Fessing Up...

Status
Not open for further replies.
LadyFlynt

LadyFlynt

Puritan Board Doctor
We've been on the fence on the paedobaptism/believer's baptism issue...well, guess what...street preacher finally fell off of the fence!
He's going to speak with our pastor about having the rest of our children baptized.

PS...can someone tell me what "credobaptism" is and how it is different from "paedobaptism"?
 
LadyFlynt,

If you don't mind me asking. What was the final straw that caused the 'falling off of the fence'?

The reason I ask is that I to (and my wife) have been struggling with this issue for years.

For me it started not so much, or at all for that matter, about infant baptism but the issue of "when" is one baptized. In short I was converted late in life (33) from pretty much raw atheism/agnostcism (which is why I became a geologist/hydrogeologist) > was baptized in a baptist church merely because when I did go as a very very small child that was the only church I knew. Two reason for that were: post conversion at 33, (1) I was very ignorant of any doctine at that point (never even heard of a commentary or study bible) AND (2) If one understands the modern atheistic/agnostic mindset well one knows that one of the great "fears" of such is attaching to falsehood or cults. Freshly converted to the truth I was a bit edgy about where to go to be baptized and join. Because at that point the confusion of denominations overwhelmed me and I knew that not all that claimed to be christian was actually christian. I didn't know many specifics but I knew there was a real spiritual body of Christ and then the churches run on earth some of whom to greater and lesser degrees where true to that. Thus, I basically defaulted to my mom's church for no more reason than even at 33, educated, career for years - I trusted my mom.

However, struggles with indwelling sin and doubts assailed my literally within weeks. I couldn't understand why I still sinned and other things. This lead me to years of torment over assurance - many things in the "did I do it right" category. Among this was timing of baptism. Mode at that point was easy, I could measure it, I had been immersed (a fact). The only understanding I had of baptism was a meager baptistic understanding (immersion/post conversion) and that was it. You can see where this leads one struggling with doubts. It was no mere infant issue. That at that time had never even entered my mind. I would simply reason something like this (it was more painful than I lay it out here though):

"I don't know PRESENTLY if 'my PAST conversion was true conversion BECAUSE I struggle with sin (how could a christian do X) and other doubts assail me. Thus was the conversion I was baptized from the real conversion? Thus, was I baptized rightly (timing)? Further, if I now refuse to be "re-baptized" do I prove that I'm rebelling more and thus prove further that I'm really not converted? BUT I truly don't desire to be rebellious AND TRULY desire to do what God says I should do. I just don't know what to do!" If I could answer the "when" definitively, then it would be easy. OR if someone could answer it for me. But none could for no man could see the heart and be certain!

The torment of that is tremendous. I went to my pastor and other friends that were baptist asking and NONE absolutely NONE could give an answer. Which I found odd considering that timing of baptism is a distinctive for a baptist. And I was shocked at the almost superstitious certitude in which they found their own comfort toward their own baptism. Things like, "You just know that you know that you know...you know!" I thought to myself, "Man my heart must be so depraved and evil because I don't know at all! (which beset more terror and doubt)" Or as one told me they came home and opened their bible and it fell to a place that had the term "baptism" in it and based upon that "the Lord was giving them a message to be rebaptized".

When querying concerning my own situation I would either get the mystical, "What do you think the Lord is leading you to do?" or its twin, "What ever you think you should do", which is kind of hard to determine since that's the point your struggling with in the first place. Or I'd get a "testimony" from someone who had been "re-baptized" yet they couldn't really explain very well why they decided such. Or I'd get an answer that said no I don't "think" you need to without any real explaination as to why other than "I don't think/feel you need to."

Then came the panic, "Even if I re-baptize TODAY, HOW do I know that I'm really converted even now?" By this time I had read Jer. about the heart being so wicked who could know it. AND this set me to thinking, "How can anybody be certain in order to get the timing of baptism absolutely correct?" What about Simon Magnus, no mention of "rebaptism" there!

