Paedo vs Credo: Main point of contention?

[robert brown]

when it comes to Paedo vs Credo baptism, what would you say is the main point of contention that creates the impasse we see? In other words, what's the ONE issue, that if resolved, would end the debate once for all and put everyone on the same side?

[Marv]

The Scriptures teach "credo" and not "paedo."

[Ray Nearhood]

LOL

Marv said:

The Scriptures teach "credo" and not "paedo."

[joanne guarnieri]

Wow, Marv, I kept trying to find more things to say, but I couldn't. Every point I'd want to make has to do with what the scriptures teach.

[Ray Nearhood]

'course, if I'm not mistaken, only in the Vulgate. Not that I disagree, though, because I don't.

Marv said:

The Scriptures teach "credo" and not "paedo."

[Crazyupstart]

Biblical interpretation. Both sides believe the scriptures teach...X & Y therefore Z. Problem is, X & Y are different for the contending parties, therefore Z is different.

The one issue that has ended the debate for me is:

The question: Should Christians be baptized at some point in their lives?

And the answer: Yes.

So what are we arguing over? Young, old? Early in life, later in life? Before conscious profession, after conscious profession? Before true heart regeneration, after true regeneration? Before tongues, after tongues? Before the outward appearance of true regeneration, after the outward appearance of true regeneration? Before we can be sure that we're sure that we're sure that the individual is saved, after we are sure that we are sure that we are sure that he individual is saved? Are we ever sure? Are we ever sure that we are sure? Are we ever sure that we are sure that we are sure?

Baptize? Yes.

Better make it everyday, well, at least once a week to be sure that you're sure.

[Craig Falvo]

Luther did say that every time you wash your face, you should remember your baptism.

Crazyupstart said:

Biblical interpretation. Both sides believe the scriptures teach...X & Y therefore Z. Problem is, X & Y are different for the contending parties, therefore Z is different.

The one issue that has ended the debate for me is:

The question: Should Christians be baptized at some point in their lives?

And the answer: Yes.

So what are we arguing over? Young, old? Early in life, later in life? Before conscious profession, after conscious profession? Before true heart regeneration, after true regeneration? Before tongues, after tongues? Before the outward appearance of true regeneration, after the outward appearance of true regeneration? Before we can be sure that we're sure that we're sure that the individual is saved, after we are sure that we are sure that we are sure that he individual is saved? Are we ever sure? Are we ever sure that we are sure? Are we ever sure that we are sure that we are sure?

Baptize? Yes.

Better make it everyday, well, at least once a week to be sure that you're sure.

[Marv]

Odd as it seems, I wasn't kidding. The question was, what was the ONE issue involved. THAT is the ONE issue involved. One looks in vain for paedobaptism in the Scriptures either by precept or example. Everywhere I can see baptism is something practiced on believers.

For paedobaptism you need a theological construct involving covenants and signs, pairing circumcision with baptism. It's a theological argument, not a biblical one, per se. And about all you get is one passage, Col. 2:11-15, where you get "circumcision" and "baptism" within spittin' distance of each other. This is the best you can do for paedobaptism in the NT, but it is just not good enough. Vs. 12 kind of tips Paul's hand here: having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God.

Ray Nearhood said:

LOL

Marv said:

The Scriptures teach "credo" and not "paedo."

[Ray Nearhood]

I don't find it odd at all. I agree with you that the believer's baptism is the only Biblical practice for baptism, else I might be Presbyterian. But, I am not.

The "LOL" was a laugh in agreement as to the simplicity of the one argument.

Marv said:

Odd as it seems, I wasn't kidding. The question was, what was the ONE issue involved. THAT is the ONE issue involved. One looks in vain for paedobaptism in the Scriptures either by precept or example. Everywhere I can see baptism is something practiced on believers.
For paedobaptism you need a theological construct involving covenants and signs, pairing circumcision with baptism. It's a theological argument, not a biblical one, per se. And about all you get is one passage, Col. 2:11-15, where you get "circumcision" and "baptism" within spittin' distance of each other. This is the best you can do for paedobaptism in the NT, but it is just not good enough. Vs. 12 kind of tips Paul's hand here: having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God.
Ray Nearhood said:

LOL

Marv said:

The Scriptures teach "credo" and not "paedo."

