tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3217409626503082324.post1873654964063873712..comments2023-10-31T04:03:33.075-07:00Comments on Theology Thoughts: Paedo vs Credo Baptism: Evaluating the DebatePhilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11630461838295942309noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3217409626503082324.post-14023404040644960692016-01-16T18:02:40.098-08:002016-01-16T18:02:40.098-08:00I've held the LBCF for many years now, and I t...I've held the LBCF for many years now, and I think it's very good. But... without Jeremiah 31 in play or dispensationalism lending a hand I don't see there's any hope.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11630461838295942309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3217409626503082324.post-34650057738398804882016-01-13T11:35:27.421-08:002016-01-13T11:35:27.421-08:00Phil:
I could have told you this - "Baptist...Phil: <br /><br />I could have told you this - "Baptists and Presbyterians have a radically different view of what baptism actually is," and perhaps saved you some reading. :) Though, to be more specific, the "radically different view" between the two is not really over baptism - both confess it to be a "sign" (see WCF 28.1 and LBC 29.1) - but over the new covenant of which it's "a sign." That's the actual question, what's the new covenant? (Presbyterians have a harder time explaining what exactly is new about it). Since the new covenant is spiritual - not genealogical, as was the old - it's sign is only properly administered to those who may be legitimately considered members of the new covenant community, i.e., "who do actually profess repentance..." (LBC, 29.2).<br /><br />To be fair, there's no problem with the oft-repeated Baptist concern: “Infant baptism is a positively harmful doctrine since infants who are baptized will think they’re saved" - I think you're missing the concern over the de facto state of many Presbyterians, not the consistency of their doctrine. Of course, there's no inconsistency with Presbyterian theological understanding of baptism, but what's the actual impact on people's lives? Many think they're saved because they were sprinkled as babies - it's the (however, unintended) inevitable fruit of a bad doctrine. It's similar, for example, to our concerns over Roman Catholicism, which does believe salvation is by faith through grace - and recoils at any suggestion that teach it's "by works." But what's the practical effect of their sacramental understanding of salvation by grace? Roman Catholics think they're saved by their works. <br /><br />Paedobaptism is undeniably is a later accretion to the church - no evidence of it's practice earlier than later 2nd or 3rd centuries (look at baptismal archaeology - they're pools for immersing adults!). Of course, it became enforced practice after Christianizing Rome, a century later. There is no exegetical argument for it, which is what Luther confronted during the Reformation when opponents argued that if he carried his argument against Roman tradition to it's logical conclusion, he'd have to throw-out infant baptism, too - which would've sent European society into chaos. So, he invented the "household" argument from Acts and infant baptism has been built on that house of cards in Reformed traditions, ever since. And when you push Presbyterian historians and theologians, eventually they will admit this, "it's tradition" and it's later appearance is a sign of the church "maturing." Now, I believe in doctrinal development, but the church got baptism wrong for it's first couple hundred years?! C'mon.<br /><br />So, the real key to this debate is understanding that infant baptism can only be deduced from the Bible if you assume it to be the inevitable conclusion before you actually study the Bible - it's a tradition searching for a biblical text. Sadly, people still think they've discovered some and then de-form into Presbyterians. I, however, feel sure of better things in your case, brother (Heb 6:9) - and trust the "most biblical" award goes to 1689 LBC, 29. :)Stevehttp://www.affectedbytruth.com/noreply@blogger.com