By grace, I found Sproul before I did go so far as to be re-baptized. And I was trying to because I was desparate, the torment of doubts about being in the kingdom or not, yet knowing the truth are overwhelming. One thing Sproul said really crystalized it for me. He stated that (paraphrased from memory), "when Satan comes to accuse me and causes me doubt, I can say to him, 'No Satan, you are a liar. I bear the mark of Christ in my body in baptism.' Not that baptism CAUSES salvation but that it points to the promise of God and I TRUST (faith) in that." That was great relief to me and I can remember telling my wife, "NOW, there is a shepherd of sheep."

I began to see (if I'm not decieved) two very distinct views on baptism emerging. One was saying primarily/weighing more on it as a sign of man's conversion and inward reality (however that is suppose to be detected), and the other primarily a sign of God's promise. All other signs and miracles in Scripture seem to follow the later since fallen man is inherently a sinner and liar, and since God sees the heart and doesn't need anything bearing witness to a man He doesn't need our giving a sign to prove anything to Him. It seemed to reason that if it was primarily God's sign then it is the superior sign. If it is primarily man dependant (which timing necessitates) then it necessarily is inferior and fickled at best.

If it is primarily God's sign, then in times of struggle and doubt it can engender and strengthen one's faith not because it is magical (ala Rome) but it points to God's promise and trusting in His promise IS faith. A physical way to recite God's promise to save me by Christ alone. If it is rather primarily "my" confession, then when I look to it in time of doubt it becomes a circular reasoning tornado that I cannot get out of and creates doubt and unbelief.

After years of struggling with this I came to view "re-baptism" as sinful. THEN, I began to think, if this is true then why not infants of believers children? If it is a sign physically communicating God's promise of redemption for our weakness or even to us when yet unconverted, then why not?

Today, I'm not certain why I'm on the fence still. Part of it is that in our area if you want some form of reformed sound doctrine you will have to find the very RARE SB church that is calvinistic and reforming. In that vein its a matter of practicality.

So, I'm always curious as to what pulls a fence straddling baptist finaly over.

Thanks,

Larry
 
I wonder about my own kids

I was raised baptist, and am now in a "baptitist" non-denominational church. I'm pretty much sold on the infant baptism, and if my church did that I would baptise them immediatly, but they don't. So to baptize them, in my understanding, we'd have to become members of another church that does baptise infants. Not sure I'm ready to do that, my church has problems, but a True to the doctrines of Grace pastor and great loving flock. I trust in my children's salvation through faith, and wonder what I should do. Wait till they can "make a statement of faith" ( I put in quotes because I find it ironic that churches including mine, that supposedly have "believers baptism, baptise pretty small kids, that state a confession, but really, we have no more idea of it's validity, than an infants, other than waiting to see fruits later. I think most kids will regurgitate what their parents tell them is true). Or ask my Pastor if he would baptise both kids (6 and 3)?

I know baptisim doesn't save, but I want to follow God's will. How do you (those who hold to infant baptism) consider children of believers who have not been baptised?

Just seeking thoughts on the matter I guess. From both sides.

TD
 
The final straw was in street preacher's (dh) study of household baptism. The whole house (servants included, believers and unbeliever's were baptized...same with Jewish households, all males, including servants-of hebraic or non-hebraic background, were circumcized). It was a covenant between the head of family and God.

I know what you mean with all the difficulty you went through (why I would like my own children to "remember" their baptism) but aren't we putting too much emphasis on the baptism? We know it doesn't save, yet we rely upon it to designate a point of salvation...this is where our thinking is messed up. Even in presbyterian circles (I was against covenantal baptism because of presbyterians I knew who would say that they don't remember ever being sinners and that they have "always been saved" pointing to their baptism and confimation) there is wrong thinking betimes.

Baptism is a statement of the family as a whole, but has nothing to do with individual salvation. Yes, the eunich was believed and was baptized...this was his statement...if he had had a family (which obviously couldn't be) he would have gone and baptized them as others elsewhere in scripture did. I think our mistake as baptists is that we tend to take certain verses to mean one thing and not look at other relational verses before coming to those conclusions.

