I'm playing games with the muskies, and losing at them all. Turns out they love to eat walleyes, bluegills, and bullheads when they are on the stringer next to the canoe, but they do not like to eat bullheads or suckers when they are on a hook on a musky rod in the middle of the river. Oh well.
Here's a potentially controversial question. What do you think scripture says about infant vs. believers baptism? Use Spurgeon/Gill and Sproul/Berkhof for their exposition of scripture, but please don't rely too heavily on arguments that are not scriptural. I'd love to hear some good arguments here. I'd also like to hear some advice about potentially being a paedo/credo married couple. Something besides "don't have kids" would be helpful. Thanks guys and gals, have at it!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Well after about two years of deliberation I must contend for the paedo side. I wouldn't use either Gill or Spurgeon for the credo arguments. The best credobaptist I have ever read is Nehemiah Coxe, he wrote a great book called, "Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ." He's an actual Reformed Baptist (helped pen the Baptist Confession of Faith of 16-something or another). He's not like the sloppy Reformed baptists of our day (Mohler, Piper, Dever).
As for a sound argument now, I'm withholding. The thing we must understand about baptism is that, first, it is not an easy or light topic. It's not as easy as saying "Oh Jesus told his disciples to baptize people who repent." The consequences and implications of this debate are catrastophically BIG. Secondly, the issue, far more than being who we should baptize, seems to center on, "How do we treat children of believers in Church?"
As to what you should do in a credo/paedo marriage. Hate to say, and it sounds harsh, but at the end of the day you are the leader and your conviction stands (just be sure it's a biblical one).
Scripture says nothing about infant baptism - just that whole families were being baptized. Scripture also doesn't tell us exactly how or who to commune with in the Lord's Supper, either. Keep asking: you'll find someone to share or argue with as long as you want. Give it a rest! I'm still making the baptismal gown for infants and you can use it or not when the time comes.
MOM
I can't resist, and maybe someone will catch this:
My mom is not a friend of the Sproul's, and is not defending paedo-communion, i promise. Why would anyone do that???
There are two passages in scripture that I feel have implications for baptisim because they deal with defining God's covenant children. They are Galatians 4:21-31 and Romans 9:1-8. I would love any thoughts on them even though this isn't my blog.....yet
“There are two passages in scripture that I feel have implications for baptisim because they deal with defining God's covenant children. They are Galatians 4:21-31 and Romans 9:1-8. I would love any thoughts on them even though this isn't my blog.....yet”
Joanna,
Good thoughts! First, with Galatians, what is Paul doing in Galatians? He is reprimanding the Church for their belief of faith + works. He is showing that we are justified by faith alone and dare we say, sanctified by faith alone. In chapter four he is reminding the people that they are no longer under a law of works but a law of faith. He is distinguishing between those who are the seed of the woman and the seed of Satan. He is showing forth that the sinful unbelievers, the seed of Satan (Haggar) are worshippers at Sinai, they are not free from the demands of the law and by the demands of the law they will be judged—for the law brings just retribution against all lawbreakers (Hebrews 2:3). He is contrasting this with the seed of the woman (Sarah) and this seed are the true worshippers, who worship not at Sinai but at Mt. Zion, the heavenly Jerusalem. The worship in Jerusalem is free, free from the bondage of the law, for Christ has set us free from the law. God’s true covenant people (elect) are the promised seed of the woman (Genesis 3:15) who live by faith, not by works.
Second Romans, what is Paul doing in Romans? He is showing why none should have confidence in the flesh. It is not the physical descendants of Abraham who are the chosen people, it not ethnic Israel (for not all of Israel belongs to Israel) but it is those who by faith inherit the promises. He is here defining the true covenant people (elect) of God those who have faith, like Abraham (c.f. Romans 4). Simply being a physical descendent of Abraham from the line of Isaac is not enough, one must grow into the promise that was given to them, and this is by faith.
When we say that infants should be baptized we are NOT aligning them with the elect, but rather with the covenant people of God. We do so in faith that if that child is elect he will grow into the promises of his baptism, the promise being identification with Christ. Much like the sign of circumcision was given to Abraham to show the righteousness he attained by faith and was to be given to all in his household. That circumcision meant nothing for Ishmael but it did for Isaac. For Isaac grew into the promise of his circumcision, identification with Christ.
Andy,
I believe you already know my position on this...I might present my case, but don't believe it would help much, since I am no Reformer, nor am I even a covenant theologian. However, in my research on this, I did find an article written by a Covenant, Reformed, previously paedo-baptist writer...perhaps it would speak to you better than I could in defense of credo-baptism (even though I will admit I agree more with his conclusion than with his process of arriving at it). Here's the link, if you're interested:
http://www.founders.org/library/malone1/string.html
Hope all's well in muskie land...my neighbor saw a five-foot long paddlefish the other day that had been run over by a speedboat. Too bad their season isn't till March!
Post a Comment