paedobaptist

Sam Renihan:

When studying historical theology and working on understanding the doctrinal position of a historical figure or group, it is important to consult the opponents of that view. Opponents may misunderstand or misrepresent the view you are studying, but such sources serve as helpful sounding boards for filling in gaps, seeing a view by way of contrast, and confirming that your interpretation of their opponents was sound. John Brinsley, a non-conformist paedobaptist minister, will serve as a helpful reflection of the Particular Baptists’ federal thought.

In this passage, Brinsley makes the standard argument for the justification of infant baptism, namely that because we are in the same covenant as that of Abraham, children ought to be included now as they always have been.
John Brinsley, The doctrine and practice of paedobaptisme, 19-20

 

He then describes the covenantal counter-argument of the Particular Baptists (everywhere labeled Anabaptists, though falsely), that the old and new covenants are distinct covenants (implying that the Abrahamic covenant is included within the old covenant) and thus children are not included in the new as they were in the old.

Read the rest…

sorrowfulandrejoicing replied to your post “tandeminn and I have successfully brought another friend to our study…”

Yeah, you’re sucking me in too, jsyk… long-distance female nerd party! (But this is kind of also round two, because I already went through all of this before I got baptized, but not nearly with this kind of depth, oh my!)

Hahaha, welcome to the club, Shelbs! xD

Well, same. I went through an entire packet about baptism before I got baptized in 2011, and that same year, baptism was still also a big issue on Tumblr. Back then, Andrew Dixon was the person to explain paedobaptism, so I was starting to become familiar with it even back then.

The thing is, I can’t see someone coming from a dispensationalist background ever truly understanding paedobaptism because the paedobaptist view, as I’m understanding it, has its basis on the covenants and the continuity of the Abrahamic into the New. It’s now that I’ve learned more about covenant theology and everything that I’m able to understand where paedobaptists are coming from.

I’m not sure where I stand right now, but it’s definitely quite the party. Haha.

christ-elle asked:

Sorry if this is a resend (internet issues): But you just said baptism signifies our "forgiveness of sins by His death (Mark 1:4; Rev. 1:5), having our hearts regenerated by the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5; Eph. 5:26); being adopted by God into His family (Gal. 3:26-27), and resurrection to eternal life in Heaven (1 Cor. 15:29; Rom 6:5)"??? How does infant baptism signify that???? I think that that's where I typically get stuck when it comes to understanding how paedobaptists understand baptism.

In the first question, I was addressing the benefits of baptism as a believer. Those benefits and signs pertain to the believer specifically. However, children of believers ought also be baptized because the covenantal promise given to believers is also given to their children through them (Acts 2:39). The people of Israel were God’s Old Testament church. Their children were also given the promise of the covenant which was signified by circumcision (Gen 17:12). Likewise, in the New Testament, the children of believers are given the promise of the covenant which is signified by baptism. It must be noted that in order to receive the full blessings of the covenant, the child must eventually profess true faith in Christ.

The covenant of circumcision is not the covenant of grace

Having pinpointed the heart of the controversy between Baptists and Paedobaptists with regard to covenant theology (namely the relationship between the Abrahamic covenant and the covenant of grace), Isaac Backus points out some of the difficulties and inconsistencies that he sees in a Paedobaptist position, especially the way that the language of “Administrations” does not match Scripture. Where scripture asserts two covenants, many Paedobaptists assert two administrations of one covenant.

From Isaac Backus

Click the images for a larger version.


from Particular Voices http://bit.ly/TXKJ32 http://bit.ly/TXKIMF

bearyourcross replied to your link “The Biblical Basis for Infant Baptism”

Being presby rocks!

I hate this website. *leaves*

foundworthy replied to your post “a-soul-restored replied to your post “sorrowfulandrejoicing replied to…”

It just took place of circumcision and is seen as a sign of the covenant isn’t it? When I meant simple I meant the idea of it but what’s not simple is all the eisegesis that goes on to make it biblical. Okay that part about eisegesis was trolling

But I still don’t agree with it but I’m indifferent if people wanna do it

Haha. Oh, okay, yeah, I meant fully understanding the arguments and how they came to that conclusion and everything. xD

theoldlight replied to your post: “theoldlight replied to your post “theoldlight replied to your post…”

the unbreakability of the new covenant. Hebrews 8. Children who apostatize later break the covenant. Presbyterians can get inconsistent when they state that baptism is a sign of ingrafting into Christ. Are children ingrafted at birth?

OKAY, SO MY FRIENDS AND I ARE DISCUSSING THIS QUESTION: If paedobaptists understand adult baptism the same way credobaptists do, are they giving baptism a second meaning when it comes to baptizing infants? Because how can it be one thing for adult believers and then different for their children? (I lied. You may argue for paedobaptism now.)

As for what you actually said, does infant baptism bring the child into covenant with God or is there a distinction between that and simply entering the covenant community?????

Or are we totally misunderstanding paedobaptistic views here????

theoldlight replied to your post “theoldlight replied to your post “girlwhowasonfire replied to your…”

I can argue both ways

Okay. You may strongly argue for credobaptism. I’ve got enough paedobaptism going on, and I’m more concerned right now with how credobaptists (especially those who still hold to the rest of Reformed theology) would deal with the arguments set forth by paedobaptists.

universeboots replied to your post: “universeboots replied to your post “girlwhowasonfire replied to your…”

Well it was actually a full year of studying it on-and-off (the last few months much more intensely) before that final Bible study, so I hope you’re able to reach a conclusion more quickly!

Oh, okay! Well, we’ll take whatever you send me. :) And I’m really not rushing it. I’ve got so many things I’m working through right now (and a lot of them are related, so….), and I really want to search it out and try to understand the different viewpoints as well as I can, including the history of the doctrine of baptism going back to the Fathers and everything, before trying to say: “This is where I stand.” 

As much as I like the Reformation and the Reformers and those who came after and all, there’s a whole lot more to church history and understanding how the church understood Scriptural teachings before them too, so I do want to go beyond just trying to understand the Reformed view of it. :)