(can anyone tell...mentally I've fallen off the fence too...now if I could just get my mind to over rule my emotional attachment to believer's baptism...something to work on...oh, woe can be women's emotions):lol:
 
Originally posted by LadyFlynt He's going to speak with our pastor about having the rest of our children baptized.
Click to expand...

I truly respect your decision, but I highly doubt that a Bible church is going to baptize infants. I may be wrong, but....
 
Actually ours has left that open to the head of household's decision as they respect either position and honestly can't come to a definate oneway-or-theother on it.

However comment has been made on the fact that we "just" dedicated our littlest one this summer :/
 
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Actually ours has left that open to the head of household's decision as they respect either position and honestly can't come to a definate oneway-or-theother on it.

However comment has been made on the fact that we "just" dedicated our littlest one this summer :/
Click to expand...

Interesting, indeed!! Is the baptism conducted during a regular worship service? And how is it conducted? What is the mode?

As to the comment that you little one has already been dedicated...there IS a difference between a "dedication" and a baptism.
 
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Actually ours has left that open to the head of household's decision as they respect either position and honestly can't come to a definate oneway-or-theother on it.

However comment has been made on the fact that we "just" dedicated our littlest one this summer :/
Click to expand...

Colleen,
Do you think the dedication is any way connected to the covenant?
 
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Actually ours has left that open to the head of household's decision as they respect either position and honestly can't come to a definate oneway-or-theother on it.

However comment has been made on the fact that we "just" dedicated our littlest one this summer :/
Click to expand...

Colleen,
Do you think the dedication is any way connected to the covenant?
Click to expand...

I have seen a few baby dedications in Southern Baptist churches. The parents and the church are told to raise the child up in the Lord. I suppose there are similarities in some regard to a baptism, but I'm not sure it could constitue as a baptism. No water is used. As I recall, the baby is not dedicated in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Of course it depends, I suppose how it's done in her church.
 
Baptism at end of service, dedication at beginning.

Baptism for believer's is of course dunking! I would hope they wouldn't dunk my baby!
 
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Baptism at end of service, dedication at beginning.

Baptism for believer's is of course dunking! I would hope they wouldn't dunk my baby!
Click to expand...

I hope not either, but I have heard that it's done in some quarters.
 
The dedication of samuel was just that. It was not in liu of the sign being placed upon samuel as God commands. Hannah was faithful on the 8th day to circumcise sam. This is where the dedication is inconsistant.
 
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
The dedication of samuel was just that. It was not in liu of the sign being placed upon samuel as God commands. Hannah was faithful on the 8th day to circumcise sam. This is where the dedication is inconsistant.
Click to expand...

Let me get this clear in my mind, a dedication can be in lieu of a baptism? What constitued a biblical infant baptism?
 
A dedication cannot be seen as a replacement for baptism (or circumcision). Thats where the dedication falls to the floor.
 
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
A dedication cannot be seen as a replacement for baptism (or circumcision). Thats where the dedication falls to the floor.
Click to expand...

Got it. I would think so. Never in my wildest dreams did I think a Southern Baptist dedication of a baby constitued a baptism. I guess that really goes without saying.

Does it matter who does the baptism?
 
Ivan,
Deep in the knower of some credo baptists, they need to do something with their infant. They see the sign being placed in scripture. They see God as a God of families. They see what hannah did. They cannot reconcile infant baptism so they believe they are doing the next best thing; the baby dedication. But to be consistant, they would need to really look hard at hannah and what she was truly doing. She circumcixed her son, based upon obedience to Gods command, and she LEFT samn at the temple; he lived there. How many parents today are being consistant? They are not placing the sign. They are not leaving their son or daughter with the pastor and in fact, God hates the dedication as it breaks the 2nd commandment. They think God honors that when in fact, the God of the scriptures hates it. To be consistant, one would need to place the sign first.
 
