From Paedo to Credo

alexanderjames said:
This is as well as the fact that many, often even completely outside the Christian faith, baptise their children, and so the question is raised of what value is such a baptism at all.
Click to expand...
Yes. I was sprinkled as an infant by non-Christian (in a true sense) parents. It was the thing to do back then, and was purely cultural. There was no Christian faith lived out in my childhood home.
 
My simple story is that as an older woman, I came to many of the positions (such as EP) that were only being practiced in paedobaptist denominations. I was not seeing paedobaptism, but was content, as there would be no more children forthcoming. I would look at it again occasionally, but seemed to come no closer to seeing it in Scripture. Then without warning, I began to see it via EP, in a way. What I saw wasn't necessarily baptism at first but the continuity between the testaments (which is how I had come to EP); in the case of baptism, children were included as members of the visible church in the OT; and it would be a loss if this were not the case in the NT (which is better in every way). So then, realizing that a sign was and is always given for this visible entry into the outward administration of the covenant of grace (ie the visible church), I saw the necessity of placing the sign on the child. Baptism is God placing his sign and seal on the member; it is not the member's testimony.
 
Jeri Tanner said:
My simple story is that as an older woman, I came to many of the positions (such as EP) that were only being practiced in paedobaptist denominations. I was not seeing paedobaptism, but was content, as there would be no more children forthcoming. I would look at it again occasionally, but seemed to come no closer to seeing it in Scripture. Then without warning, I began to see it via EP, in a way. What I saw wasn't necessarily baptism at first but the continuity between the testaments (which is how I had come to EP); in the case of baptism, children were included as members of the visible church in the OT; and it would be a loss if this were not the case in the NT (which is better in every way). So then, realizing that a sign was and is always given for this visible entry into the outward administration of the covenant of grace (ie the visible church), I saw the necessity of placing the sign on the child. Baptism is God placing his sign and seal on the member; it is not the member's testimony.
Click to expand...
Thank you for sharing that Jeri! I've been on a similar path. Diving into a study of worship (in general) is what first began to tip the scales for me towards a covenantal hermeneutic as I was seeking to understand the regulative principle and the threefold division of the law. I "became reformed" during that study.

If I may ask: the perfection of God's timing and Providence notwithstanding, do you regret not baptising your own children (if I have understood you correctly)?
 
JD said:
If I may ask: the perfection of God's timing and Providence notwithstanding, do you regret not baptising your own children (if I have understood you correctly)?
Click to expand...
Yes; the regret is primarily in not understanding (having a heart understanding and response!) to God's wonderful covenant promises; baptism would have followed that.
 
I know of a lot of people who have switched from Paedo to Credo...it happened when the CRC became liberal and people left in droves. Those who were firmly rooted in their reformed convictions formed URCs or went to other reformed denominations. But lots of others left the CRC and joined community churches or baptist churches, in my opinion the reason being that the Baptists were not playing fast and loose with the Scriptures like the CRC liberals were. It was a case of throwing out the baby baptism with the bathwater. It wasn't so much a case that they were repudiating Paedobaptism but that they really didn't understand it in the first place and were looking first and foremost for a church where people actually wanted to be biblical.

I am also not surprised that reformed baptist churches are filled with former paedobaptists. Presumably anyone who becomes credo and still holds to Calvinist convictions regarding soteriology is going to gravitate toward a reformed baptist church.
 
De Jager said:
I know of a lot of people who have switched from Paedo to Credo...it happened when the CRC became liberal and people left in droves. Those who were firmly rooted in their reformed convictions formed URCs or went to other reformed denominations. But lots of others left the CRC and joined community churches or baptist churches, in my opinion the reason being that the Baptists were not playing fast and loose with the Scriptures like the CRC liberals were. It was a case of throwing out the baby baptism with the bathwater. It wasn't so much a case that they were repudiating Paedobaptism but that they really didn't understand it in the first place and were looking first and foremost for a church where people actually wanted to be biblical.

I am also not surprised that reformed baptist churches are filled with former paedobaptists. Presumably anyone who becomes credo and still holds to Calvinist convictions regarding soteriology is going to gravitate toward a reformed baptist church.
Click to expand...

We have someone who came to our church recently. He came from firmly committed Presbyterian (PCUS) parents, but he left the PCUS for Baptists due to liberalism and lack of other options. He was very happy later in life to find a conservative Presbyterian church again, but I think he had his Presbyterian convictions on the backburner for a while. I imagine the liberalism of the mainline churches led a lot of people down this path where sacraments had to take a backseat.
 
