><hr></blockquote><p> This is but mere form of [color:red]relativism</font color=red> (each determining his OWN truth) resulting in a form of [color:red]skepticism</font color=red>; that one cannot know the truth of God for certain, though he can know his own propositions for certain [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/drop.gif" alt="drop" title="drop[/img]. Funny, how can one know the TRUTH of his own propositions, unless he first knows the TRUTH that God's Word (Old and New) teaches..... Via negativa. <br><br>God has ONLY one truth! What is it? By discussing this we may be able to shed light upon it from THE TRUTH--God's Word. God has ONE truth and we are to discover what that is by study, prayer, discussion, etc....Our prayer should be [color:red]God deliver us from our own presuppositions unto the Power of Thy supplication.</font color=red> <br><br><center><span style="background-color:yellow;">[color:blue]Supplication upon Supplication and Scripture upon Scripture</font color=blue> or [color:red]Presupposition upon Presupposition</font color=red>?</center></span><br><br>None of this above though should suggest that if one holds a credo view of baptism that he is not a Christian. IMHO I just think they are incorrect and have not a proper hermeneutic.
Sigh, of course we can know the truth for certain. I'm merely saying credo's say they know the truth for certain, and paedo's as well. Both use the Bible. Neither believe in "relativism". Both (if honest) believe the other is in serious error.<br>/scc/
