Defending Paedo Baptism

[Weston Stoler]

Since I am a new convert to PaedoBaptism I am not that strong in making a case for it. Since "coming out" to my friends (all of which are Baptist) I have a few people challenge me and many call it a heretical position almost worthy of being called an unbeliever. I would love some help in trying to defend the position. If anyone called you a heretic or that the position was not biblical what would you say? The context being a close friend.

 

[bug]

You're best defence is what convinced you!

 

[Weston Stoler]

You're best defence is what convinced you!

I am finally convinced however I am not sure the best way to explain it. It is like when someone is finally shown the light of Calvinism and then goes into a cage stage and beating people over the head with arguments for it yet they really do more bad then good. Because they have yet to mature enough in their knowledge to be able to give a credible defense. plus they are usually arrogant but that is beside the point.

I would also like to add that (unless I am mistaken, I have been before) this is a paedo only forum.

 

[Weston Stoler]

For the paedo people explain if their are any errors here and fix them for me this a letter to my friend

Okay I will try to give a short explanation. This would not be exhaustive nor would it be a perfect explanation. Baptizing an infant in the church would signify that they are part of the visible church. They are not saved by any means but they are a member of the church (unless when they begin to comprehend the gospel they reject the gospel Then they are treated as any other unbeliever. The other reason is because baptism in the church also creates a promise in the church that the men and women of that congregation will help in raising that child in the way that it should go. Some would say they are entering the "covenant family" See their were two covenants. The covenant of works and the covenant of Grace (one given by moses and one paid for by Christ's death and ressurection) now the things in the old covenant where their to point to the new covenant. Now what was a sign given to show that you where apart of the old covenant? Circumcision! Circumsision is compared to baptism in the new testemant because it replaces circumcision. Baptism now brings you into the "Covenant family" However you are not Saved. You only receive the benefits. Also anyone who has not been baptised as an infant and is saved (like me) should be baptised after they put their faith in Christ. I know this may be confusing and long but here it is.

 

[Tim]

Regarding the covenants, the Covenant of Works was given to Adam in the garden. In it, God promised life upon perfect obedience. The Covenant of Grace also began in the garden, but after the fall of Adam. Works-Grace is not the same as Old-New.

 

[Peairtach]

They are not saved by any means

They might be saved. We don't know. Viz. John the Baptist.

But they are to be baptised - whether they are saved or not, which only God knows at this stage in their life - because by birth they are born into the administration of the CoG, and they have certain covenant promises, privileges and responsibilities, and are at least in that sense, in the CoG.

E.g. In God's gracious providence to the child, the Word of God is committed to those born into Christian families in a way in which it is not to those born in Muslim, atheist or agnostic families:

Then what advantage has the Jew [or Christian child]? Or what is the value of circumcision [ child baptism]? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews [Christians] were entrusted with the oracles of God. What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written, "That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged." (Rom 3:1-4, ESV)

 

[louis_jp]

and many call it a heretical position almost worthy of being called an unbeliever.

Personally, if that's their position I wouldn't argue with them, because they're really not receptive to understanding the issue. You could simply point them to the many Baptist leaders, churches, and individuals who recognize us all as brothers in Christ; then maybe suggest that they do some research on their own and get back to you if they want to have an intelligent conversation. That's what I did when confronted with a similar situation.

 

[Weston Stoler]

Regarding the covenants, the Covenant of Works was given to Adam in the garden. In it, God promised life upon perfect obedience. The Covenant of Grace also began in the garden, but after the fall of Adam. Works-Grace is not the same as Old-New.

I am new to covenant theology so I am going to make mistakes. Thank you for pointing this out. I was talking to my pastor this morning and he gave me a book called "Children of the promise, a case for Infant Baptism" he says it is about infant baptism but it's main focus is teaching you how to read the bible and giving you an explanation of covenant theology. I was rooted in hyper-dispensationalism so I will definatly need some adjusting.

 

[Tim]

It does take a while to understand. I still have a long way to go. But covenant theology is really the way to understand infant baptism.