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Ivan,
Deep in the knower of some credo baptists, they need to do something with their infant. They see the sign being placed in scripture. They see God as a God of families. They see what hannah did. They cannot reconcile infant baptism so they believe they are doing the next best thing; the baby dedication. But to be consistant, they would need to really look hard at hannah and what she was truly doing. She circumcixed her son, based upon obedience to Gods command, and she LEFT samn at the temple; he lived there. How many parents today are being consistant? They are not placing the sign. They are not leaving their son or daughter with the pastor and in fact, God hates the dedication as it breaks the 2nd commandment. They think God honors that when in fact, the God of the scriptures hates it. To be consistant, one would need to place the sign first.
Click to expand...

:ditto:What he said!
 
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Ivan,
Deep in the knower of some credo baptists, they need to do something with their infant. They see the sign being placed in scripture. They see God as a God of families. They see what hannah did. They cannot reconcile infant baptism so they believe they are doing the next best thing; the baby dedication. But to be consistant, they would need to really look hard at hannah and what she was truly doing. She circumcixed her son, based upon obedience to Gods command, and she LEFT samn at the temple; he lived there. How many parents today are being consistant? They are not placing the sign. They are not leaving their son or daughter with the pastor and in fact, God hates the dedication as it breaks the 2nd commandment. They think God honors that when in fact, the God of the scriptures hates it. To be consistant, one would need to place the sign first.
Click to expand...

I was never comfortable with SBC baby dedications. They are not done in our church. I see it as trying to play off ends to the middle. God doesn't work that way.

This is the warning that my Calvinistic Southern Baptist college pastor told me 30 years ago: "If you follow the logic of infant baptism as many Calvinistic do, you will be convinced they are right. Their argument is very convincing." Or words to that affect.

Not there yet, and at 52 I don't know if I ever will be. Besides, there is not a Reformed church to be found within driving distance of me.

I am interested in learning more about it, but I don't know that you will ever have a "convert".
 
Jacob,

I appreciate it. It comes from a real life experience concerning the issue. That is where it started for me and the frustration/struggle with a lack of an answer from the baptistic side.

In our bylaws, a calvinistic SBC, we even have a provision that says the elders would be reasonably assured that regeneration had occurred. Pondering John 3 that confused me. I asked about that once because my concern is how does an elder go about this impossible task and the answer I received was that we have to make sure we don't accidentally baptize for example a Mormon who does not affirm true faith in Christ. I thought, "Well sure, that's a pretty gross example. But what about a little closer to the real world?"

For it concerned me deeply about how an elder might perform this task without harming a true freshly stricken convert who may be and likely is very weak, shocked by it all? Because when I was converted though I was well educated in the world, held a college degree in the sciences, had a career and by worldly standards could hold my own - I knew very little in terms of "church" language. I saw Christ one day during the preaching of His word very powerfully and went from stark atheist/agnostic to a broken sinner just like that. It was like I'd been living in a dream (nightmare) world and had just awoken for the first time. Reality and truth hit me very powerfully and irresistablly and I was broken in heart. I knew very little in terms of "terminology" but I knew I must repent and flee to Christ and be baptized. Had someone quizzed me to death at that point I would have been scared to death by it and probably ran. Because in my ignorance I truly felt like this filthy dog coming among these pure people (the church). I was ashamed to even walk into the church doors because my view of the people of the church was like pure saints. That's how little I knew. Thus, it would have taken very little to frighten me away, not from Christ but in the confusion from the church itself. And it was so sudden one could hardly measure the "fruit in my life" because less than 24 hours ago (at that time) I was openly an unbeliever pure and simple.

Ladyflynt,

Thanks for the reply. "Baptism is a statement of the family as a whole, but has nothing to do with individual salvation." That is about were I've arrived as well. The family structure and language in the OT and NT is rather unavoidable and stark. The tragic individualism we see in the church today seems to be an American phenomena both historically and socio-geographically.

