Credobaptism and Paedobaptism.

[MoreCoffee]

This thread is about Credobaptism and Paedobaptism.

Give reasons for your preferred form of baptism. Debate with those with differing views.

 

[Josiah]

This thread is about Credobaptism and Paedobaptism.

They are two different things.


The first is the AGE issue, the one that many have been fighting over for 500 years now. Some insisting the Bible never specifically states, "and this commandment INCLUDES those under the age of X!" and thus we are forbidden to let them receive it. Others insisting that the commandment never states, "And this EXCLUDES those under the magic age of X so don't you DARE ever baptize them!!!!"


The second is the issue of whether one must have received the gift of faith FIRST and only after that, be permitted to be baptized. It has nothing to do with age but with sequence. It is based entirely on removing the word "and" in some verses about baptism and faith, substituting instead the word "then."


MoreCoffee, your confusing two entirely issues dooms this thread to much talking past each other and much confusion.


.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Of course they are different, Josiah, they have different names just to make sure that readers know that they are different.

 

[psalms 91]

To me and my simple mind it just amazes me how we can pick apart and argue about Gods word and how we can apply fancy terms to what God intended for all mankind rather than just scholors. I think at times what we do is turn believers into twqice the child of hell with all this going on

 

[atpollard]

The second is the issue of whether one must have received the gift of faith FIRST and only after that, be permitted to be baptized. It has nothing to do with age but with sequence. It is based entirely on removing the word "and" in some verses about baptism and faith, substituting instead the word "then."

The second is the issue of whether there is any link at all between faith and baptism, calling into question whether baptism is even part of salvation at all or just a covenant ritual for future saints and sinners alike. It has nothing to do with age or with sequence. It is based entirely on removing the word "and" in some verses about baptism and faith, substituting instead the word "or."

[I fixed that for you.]

 

[Josiah]

The second is the issue of whether there is any link at all between faith and baptism

No.

The only thing the two different baptism issues have in common is both depend on the consistent word "and" being deleted and replaced by the word "then" (with very careful choosing of what verse is quoted so that the two things can be in the "right" sequence."). Most Christians believe that baptism and faith are related and associated (the word "and") but credobaptists believe faith comes first and THEN, after that, baptism is no longer forbidden. Obviously, it's entirely about sequence, entirely about changing "and" to "then."


Anti-Paedobaptism is also based on sequence. FIRST one must attain the magical (never disclosed) age of "X" and THEN one is no longer forbidden from baptizing them. It too is dependent on the consistent word "and" being replaced with "then."


It is unfortunate that these two different subjects are purposely being confused in this thread..... it virtually insures lots of misunderstanding and confusion.



Pax Christi



- Josiah




.

 

[Lamb]

The second is the issue of whether there is any link at all between faith and baptism, calling into question whether baptism is even part of salvation at all or just a covenant ritual for future saints and sinners alike. It has nothing to do with age or with sequence. It is based entirely on removing the word "and" in some verses about baptism and faith, substituting instead the word "or."

[I fixed that for you.]

Do you believe we receive faith by God's Word and from the Holy Spirit?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Do you believe we receive faith by God's Word and from the Holy Spirit?

Doesn't Ephesians 2:8-10 suggest that faith is a gift, a grace, given as part of the grace the saves?

 

[Lamb]

Doesn't Ephesians 2:8-10 suggest that faith is a gift, a grace, given as part of the grace the saves?

I was asking atpollard since I don't know how HE feels about faith since he doesn't see a connection to it in baptism.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I was asking atpollard since I don't know how HE feels about faith since he doesn't see a connection to it in baptism.

He's a Reformed Baptist so it is likely that he attributes faith to grace.

 

[Josiah]

Doesn't Ephesians 2:8-10 suggest that faith is a gift

Yes. It MORE than suggests it.

a grace, given as part of the grace the saves?

No.

Faith is given..... yes, by grace since grace is God's unmerited, unearned, unconditional (and often unrequested) love, favor, blessing, gift.



But your point is valid: Faith is a divine GIFT. The "free gift of God lest anyone can boast." I know of no verse that says, "God cannot give faith to those under the magical age of X." IMO, the very question of whether God can or cannot give faith by grace is odd since grace by definition is unmerited, unearned.... it has nothing to do with the receiver, it has everything to do with the giver. By definition, grace is the free gift - and thus is not the result of something in the receiver.



Soli DEO Gloria



- Josiah

 

[Tigger]

I was baptized as an infant in a Catholic church. Years later in my early thirties when I started exploring the Christian faith again many protestant churches told me my original baptism wasn't valid and suggested out of obedience to have a credobaptism which I did being convinced it was the proper thing to do. I now realize my first baptism was valid and the second was unnecessary seeing that baptism is a one time event. Now if I hadn't had that first baptism my second would of been valid.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I was baptized as an infant in a Catholic church. Years later in my early thirties when I started exploring the Christian faith again many protestant churches told me my original baptism wasn't valid and suggested out of obedience to have a credobaptism which I did being convinced it was the proper thing to do. I now realize my first baptism was valid and the second was unnecessary seeing that baptism is a one time event. Now if I hadn't had that first baptism my second would of been valid.