 

[Christopher88]

I became a Padeo less then a year ago. I have tried to argue my self back to Credo (grew up that way, sort of) but the more I argue for Credo, the more I argue against it.
if you read the scripture as a whole and not try and proof text anything, Padeo makes sense under Covenant biblical theology.

Also try this out;
Ask a Baptist to proof text credo baptism. My Pastor challenged me on that yesterday, just for fun. I ended up not being able to and spoke my way for Padeo. (It was fun.)

 

[sdesocio]

It sounds like you are on the right track.

I've found two things helpful to remember:
1. Baptism has more to do with the faithfulness of God than the faithfulness of his people. Most Credo baptist seem baptism as more of a pledge, and therefore they also make such a pledge for their children, sans-water, that they will follow God. I think it's far better to understand Baptism (and its covenantal precursor Circumcision) as being seals from God.

Ask this question if Baptism were a play who would be the main character and who would be the supporting character. I think much of our theological error can be revealed through that question.

2. The more we see the continuity of Scripture the simpler it is to understand that God graciously, and for his own purposes, chosen to make the church more than just those saved by grace. If we understand the parable of the wheat and the chaff, we see again that it is God who will finally separate his people from impostors.

 

[Weston Stoler]

Thanks, and if anyone has any thing that they think might help me along the way I would definatly check it out.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Weston,
If I were you, I would not try to "defend" baptism from a Presbyterian/Reformed perspective--no more than I would attempt to "defend" calvinism, if I were in your shoes.

I grew up a Presbyterian and a calvinist, before I even knew what those words were, or what they meant. The first time I felt a "challenge" from anything different, a young friend of mine gave me HalLinsey to read. I was fascinated by his apocalypticism, and I went and asked my dad what to make of it. He just asked me, "Does that sound like anything we've ever taught you? Would we have left out some important truth like that, if indeed it was true?" Dad never told me not to read it. He just taught me. He had confidence in the truth.

I went to a Baptist/Arminian institution for college. In my first semester, I was "challenged" on my particulars by my roommate. I knew what I believed, but I had never studied these things to defend them. I went back to my books. I refreshed my beliefs and confidence.

And the thing that amazed me the most was: I never got a chance to "defend" myself. My roommate never again even raised a challenge to me. I think it was attitudinal--maybe its "mythological" to think so, but I simply didn't view myself anymore as being surrounded by a hostile environment. Socially, I was completely inept, a basket-case. But theologically, I think I just knew I was an "alpha-male."

And I also didn't go looking for challenges. I didn't need to prove it to anyone. I can remember one other occasion in four years of college; someone expressed some surprise that I was a Presbyterian (Really, what are you doing at a Christian college?). I gave him a one or two sentence answer that defended my view of baptism, clearly based in Scripture. And that was that. He said, "Huh. I never heard anything like that before."

But--here's the meat--I don't think I was in any position to "defend" the doctrine of baptism, or even calvinism. I was still a "novice," though having grown up in a Presbyterian church. I wasn't being called to contend with all the Baptists that surrounded me. I needed to learn who these people were, to listen, and to gain sympathy for people who were different. While I reinforced my own confidence in Reformed doctrine.

Let your friends do the challenging. All you need to do is have a calm answer for them, whether positive or negative. You will learn what they believe are the "silver-bullets" and "nuclear-options" for the doctrines they hold. Their willingness to crusade, to persuade you that you are wrong and to win you back to something other than The Gospel, will expose what is truly important to them.

And in case you missed it, my point is that what you contend for with greatest vehemence will also prove what you think is truly important.

 

[yoyoceramic]

Brother, you will be able to find many great resources here on this board. I will also refer you to excellent pieces Kim Riddlebarger has written on the topic. These are very extensive, but if you take the time to wade through them over the period of a month or so, you will gain much edification.

Also, when having discussion with your brothers in the faith (don't forget, this is an in-house discussion between believers of the Gospel), you may put them on the defensive by asking a few questions of your own such as:

1. How do you prove that the New Covenant is not the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant of Grace?

2. How do you prove that baptism does not replace circumcision?

3. How do you prove that when the sign changes from circumcision to baptism, the thing signified also changes?