Paedo-Baptism Answers Differing paedobaptism beliefs

J

Jrfail

Puritan Board Freshman
Hey guys,

From my study, I have noticed that there seems to be a greater unity in beliefs when it comes to credobaptism, than there is on the paedobaptism (oikobaptism) side.

I was curious if someone could lay out for me, or give me resources to all the different “flavors” of paedobaptism.

Here is an example of what I am looking for..

Gregg strawbridge.. from what I understand, unless I misunderstood, would baptize an unbelieving spouse of a believer.

That’s a quite different understanding of household baptism than those that would only baptist the children of believers.

This seems to flow out from the federal vision view.. I know very little about federal vision.

Anyway, any help on this would be appreciated! Also, I am new here. So If this has been discussed already, than a simple link to that discussion would suffice!

Thanks,

Josh.
 
Hey Josh, welcome to the PB! Please fix your signature per PB rules. You can follow the hyperlink below my signature.
 
I doubt that credobaptists are really so united unless one takes a very narrow definition of a credobaptist, restricting it to baptist protestants. After all, plenty of heretical sects only baptize adults, including the oneness pentecostals, the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses, and the seventh day adventists.
 
Even among Protestant Baptists, there are vast differences in methodology when it comes to baptism. For example, a Dispensationalist Baptist is going to employ different arguments to someone who adheres to 1689 federalism.
 
Reformed Covenanter said:
Even among Protestant Baptists, there are vast differences in methodology when it comes to baptism. For example, a Dispensationalist Baptist is going to employ different arguments to someone who adheres to 1689 federalism.
Click to expand...
Maybe I should rephrase.. from what I can tell though credobaptist vary very widely in their overall doctrine, and in their argumentation that they would use for baptizing only professing believers.. their practice when it comes to how baptism is administered and to whom seems more unified than the paedobaptist world.

Of course, I am completely open for correction here!
 
Jrfail said:
Maybe I should rephrase.. from what I can tell though credobaptist vary very widely in their overall doctrine, and in their argumentation that they would use for baptizing only professing believers.. their practice when it comes to how baptism is administered and to whom seems more unified than the paedobaptist world.

Of course, I am completely open for correction here!
Click to expand...

Right, I see what you are getting at. Superficially, that conclusion would appear to be accurate. I do think, however, that if you scratch the surface a little, more differences will emerge. For instance, at what age should someone be baptised? How long after someone's conversion ought they to receive baptism? Questions such as these do not receive uniform answers from Baptists.
 
Reformed Covenanter said:
Right, I see what you are getting at. Superficially, that conclusion would appear to be accurate. I do think, however, that if you scratch the surface a little, more differences will emerge. For instance, at what age should someone be baptised? How long after someone's conversion ought they to receive baptism? Questions such as these do not receive uniform answers from Baptists.
Click to expand...
That’s true! I agree! Of course, I see no issue with the variation of beliefs from paedobaptist (I am a paedobaptist), but I was just curious what all the differing positions were.

I hold to the belief that children of atleast one believer should be baptized, and not partake of communion until they profess faith in Christ.

However; I have recently become more aware of other positions from the reformed perspective, such as the position where unbelieving spouses are baptized.

I didn’t know if there was a good summary of all the different positions and maybe the theological foundations for those differences??

Just from the surface, it seems that a lot of the differences comes down to federal vision. Which I haven’t looked into almost at all yet.
 
Last edited:
Jrfail said:
Gregg strawbridge.. from what I understand, unless I misunderstood, would baptize an unbelieving spouse of a believer.

That’s a quite different understanding of household baptism than those that would only baptist the children of believers.

This seems to flow out from the federal vision view.. I know very little about federal vision.
Click to expand...
This isn’t the federal vision view though I’m sure some FVers would hold it, this is the position of those who hold to Covenant Theology. 1 Cor. 7:14.

So I’d say your mistaken as to your understanding on that point.
 
Romans922 said:
This isn’t the federal vision view though I’m sure some FVers would hold it, this is the position of those who hold to Covenant Theology. 1 Cor. 7:14.

So I’d say your mistaken as to your understanding on that point.
Click to expand...
I hold to covenant theology though. Isn’t Federal Vision essentially covenant theology applied in ways that it hasn’t been historically applied??

Maybe, it has to do more with the understanding of “household” baptism, and what is meant by that then?
 
Jrfail said:
I hold to covenant theology though. Isn’t Federal Vision essentially covenant theology applied in ways that it hasn’t been historically applied??

Maybe, it has to do more with the understanding of “household” baptism, and what is meant by that then?
Click to expand...
It is exactly household baptism…applied to the whole household. :)
 
Jrfail said:
I hold to covenant theology though. Isn’t Federal Vision essentially covenant theology applied in ways that it hasn’t been historically applied??
Click to expand...
FV is monocovenantal. They reject the CoW. But what practically happens is turning the CoG into CoW, when they think they are doing the opposite.

Regardless, I believe the whole household should be baptized if willing, even if unbelieving, with the attendant warnings of becoming a covenant breaker. You aren’t going to kidnap and force an unwilling spouse, but call to repent, believe, and come to the font.
 
I don't think baptizing an adult household member (parent, son, daughter, spouse) who has no profession of faith in Jesus Christ – Matt 10:36, "a man's foes shall be they of his own household" – is acceptable.
 
Christopher Robin said:
I doubt that an unbelieving adult would even submit himself to baptism willingly if they really understood what it means.
Click to expand...
Depends. In modern, Western cultures, perhaps not. In older and more exotic traditions, the notion that the wife/family/tribe/nation would follow the choice of their head regardless of personal belief might be pretty much a given.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top