Credobaptist teaching makes credobaptist people attempt to undermine the faith of paedobaptist people. It is similar to seventh day sabbath people who say "why do think that obeying nine of the ten commands is good and obeying one of them - the sabbath commandment - is bad?" Or more pointedly "why do you obey nine of the ten commands and ignore the other one?". It is sincere but it does aim at undermining the faith of others so that they can be convinced to accept the faith advocated by credobaptists (or sabbatarians).

I was baptised as a infant in a Lutheran church, that baptism was valid. It still is valid. No Catholic catechist or priest or bishop has suggested that I ought to be rebaptised in a "Catholic baptism".

 

[atpollard]

Do you believe we receive faith by God's Word and from the Holy Spirit?

Yes.
Our initial faith, the faith that saves us, comes 100% from God (the Holy Spirit) who "removes our (dead) heart of stone and gives us a new (living) heart of flesh." From salvation, which is a completely gift from God, we move on to sanctification which is where the Word can increase our faith. Before salvation, we were blind to the gospel and all of the Word in the universe just bounced off our cold dead heart of stone.

(Verses available upon request).

 

[atpollard]

No.

The only thing the two different baptism issues have in common is both depend on the consistent word "and" being deleted and replaced by the word "then" (with very careful choosing of what verse is quoted so that the two things can be in the "right" sequence."). Most Christians believe that baptism and faith are related and associated (the word "and") but credobaptists believe faith comes first and THEN, after that, baptism is no longer forbidden. Obviously, it's entirely about sequence, entirely about changing "and" to "then."

Anti-Paedobaptism is also based on sequence. FIRST one must attain the magical (never disclosed) age of "X" and THEN one is no longer forbidden from baptizing them. It too is dependent on the consistent word "and" being replaced with "then."

It is unfortunate that these two different subjects are purposely being confused in this thread..... it virtually insures lots of misunderstanding and confusion.

Pax Christi
- Josiah

I guess that we Reformed Baptists mist believe a different sort of credobaptism then, because no matter how many times you tell me what we believe and no matter how many times I assure you that is not what I believe, it is still not about replacing "and" with "then" or about a "magic age X".

It is about obeying scripture and responding to the call of God, yourself, rather than choosing to respond on behalf of someone else. It is about baptism being more than admission to the visible church in hopes of some day wanting to join the "hidden church". It is about a total package of events that BEGINS with God's drawing, not with man's decision to sprinkle water on a baby that cannot even speak, it is about obeying the command to repent and it is about receiving the Holy Spirit ... all of which are not linked together in Baptist Theology, but in the very scriptures you dissect and pull apart to borrow a piece from here and a phrase from there and ignore everything in between. It is about baptism being a sacrament, not a human ritual, and the participant should make the decision to respond to the drawing of God. Other people should not make that decision for them.

It is and, not the Lutheran "OR". Baptism and salvation. Baptism and God's calling. Baptism and the Holy Spirt. Not baptism and maybe God will call them.

Any age is acceptable. If a 3 month old can indicate a desire to serve God, then Baptize them and allow them to take communion and praise God for another soul drawn into the Body of Christ. If a 50 year old man has no interest in the things of God or being baptized, then he should not be. It is NOT about age, it is about calling, about grace received and man's response. It is also not about order, it is about a list of things that belong together.

In short, it is not the NT covenant of the Household that I reject. I reject the repurposing of the baptism of repentence for a fleshly circumcision on a covenant that is in every other way Christ centered and spiritual. The supporting verses are tenuous at best. Nothing else was left so unclear.

 

[Lamb]

Yes.
Our initial faith, the faith that saves us, comes 100% from God (the Holy Spirit) who "removes our (dead) heart of stone and gives us a new (living) heart of flesh." From salvation, which is a completely gift from God, we move on to sanctification which is where the Word can increase our faith. Before salvation, we were blind to the gospel and all of the Word in the universe just bounced off our cold dead heart of stone.

(Verses available upon request).

Could you next tell me how you believe we acquire this faith from God?

You see, I do not disagree with what you wrote above in this quote. What you write next is very crucial though.

 

[Lamb]

I guess that we Reformed Baptists mist believe a different sort of credobaptism then, because no matter how many times you tell me what we believe and no matter how many times I assure you that is not what I believe, it is still not about replacing "and" with "then" or about a "magic age X".

It is about obeying scripture and responding to the call of God, yourself, rather than choosing to respond on behalf of someone else. It is about baptism being more than admission to the visible church in hopes of some day wanting to join the "hidden church". It is about a total package of events that BEGINS with God's drawing, not with man's decision to sprinkle water on a baby that cannot even speak, it is about obeying the command to repent and it is about receiving the Holy Spirit ... all of which are not linked together in Baptist Theology, but in the very scriptures you dissect and pull apart to borrow a piece from here and a phrase from there and ignore everything in between. It is about baptism being a sacrament, not a human ritual, and the participant should make the decision to respond to the drawing of God. Other people should not make that decision for them.