How many from conservative/confessional pedobaptist roots (OPC, PCA, whatever else goes here) move to credo? There are plenty of us raised as Catholics, Luthernas, or some liberal pedobaptist background in Baptist churches but I don't think I know of any conservative pedos that have made the switch.
 
TheInquirer said:
How many from conservative/confessional pedobaptist roots (OPC, PCA, whatever else goes here) move to credo? There are plenty of us raised as Catholics, Luthernas, or some liberal pedobaptist background in Baptist churches but I don't think I know of any conservative pedos that have made the switch.
Click to expand...

Church Officers

www.christreformedchurch.org www.christreformedchurch.org
 
TheInquirer said:
How many from conservative/confessional pedobaptist roots (OPC, PCA, whatever else goes here) move to credo? There are plenty of us raised as Catholics, Luthernas, or some liberal pedobaptist background in Baptist churches but I don't think I know of any conservative pedos that have made the switch.
Click to expand...

At least two men and their wives in my small church.

One of our Elders went Greek Orthodox -> RPCNA -> Reformed Baptist, the other man went from RPCNA to Reformed Baptist.

I personally know several others that went from OPC to Reformed Baptist.
 
We've been in both PCA and Calvinist Baptist churches. When I first met my husband back in our singles group maybe 46 years ago in a different state, he was going to WTS. I asked him one time how anybody could be a Christian and believe in baptizing babies. ( He was and is a Baptist in the sense that he believes the case for death and resurrection symbolism outweighs the circumcision argument, but he understands the paedo position).

So anyway, he explained to me what WTS taught and I was amazed. I mean, it made so much sense. I spent years feeling confused about it, and we liked theologians on both sides. For a while I decided maybe we should baptize babies for sure, but then when there is evidence of saving faith baptize the older child as someone who died and was raised to newness of life in Christ. I figured it was like the double baptism of John for repentance and then Jesus for the real thing. This would be a double of joining the covenant people as a baby, then the real thing with Jesus later. Hub never ever went along with that one, lol. We had some good discussions over the years.

I think its really good to argue this stuff. To add to what Contra-Mundum/Bruce said about how the action goes deeper than a passing symbol, to discuss it and argue it and be forced to think about it is better than never learning the other side and why the other side thinks what they do.

One thing that has bugged us, hub more than me, is that we think the paedo argument only truly holds when kids can eat the covenant dinner ie communion. We've talked to paedos about why their kids can't have communion and everything they say- I mean everything! sounds like a Baptist talking about baptism. Its really a disconnect in our opinion. You can't talk about continuity of the covenant for one and then discontinuity for the other in our opinion. To be fair, I've seen Baptists let little kids have communion and been able to ask them why they don't baptize their kid and what is going on there, and they are just sort of "uh, um, uh, well.." and they can never give a straight answer.

I've been impressed with WTS grads. We know a PCA pastor who says if you want to immerse your older kid then fine, it isn't a salvation issue. ( maybe you guys would say that is an exception to the confession). And we were once in a Calvinist Baptist Church and the pastor from WTS always told people that if they thought their baby baptism was sufficient that was ok, they could be a church member without rebaptism.

I have to hand it to the Puritan Board; I have been very impressed by the way the guys here can argue it to death but remain so friendly and accepting to those who differ. It's nice to see. I believe Dever was wrong to say he could never join with paedos in church, and same for RSClark that he could never be in a credo church.

A few nuclear bombs, some martial law, the grid going down.....we may all be forced into local-very local- Sunday gatherings with people who think differently on many things. I'll stay home before I'd go to Roman catholic or word of faith, but, we may be forced into a time of less church options. If we get the judgment we deserve as a nation you can be sure of it.

By the way, I love the Martyn LLoyd Jones quote on baptism. He believed in credo baptism by sprinkling, and referred to himself as a "church of one". If we didn't even have hot running water, that's something for credos to consider.
 
As a young father, I’ve been told by men older and wiser than me that young families typically move from credo to paedo in greater numbers than older families. They suggested that young families would be attracted to Presbyterianism, only to find in many sad cases that no promise was made.

It may have something to do with wanting to recognize their children as being in the covenant, despite being spiritually stillborn and thoroughly pagan (like all of us were) from birth.

