The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Paedo vs Credo Baptism (In a new post)

With respect to Paedo vs Credo Baptism (a question I asked about in my earlier post). I was encouraged by Pilgrim to start a new one on this subject. So here it is!!! Hoping we can continue the dialogue here...

On the practice of baptism - I only see professing believers being baptized in the Bible. I do not see wherein any infants were baptized. Rather they were dedicated unto the Lord, which was more a commitment about the parents than it was about the infant. So... I'm still quite stumped in this credo vs paedo issue and I would like to learn more about the reason for Paedo Baptism.

You might profit from reading this article put out by the OPC which deals with the baptism of infants specifically. As you will come to understand, which I have already briefly mentioned here, there is ONE covenant of grace and two signs of that covenant which reflect the "old" administration of it and the "new" administration of it. Please note also that the article does NOT state that infants of believers are automatically saved. Their salvation may take place at a later time IF God calls them to faith (cf. Acts 2:39). Note also, that the overwhelming majority of the infants who grew to adulthood and who had the sign of the covenant, circumcism perished in unbelief. Further, Moses chided the people of God for their unbelief and failure to be faithful to the terms of the covenant, who had the sign of the covenant, to "circumcise the foreskins of their hearts" (Deut 10:16), clearly showing that their circumcision was NOT an indication of their personal faith.

Anyway, enjoy the article: The Biblical Basis for Infant Baptism.

Just to add to what Pilgrim said. I am in agreement with Pilgrim when it comes to benefiting from reading both Paedobaptist and Credobaptist arguments.
Although I have never held to Paedobaptism, reading their maturial, has not only helped me to understand where they come from, it has helped me to understand the subject better. I say "better", because the more I learn, the more I realize there is much more to learn.
I have found that there are people on both sides of the issue, who speak past each other in their arguements, mainly because they don't adequately understand the other side.

It's always nice to be able to disagree with one another and remain respectful. This is not always the case, especially on FB. You guys are pretty awesome... I will check out the article. Thanks so much!

Here is one of the very best articles I've ever found presenting the credobaptist argument.

I think it also makes the point about "deduction" and the Regulative Principle of Worship much clearer than I did in my feeble attempts here in other threads.

We are all brethren and friends here, and I know several credobaptists who worship at Presbyterian churches (which are paedobaptist) because Reformed Baptist churches are so hard to find! And we are grateful that the Reformation has been preserved by those churches in which we find ourselves.

-Robin

I believe believers of adult baptism-only follow the same path as johnny come lately doctrines that were not present in the early church..... part of a more radical reformation mentality, those who championed these types of doctrines (i.e. dispensationalism, Saturday sabbath, believers baptism) as Biblically bound & binding on the Christian conscience went too far and irrationally without justification claimed to refind a 'lost' doctine that actually runs counter to the fluidity of the OT in relation to the NT.....

It would make sense that the first Christians would have their whole family baptised with the head of household taking the lead as part of the NT covenant of Grace, there is nothing that would remotely lead me to believe that the head of the household would think to wait till their children are of some age of consent and leave them outside the covenant rather than spontaneously bring them into the covenant and under the word and declaration of truth.... It's an outward sign & seal, and all families were brought in at that time, and would be and should be the same today for whole families brought into the Christian faith

Acts 16 is very clear "And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family."

AJ
You know I am iching to respond to this don't you?
However, I don't think I would be saying anything different than you have heard/read before by Credo-Baptists.

Tom

Not forgetting the new-fangled American innovation of using (Welch's) grape juice in place of wine in the other sacrament...

I think it's nice to at least have the option to choose grape juice, as a service to those for whom even a sip of wine might be dangerous or unhealthy or unwise. Many Baptists abstain from alcohol completely as a matter of conscience.

Shall we start another new thread? Wine VS grape juice?

-Robin

Yep, if it is of any interest to discuss Wine vs. Grape Juice, then by all means, please start a new thread... UNLESS someone believes that wine or grape juice is the only legitimate liquid to be used for baptism.

Hey Tom, like Robin said we are brothers in the faith regardless. In my opc church we have some exbaptists, and their acceptance of infant baptism did not come overnight....
http://www.tenth.org/resource-library/articles/how-i-changed-my-mind-about-infant-baptism

I guess I would ask do you find the case for credo over pseudo fairly compelling? How so? All things considered I firmly believe evidence to the contrary to be so......

Yes we are all brothers in the faith. In fact the Highway holds a special place in my heart. Mainly because I cut my Reformed teeth here.
As the the second part, Although I will not let this matter seperate me from Paedobaptists. I do find The arguement for Credobaptism, very compelling.
I don't have time to tell you why, but another thread on this subject fairly recently I gave the gist of why.

fair enough