As many of you know, I'm a baby-dunking Pressie, having moved from being an asacramental Sydney Anglican some years ago. One of the joys of being Reformed is having a well thought-out view of Baptism, as well as understanding the reasons behind pedobaptism.
However, Fide-O has just blogged about a recent debate between pedo and credo baptists. What caught my eye is this statement:
I'm not ready to give-up being a pedobaptist just yet, but this is a very compelling argument for credo-baptism.
However, Fide-O has just blogged about a recent debate between pedo and credo baptists. What caught my eye is this statement:
Over all it was a victory for the credo-baptist position, not because credos are smarter than paedos, but because of the clarity of the New Testament scriptures on the constitution of the New Covenant i.e. consisting of believers only. Of note was Gene’s exegesis of Hebrews 8; proving that the New Covenant is entirely salvific, consisting only of true believers.Slightly arrogant to claim victory in a "contest" that doesn't involve quantifiable outcomes but qualitative ones - nevertheless I decided to turn to Hebrews 8 and the relevant bit says:
But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.And then, to underscore the point, the writer to the Hebrews then quotes from Jeremiah:
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.The argument therefore is that those under the new covenant will actually be regenerate.
I'm not ready to give-up being a pedobaptist just yet, but this is a very compelling argument for credo-baptism.
2 comments:
Hi, I've read your blog a few times, and I also listened to the debate.
The problem with the argument is that it is not an argument against paedobaptism, but rather an argument against baptism as a whole. Neither the Baptist nor the Pressie can truly tell who is regenerated, and so both sides will be knowingly Baptising unregenerates.
The argument itself is good in an eschatological sense, but in no way proves that children of regenerate Christians are not included in that covenant.
Did you listen to the debate? Paul had some very good and well-structured arguments.
Dear Brother,
.
We are in agreement that the sinner must believe and repent to be saved. Here is our difference: I believe that salvation is a supernatural act of God...ALL of it...the believing, the repenting, the ability to possess faith. I don't believe that a sinner, who the Bible states is dead in his trespasses and sins, has any capability in helping "close the deal" of his salvation by making a mature, informed decision to believe and repent. Salvation is not just the attainment of eternal life. Salvation is faith, belief, and repentance, and eternal life...all in one package. You can't divide it up and say that God does this part and the sinner does these parts. Sinners cannot help God in their salvation. Salvation is a MONERGISTIC, divine, supernatural act of God.
And since God is doing the saving, God can give faith, belief, repentance and eternal life to ALL that he has appointed to eternal life as is stated in Acts 13:48 "and those who were appointed by God to believe believed".
And if we are going to accept the Baptist insistence that since infant baptism is not explicitly mentioned in the Bible it cannot be a valid baptism, the same must be applied to teenagers. There is no mention of any teenagers being baptized in the Bible, In fact if we are going to apply the Baptist criteria to Acts chapter 2, only men can be baptized as Peter only addressed men.
“Men of Israel, hear these words..."
Post a Comment