Ultimately, no one is born a Christian. Saul can have a kid like Jonathan and David can have a kid like Absalom. I suppose sometimes a young family may need to learn this from their lived experience.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
CHSalzgeber said:
As a young father, I’ve been told by men older and wiser than me that young families typically move from credo to paedo in greater numbers than older families. They suggested that young families would be attracted to Presbyterianism, only to find in many sad cases that no promise was made.

Ultimately, no one is born a Christian. Saul can have a kid like Jonathan and David can have a kid like Absalom.

It may have something to do with wanting to recognize their children as being in the covenant, despite being spiritually stillborn and thoroughly pagan (like all of us were) from birth.
Click to expand...
Sorry, what is the 'promise' here?
 
Polanus1561 said:
Sorry, what is the 'promise' here?
Click to expand...
I’m not trying to get too deep into this, as I’m not going to do the paedo- view justice. But as it is written, there is a promise or a covenant, “to you and to your children,” right? That’s what I was aiming at when I mentioned a promise.

My understanding is that a Presbyterian who raises all reprobate children despite “doing everything right” and that a Baptist who raises all reprobate children despite “doing everything right” may have radically different experiences grappling with that reality as empty nesters. It’s tragic in both cases, but not altogether alike.

Edited for clarity to try to better answer the question being asked.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
CHSalzgeber said:
I’m not trying to get too deep into this, as I’m not going to do the paedo- view justice. But as it is written, there is a promise or a covenant, “to you and to your children,” right? That’s what I was aiming at when I mentioned a promise.

My understanding is that a Presbyterian who raises all reprobate children despite “doing everything right” and that a Baptist who raises all reprobate children despite “doing everything right” may have radically different experiences grappling with that reality as empty nesters. It’s tragic in both cases, but not altogether alike.

Edited for clarity to try to better answer the question being asked.
Click to expand...
1. I don't think you understand infant baptism, but not going to press that.
2. Baptist or Presbyterian, I don't think parents should every see children as reprobates. Unbelievers sure. Adult children dying in unbelief, sure. But prodigals should not be seen as reprobates.
 
Unfortunately, there are divergent views of pedobaptism that stray from WCF. Examples are presumed regeneration and assurance that any infant dying in infancy of a believer would go to heaven (heard that from a former Continental Reformed Pastor, forget the denomination).

Instead of trusting the Lord with another person's salvation, and all the unknowns that can go along with it, there are some parents who desperately want to know where their deceased children go and want assurance beyond what Scripture gives. They then latch on to teachings that are not consistent with what they say they believe regarding salvation and start grabbing on to all kinds of loopholes and exceptions.

Regarding infants and assurance, it definitely is not an issue confined to pedobaptists. As an example, I witnessed our first pastor (Baptist - MacArthur protege literally) do a complete turnaround on the issue. Heard him teach for years on no assurance for infants dying in infancy but then when some close friends of his in the church lost their child, he completely changed his position and taught absolute assurance of salvation for the child without any kind of explanation for the change. Not an easy topic to deal with and preach at a memorial service to be sure, but I saw it as breaking principle in light of a highly painful and emotional situation. Perhaps the situation made him rethink his position but when you teach on something dogmatically for years and then do an about face, an explanation from Scripture is certainly needed.
 
TheInquirer said:
Unfortunately, there are divergent views of pedobaptism that stray from WCF. Examples are presumed regeneration and assurance that any infant dying in infancy of a believer would go to heaven (heard that from a former Continental Reformed Pastor, forget the denomination).

Instead of trusting the Lord with another person's salvation, and all the unknowns that can go along with it, there are some parents who desperately want to know where their deceased children go and want assurance beyond what Scripture gives. They then latch on to teachings that are not consistent with what they say they believe regarding salvation and start grabbing on to all kinds of loopholes and exceptions.

Regarding infants and assurance, it definitely is not an issue confined to pedobaptists. As an example, I witnessed our first pastor (Baptist - MacArthur protege literally) do a complete turnaround on the issue. Heard him teach for years on no assurance for infants dying in infancy but then when some close friends of his in the church lost their child, he completely changed his position and taught absolute assurance of salvation for the child without any kind of explanation for the change. Not an easy topic to deal with and preach at a memorial service to be sure, but I saw it as breaking principle in light of a highly painful and emotional situation. Perhaps the situation made him rethink his position but when you teach on something dogmatically for years and then do an about face, an explanation from Scripture is certainly needed.
Click to expand...
https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/80-242/the-salvation-of-babies-who-die-part-1

Just to be clear, Macarthur believes infants dying are saved.
 