[Tim Felten]

ROFLOL

Crazyupstart said:

Biblical interpretation. Both sides believe the scriptures teach...X & Y therefore Z. Problem is, X & Y are different for the contending parties, therefore Z is different.

The one issue that has ended the debate for me is:

The question: Should Christians be baptized at some point in their lives?

And the answer: Yes.

So what are we arguing over? Young, old? Early in life, later in life? Before conscious profession, after conscious profession? Before true heart regeneration, after true regeneration? Before tongues, after tongues? Before the outward appearance of true regeneration, after the outward appearance of true regeneration? Before we can be sure that we're sure that we're sure that the individual is saved, after we are sure that we are sure that we are sure that he individual is saved? Are we ever sure? Are we ever sure that we are sure? Are we ever sure that we are sure that we are sure?

[Ratatösk]

It may be hard to believe, but people who disagree with you or me might take scripture seriously, too.

A willingness to submit to scripture isn’t a distinctive of any tradition. It’s only when we ask how scripture addresses more specific questions that we begin to distinguish ourselves.

Incidentally, I believe there is a difference in affirming that the bible is the place from which we must start or stop our thinking.

It also amazes me how unaware many Credo proponents are that they are in the same boat with paedobaptists when it comes to relying on ‘theological arguments.’ No where are we told that baptism is a ‘profession of faith.’ Scripture says something else altogether, and in light of the Proselyte baptisms of Judaism that form the actual historical context in which we find the institution of Xian baptism, scripture provides no examples nor explicit command to baptize any second generation believer.

Anyhoo…

It seems to me that there are at least four issues; anyone of which eventually leads to the others, and all of which once placed the church counter to the currently prevailing Western culture.

Each can be asked in different ways:

1. What is the church; did Christ establish a voluntary club or an actual, continuing Polis that competes with the stories, allegiances and values of the other communities of the world; does one place themselves within the body of Christ or does Christ claim an individual as his; how/when is this done…

2. What is baptism; is it God acting or man acting; does man speak or does God speak; does it unite us to Christ, wash away sins, bury us with Christ, put on Christ, save us, forgive sins or is it our way of saying to the world that we have the qualifications that Christ requires for joining his body…

3. Is faith to be defined/limited by its most mature expression; is faith primarily a matter of grasping and being able to express the details of a relationship in propositional terms, or is faith primarily the trust and allegiance of the relationship, itself; is an infant or a mature adult the paradigm of how one enters the kingdom; (keeping in mind that everyone begins as an infant- at least metaphorically) must an infant act on/express a relationship as an adult would before we recognize it as real, or ought we to celebrate all expressions of faith and by recognizing them, strengthen and mature them?

4. Does an infant have an identity as an infant and where does a person's identity come from; who are they and how did they become who they are; are children real persons or potential persons; does a real identity come from a voluntaristic choice, or is it formed by the community into which we are born; does a child of believers belong to Satan or to Christ; ought Xians to teach their children to pray the Lord’s prayer as written or is that a confusion; are Xian parents maturing the identity that they believe their child has through baptism, or are they pretending that the identity the actually child has (as a follower of Satan) isn’t there.

I guess it could be boiled down to ‘is there a place for the weakest and most dependent of persons (as weak and dependent persons) within the body of Christ, or is it only for the mature, strong, developed and independent?'

Each side goes to scripture to answer these questions. It is our answers to those questions that need defending/reflection.

[Marv]

Phil, I've got nothing against theological arguments. It's just that, in my understanding at least, a biblical argument trumps a theological one. BTW, I never even heard the term "Credo" baptism until a few months ago-(went to a lecture on the Westminster Confession of Faith with Sinclair Ferguson)... I take it this is something paedobaptists call the other folks... fun because it rhymes with peadobaptism.