In Christ Alone,

Larry
 
Originally posted by Larry Hughes
The tragic individualism we see in the church today seems to be an American phenomena both historically and socio-geographically.

In Christ Alone,

Larry
Click to expand...

Wooo...good point. Something to ponder. That certainly speak to Southern Baptists, doesn't it.
 
Show me a household baptism where the person baptized did not first hear the Word preached and believe the gospel.

As John MacArthur demonstrated in his debate on infant baptism with RC Sproul:

There´s never an incident of a baby being baptized in any of those households"”it never identifies them. "Households" simply mean"”could mean "family, could mean "servants" who were a part of that household.

1. Cornelius´ house"”Acts 10. The gospel was preached by Peter, Cornelius heard it"¦it says, "They all heard the Word"¦they believed it"¦the Spirit fell"¦they were all baptized." All heard, all believed, the Spirit came on all, they were all baptized.

2. In the jailer´s house"”Acts 16 is the next one"¦Philippian jailer. Paul, you remember, gave him the gospel, it says, "All heard the gospel"¦all were baptized."

3. Chapter 18, it was in the house of Crispus, "All believed"¦all were baptized."

The other two occur in I Corinthians. The other two are the account of Lydia and Stephanas"”Lydia is in the book of Acts.

4. But, in the case of Lydia, it´s the same thing. We must understand the same thing must have occurred"”they heard, they believed, they were baptized.

5. Stephanas: They heard, they believed, they were baptized.

I mean, it´s all basically the same pattern. They all hear the gospel, they all believe, they all receive the Spirit, they all are baptized. That excludes infants because infants can´t hear and believe. The "household" then is defined"”it is defined as "those capable of hearing, understanding, believing." That´s the definition of the "household."

In Stephanas´ household, which is in I Corinthians, chapter 1, "All who were baptized," it says, "All who were baptized were devoted to the ministry of the saints." Babies can´t be devoted to the ministry of the saints. It says, "All who were baptized were helping in the spiritual work of the church." It´s impossible for infants.

In the case of Lydia, in Acts, "her heart was opened when she heard the gospel. The gospel was preached and her heart was opened," it says. So, we understood she heard the gospel, she believed"¦others must have heard the gospel, their hearts were opened, and they believed and they were baptized. By the way, to assume there were children in the house is maybe stretching it since, apparently, she had no husband. She, apparently, was a single person.

In John 4, in verse 53, it says about a nobleman"”you know, whom Jesus talked with and He healed his son"”it says about that man, "He himself believed and his whole household." They all believed. Household belief, then household baptism. Where there is no faith, there is no baptism.

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/INFBAP.HTM
Click to expand...

Phillip
 
What tipped the boat for me was the covenantal concept of circumcision replacing baptism. I was SBC, now OPC.

I, like so many of us here, was baptized in a Baptist church, and later became Presbyterian. Three cheers for you Colleen and streetpreacher!
 
Phillip,
I never heard that argument before.........I am going back to a credo theology! :banana:

beat_deadhorse.gif


~Sorry Phillip......:um:
 
just showing how the household arguments do not hold up, that's all.

Neither does the supposed connection that has baptism replacing circumcision. If one replaced the other then the Jerusalem council (Acts 15) surely would have sent a quick note off to those thinking they had to be circumcised to be saved by saying, "Forget about it, silly people, you don't need to be circumcised, for you have already been baptized."

Just my two Baptist cents......

I'll go aWay now and try not to spoil anyone's last straw arguments.

Phillip

[Edited on 1-6-05 by pastorway]
 
I am curious, concerning all the points and counterpoints made about household baptisms, why there are, baptistically speaking, no half-household baptisms recorded; i.e., where all were preached at within the house, some believed and some didn't, ergo some were baptized and some not.

My baptistic viewpoint would darn near expect such to be the case, given all the households mentioned. Yet seemingly uncharacteristically, the batting average for all of these examples is 1000. Why no half-household baptisms?

Peace
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top