The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Are you Reformed?

Actually, that is a misunderstanding. I do not want any credo vs paedo DEBATES. They always end up bad.

However, there is nothing wrong in asking questions about either view, wanting clarification, etc. That is to be encouraged. The more information one can gather, the better the understanding of something. There are a number of articles on The Highway regarding baptism: Calvinism and the Reformed Faith > Ecclesiology > Sacraments (heading).

Agreed completely!

-an honest Baptist

Robin and Pilgrim, thanks for your responses. I really appreciate it.

On the practice of baptism - I only see professing believers being baptized in the Bible. I do not see wherein any infants were baptized. Rather they were dedicated unto the Lord, which was more a commitment about the parents than it was about the infant. So... I'm still quite stumped in this credo vs paedo issue, but yes, perhaps that's for another post. AHAHAHAHA

A RIGHTLY USED SACRAMENT



''Too many times, in churches subscribing to Reformed doctrine, the sacrament of baptism is taken too lightly. Too many parents are guilty of the attitude of thinking their task is done when they have their child baptised. Two many churches give themselves a pious pat on the back when another child is baptised and feel that their task is completed. The sacrament of baptism is used in the wrong way so many times.

It is good for us once in a while to review our beliefs about a particular doctrine. In regard to baptism, we need to be reminded again and again that a person may be saved without it and a person may be lost with it! We do not believe in the necessity of baptism for salvation. We do believe it is a sin to neglect it. Here we need to review what our Confession states regarding it: "...it be a great sin to condemn or neglect this ordinance." Again, "The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost..."....
Vol. 6, No. 11 (November 1967)
Leonard T. Van Horn,

1. Another thread would be nice.

2. Why wouldn't there be infants baptized when entire households were baptized? Why would infants NOT be baptized with the sign of the new covenant when for 3000 +/- years children were included in the covenant and received the sign of the old covenant (males)? Where is the command or teaching that children are no longer recognized as part of the family of God in some sense when that is exactly what the Jews would have expected.

3. Remember, the biblical teaching is that infants are NOT to be baptized because they are regenerated in baptism...... nor are they to be baptized because they are presumed to be elect... nor are they to be baptized because they are presumed regenerate... nor are they to be baptized because they are born with the 'seed of faith'.... They are to be baptized with the sign of the covenant because they, being children of one or more believing parents, are no longer "unclean" but "holy" (1Cor 7:14), i.e., set apart from the children of this world and given the privilege of the means of grace whereby they can be saved by God's sovereign mercy and grace. Baptism is NOT "an outward sign of an inward reality (salvation)" by nature. It is NOT a sign of the recipients salvation. It is a sign of God's salvation in Christ (the Gospel) and a seal of that salvation to those who actually possess a Spirit-wrought faith which has united them to Christ.

Pilgrim
Thanks for providing the Paedo-Baptist view of the issue. Of course as a Credo-Baptist, I would disagree with some of that. But I am still glad you provided it.

Tom