Anyway, it isn't a matter of who takes Scripture serioiusly. Intellectual honesty just demands that we don't have any instructions re baptizing infants and we don't have any examples of same. Yet we have plenty of indications of adults being baptized, and presumably not those who are adverse to the gospel.

The folks I know who adhere to paedobaptism are Bible-loving people, very significantly so. But the plain fact is that even they can't get to sprinkling babies by any very direct route. It requires a construct that is pretty dang convoluted if you ask me--which is fine and all, if it only didn't fly in the face of some of the main and plain of Scripture.

I mean the same folks love to giggle at some of my people's eschatological ideas, and I've got some Bible behind 'em...also a fairly convoluted theol...ogical construct...okay...

But THEY operate on far, far less evidence, data from "the only infallable rule of faith and practice"...I'm being kind to say less...there is nada, zip, niente teaching wetheaded babies in that New Testament thing.
Ratatösk said:

It may be hard to believe, but people who disagree with you or me might take scripture seriously, too.

A willingness to submit to scripture isn’t a distinctive of any tradition. It’s only when we ask how scripture addresses more specific questions that we begin to distinguish ourselves.

Incidentally, I believe there is a difference in affirming that the bible is the place from which we must start or stop our thinking.

It also amazes me how unaware many Credo proponents are that they are in the same boat with paedobaptists when it comes to relying on ‘theological arguments.’ No where are we told that baptism is a ‘profession of faith.’ Scripture says something else altogether, and in light of the Proselyte baptisms of Judaism that form the actual historical context in which we find the institution of Xian baptism, scripture provides no examples nor explicit command to baptize any second generation believer.

Anyhoo…

It seems to me that there are at least four issues; anyone of which eventually leads to the others, and all of which once placed the church counter to the currently prevailing Western culture.

Each can be asked in different ways:

1. What is the church; did Christ establish a voluntary club or an actual, continuing Polis that competes with the stories, allegiances and values of the other communities of the world; does one place themselves within the body of Christ or does Christ claim an individual as his; how/when is this done…

2. What is baptism; is it God acting or man acting; does man speak or does God speak; does it unite us to Christ, wash away sins, bury us with Christ, put on Christ, save us, forgive sins or is it our way of saying to the world that we have the qualifications that Christ requires for joining his body…

3. Is faith to be defined/limited by its most mature expression; is faith primarily a matter of grasping and being able to express the details of a relationship in propositional terms, or is faith primarily the trust and allegiance of the relationship, itself; is an infant or a mature adult the paradigm of how one enters the kingdom; (keeping in mind that everyone begins as an infant- at least metaphorically) must an infant act on/express a relationship as an adult would before we recognize it as real, or ought we to celebrate all expressions of faith and by recognizing them, strengthen and mature them?

4. Does an infant have an identity as an infant and where does a person's identity come from; who are they and how did they become who they are; are children real persons or potential persons; does a real identity come from a voluntaristic choice, or is it formed by the community into which we are born; does a child of believers belong to Satan or to Christ; ought Xians to teach their children to pray the Lord’s prayer as written or is that a confusion; are Xian parents maturing the identity that they believe their child has through baptism, or are they pretending that the identity the actually child has (as a follower of Satan) isn’t there.

I guess it could be boiled down to ‘is there a place for the weakest and most dependent of persons (as weak and dependent persons) within the body of Christ, or is it only for the mature, strong, developed and independent?'

Each side goes to scripture to answer these questions. It is our answers to those questions that need defending/reflection.

[David Zierenberg]

Marv, some would say we do have scriptural example, at least implicitly.

Ac 16:15 When she and the members of her household were baptised, she invited us to her home.
1Co 1:16 (Yes, I also baptised the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptised anyone else.)

It does not say the adult members of the household. There is no indication that children, infants and/or servants were excluded. It just says "household."