It is and, not the Lutheran "OR". Baptism and salvation. Baptism and God's calling. Baptism and the Holy Spirt. Not baptism and maybe God will call them.

Any age is acceptable. If a 3 month old can indicate a desire to serve God, then Baptize them and allow them to take communion and praise God for another soul drawn into the Body of Christ. If a 50 year old man has no interest in the things of God or being baptized, then he should not be. It is NOT about age, it is about calling, about grace received and man's response. It is also not about order, it is about a list of things that belong together.

In short, it is not the NT covenant of the Household that I reject. I reject the repurposing of the baptism of repentence for a fleshly circumcision on a covenant that is in every other way Christ centered and spiritual. The supporting verses are tenuous at best. Nothing else was left so unclear.

Why do you reject the comparison of circumcision to baptism when scripture does so?
Colossians 2:11-12 ...and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

 

[Josiah]

Any age is acceptable.

Good. Then there goes all your objection to padeobaptism.


I agree. I can think of no reason why God would be rendered impotent by something in people under the age of "X." If God could give faith to John the Baptist still in the womb (not yet even born) ... if God could create the universe by simply willing it..... if God could give faith to even ME ... then I agree with you, God can give faith to anyone (through any means He desires to use). Maybe Lutherans believe in the soverignty of God more than Calvinists do?


In any case, since you agree there is no prohibition from baptizing those under the magical (and never disclosed) age of "X" and that God is not rendered impotent by something in those under that magical age of X, then you have no objection to infant baptism.

It is NOT about age, it is about calling, about grace received and man's response. [/quoteIt is also not about order, it is about a list of things that belong together.

Yes, LOTS and LOTS of things are associated. Where I disagree with you is that people can mandate that God does them in a certain sequence because man tells God He can only do things in that order; in other words, I disagree with you deleting the word "and" and replacing it with "then." In fact, I disagree with the severe limitations you are placing on what God can and cannot do.

Nothing else was left so unclear.

Well, it seems to me the entire argument against infant baptism is based on what the Bible does NOT say. We can't baptize those under the magical age of "X" because there is no verse that says, "And thou must baptize those under the magical (and never disclosed) age of X." Thus, absent that verse, we must forbid it and insist God cannot give faith to those under that age. The same arugment could be used for hating Africans or women or children since the Great Commandment says "Love one another" and no verse can be found that says, "And you must love Africans and women and those under the age of X and those over the age of Y and those with blond hair and those who are handicapped and those who are tall and those who are Democrats and those who are Japanese." So, the argument would go, we must forbid those people from being loved. It's a dangerous and absurd presumption being used by some. "Go and make disciples of all people .... baptizing..... teaching" it is claimed doesn't mean Americans because on one can find the word "American" in the verse, therefore Americans must be forbidden and excluded from this.... oh wait a minute... they are Americans! Never mind.



- Josiah

 

[atpollard]

Good. Then there goes all your objection to padeobaptism.

Please tell me that was humor.
I really need to know if that is what you took from my post, in which case, it is time to say "God bless." and abandon all hope of discussion with you.

 

[Josiah]

Any age is acceptable.

Good. Then there goes all your objection to padeobaptism.


I agree. I can think of no reason why God would be rendered impotent by something in people under the age of "X." If God could give faith to John the Baptist still in the womb (not yet even born) ... if God could create the universe by simply willing it..... if God could give faith to even ME ... then I agree with you, God can give faith to anyone (through any means He desires to use). Maybe Lutherans believe in the soverignty of God more than Calvinists do?


In any case, since you agree there is no prohibition from baptizing those under the magical (and never disclosed) age of "X" and that God is not rendered impotent by something in those under that magical age of X, then you have no objection to infant baptism.






Yes, LOTS and LOTS of things are associated. Where I disagree with you is that people can mandate that God does them in a certain sequence because man tells God He can only do things in that order; in other words, I disagree with you deleting the word "and" and replacing it with "then." In fact, I disagree with the severe limitations you are placing on what God can and cannot do.






Well, it seems to me the entire argument against infant baptism is based on what the Bible does NOT say. We can't baptize those under the magical age of "X" because there is no verse that says, "And thou must baptize those under the magical (and never disclosed) age of X." Thus, absent that verse, we must forbid it and insist God cannot give faith to those under that age. The same arugment could be used for hating Africans or women or children since the Great Commandment says "Love one another" and no verse can be found that says, "And you must love Africans and women and those under the age of X and those over the age of Y and those with blond hair and those who are handicapped and those who are tall and those who are Democrats and those who are Japanese." So, the argument would go, we must forbid those people from being loved. It's a dangerous and absurd presumption being used by some. "Go and make disciples of all people .... baptizing..... teaching" it is claimed doesn't mean Americans because on one can find the word "American" in the verse, therefore Americans must be forbidden and excluded from this.... oh wait a minute... they are Americans! Never mind.



- Josiah

Please tell me that was humor.

No humor. Paedobaptism is the acceptance that baptism is not age restricted. You posted that you believe "any age is acceptable" for baptism. Therefore, you cannot be against the paedobaptist position.