...about things that interest me and are (hopefully) edifying!

But our God is in the heavens;
He does whatever He pleases. Psalm 115:3

Soli Deo Gloria!!

Monday, May 18, 2009

Peado (infant) vs. Credo (confessional) Baptism

Edited: I am moving toward peadobaptism, so I may argue against this.

Why we can dedicate, but not baptize babies:

This is a high level thesis - I'll add some "meat to the bones" later.

In the OLD covenant, the outward signs of membership into God's earthly kingdom (Israel) was birth (or adoption) and circumcision.

In the NEW covenant, the outward signs of membership into God's earthly and SPIRITUAL kingdom are confession of RE-birth and water baptism. (John 3:2-8, Romans 10:8-10, Romans 6:4, Colossians 2:12,1 Peter 3:21)

Babies cannot confess, so we do not baptize them. 

Thus, I have also nailed why I am a credo-baptist - hallelujah!

(With all due respect to my peado-baptist brethren.)

Soli Deo Gloria!


Puritan Lad said...

Hey Panta,

A couple of holes here:

What was the basis for adoption in the Old Covenant? Was it not the stranger's confession and a promise to keep God's laws? (Exodus 12;48-49)? Weren't all his males to be circumcised, regardless of their ability to profess their faith?

In the New Covenant, why was the entire family of the Philippian Jailor baptized because "he had believed in God" (Acts 16:33-34)? (The ESV translates this passage correctly.)

From one of your peado-baptist brethren :)

JD Longmire said...

1. certainly, in the OLD covenant, similar but different in the NEW covenant

2. Acts 16:33-34 (English Standard Version)

"33And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. 34Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God."

He and his entire family confessed their belief and were baptized - I don't see the problem...

Puritan Lad said...

1.) There is certainly a difference, but can you support the idea that New Covenant Circumcsion (Baptism) is only for those who are old enough to profess their faith, unlike Old Covenant Circumcision? If this were the case, would the New Testament not explicitly say so?

2.) Where do you see that "his entire family confessed their belief"? While that may or may not have been the case, it is clear from this passage that the basis for their (plural) baptism was "he (singular) believed". This household principle of baptism can be seen throughout the NT.

BTW: I would highly recommend the debate between James White and William Shishko on this subject, regardless of your position.

See http://vintage.aomin.org/BaptismDeb.html

JD Longmire said...

1. It does - Romans 10:8-10 - confession of the new birth is primary - baptism follows confession - this is normative for the New Covenant, just as circumcision followed birth in the Old.

2. they rejoiced that he participated in their shared belief - why would they be baptized unless they believed?

Puritan Lad said...

1.) Romans 10:8-10 does not mention baptism, and particularly the idea that "baptism follows confession". Is this always the case? That's what we disagree on. We see no evidence of confession in the Acts passage. The idea that baptism always follows confession is not taught in the Scriptures.

Let me ask you. Are there any children in the New Covenant? Your original post would suggest no, since they haven't confessed.

2.) "why would they be baptized unless they believed?"This very question assumes that your first point is true. It is a good question though. Why would they? The credo-baptist has to assume that they all believed, but once again, the scriptures don't teach that. Perhaps they were holy covenant children of a believer, and thus were baptized.

In both cases, the credo-baptist position is assumed a priori, not taught in these passages.

JD Longmire said...

1. It does mention the outward and normative *requirement* for salvation in the New Covenant (NC) - confession - water baptism being the NC ordained outward sign of the inward spiritual baptism.

As for your 2nd question - if they die in childhood yes ("Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these") - otherwise, they will live to either confess...or not.

2. The passage teaches that the household rejoiced that the head of the household believed - why would they rejoice unless they believed, too? The PB has no appeal, other than PB presupposition.

...about things that interest me and are (hopefully) edifying!

But our God is in the heavens;
He does whatever He pleases. Psalm 115:3

Soli Deo Gloria!!

Post Archives by Week