The common explanation I've heard is that "sanctification only goes one way."
Of course, I'm sure our Baptist brethren would prefer other explanations.
 
I went from Roman Catholic to baptistic evangelical to Calvinistic Baptist to finally Reformed Baptist. Even though RC paedobaptism is different than the covenantal one I think it still counts.
 
On Friday, I visited B. McCall Barbour's Bookshop in Edinburgh and got talking to the man who works there. (It sells a strange mixture of Chick Tracts and Banner of Truth literature.) He told me that he had been attending a church that recently left the Church of Scotland, but, while he thought it was really good, he stopped going because "they started baptising babies." In response, I said that I am in favour of that practice and recommended a short book for him to read if he wished to know more about the subject. Remarkably, he wrote down the name of the book and said that he would look into the matter further.
 
I think there are a few matters that need to be considered;

To begin, not everyone who claims to be a Reformed Baptist on the internet are actually practicing members in good standing of 1689 confessional churches. Such folks who transition to paedobaptism were not truly in RB circles to begin with. This is important to note as such brethren were never solidly grounded in orthopraxy.

Secondly, when a RB relocates they tend to have to choose between an OPC/ PCA church or a non reformed Baptist one, many choosing the former for obvious reasons.

Finally, given the sheer numbers, ex Catholics turned Christians (SBC, non denom) make up a tremendous amount more of former paedo turned credo than the other way around I would suspect.
 
Contra_Mundum said:
Do you mean this thread (it is IN the paedobaptist answers forum)
Click to expand...
Dear Rev. Bruce,

This is not a response to your posts. I'm just letting you know how much I love your signature. I consider it one of the best I've seen on the PB.

Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
MI, USA

Made both Lord and Christ--Jesus, the Destroyer
Acts 2:36 - 1 Cor. 10:9-10 & 15:22-26 - Hebrews 2:9-15 - 1 John 3:8 - James 4:12
 
beloved7 said:
I think there are a few matters that need to be considered;

To begin, not everyone who claims to be a Reformed Baptist on the internet are actually practicing members in good standing of 1689 confessional churches. Such folks who transition to paedobaptism were not truly in RB circles to begin with. This is important to note as such brethren were never solidly grounded in orthopraxy.
Click to expand...
This is a really good point, and it was the case for me. It seems often Baptists who discover Calvinism jump straight to Presbyterian churches, rather than being part of an actual reformed baptist congregation.
 
beloved7 said:
I think there are a few matters that need to be considered;

To begin, not everyone who claims to be a Reformed Baptist on the internet are actually practicing members in good standing of 1689 confessional churches. Such folks who transition to paedobaptism were not truly in RB circles to begin with. This is important to note as such brethren were never solidly grounded in orthopraxy.

Secondly, when a RB relocates they tend to have to choose between an OPC/ PCA church or a non reformed Baptist one, many choosing the former for obvious reasons.

Finally, given the sheer numbers, ex Catholics turned Christians (SBC, non denom) make up a tremendous amount more of former paedo turned credo than the other way around I would suspect.
Click to expand...
Very good point.
 
Reformed Covenanter said:
On Friday, I visited B. McCall Barbour's Bookshop in Edinburgh and got talking to the man who works there. (It sells a strange mixture of Chick Tracts and Banner of Truth literature.) He told me that he had been attending a church that recently left the Church of Scotland, but, while he thought it was really good, he stopped going because "they started baptising babies." In response, I said that I am in favour of that practice and recommended a short book for him to read if he wished to know more about the subject. Remarkably, he wrote down the name of the book and said that he would look into the matter further.
Click to expand...
What book?
 
To anyone considering the subject of baptism, I reccomend "Baptism: Answers to Common Questions" by Dr. Guy M. Richard (published by Reformation Trust. It wasn't available when I was changing position a few years ago but I think it is the best book on the subject now as it covers most of the ground (in an admittedly popular fashion). I found some books good on aspects of the subject and other books better on some other aspects, but this one is uniformly good in my opinion and at least attempts to cover the bases.

If you're baptist at present he directly addresses common concerns from that side of the argument, and I think he knows the RB positions well. He has a chapter for example of Jeremiah 31.
 
In addition to anyone considering a change I cannot reinforce this enough - make sure you understand your present position accurately before you even consider trying to understand the other side's position.

In my experience many, many baptists cannot articulate why they are baptists, and likewise many paedobaptists are no better. What then happens is that they react against a characature of their 'old' position and adopt a 'new' position. This can have all sorts of detrimental results down the line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top