Subscribe
Follow us
Become a fan
Digg it!
Add to Delicious!
Stumble it
In this Ask Doug segment, Pastor Wilson responds to the question:
“Can a Credobaptist and Paedobaptist minister work together? Can a Credobaptist baptize an infant, or a paedobaptist re-baptize an adult baptized as an infant?”
Filed Under
Share this post
10 Comments
“[...] but I’d be happy to find a credobaptist minister, a friend of mine [...]”
So it’s a “matter of conscience” but not ethics, or just not as bad as referring a pregnant women to a friendly Planned Parenthood counselor?
How happy, co-conspirator?
Mr. Bernard,
The conscience is our God given warning device FOR our system of ethics. Is your planned parenthood house of death a reference to paedo or credo in your analogy? The irony is that the abortion issue, of all the issues, is one that both camps stand shoulder to shoulder on. Doug is my pastor, and I’m a covenantal credo-baptist. This isn’t the forum to unfold all that entails, but we have far more similarities than differences. His children are in the covenant, my children are in the covenant. We only differ on the qualifications for membership in the New Testament church. He sees the sign of circumcision as being carried over and modified to baptism, therefore applied to infants; and I see the N.T. changing the qualifications for membership, now that the type and shadow is here, and requires understanding and belief as a prerequisite to baptism. He baptized two of our children upon profession of faith, and Lord willing, will baptize our youngest when the time is right. My point is we have fellowship, due in large part, to that fact that our consciences are clear before each other and the Lord.
Since I was asking Doug, my reference is to his referral to a credo for another baptism. My conscience wouldn’t give such an endorsement or referral to a friend. And if I did such, I certainly wouldn’t be happy about it. Another analogy: a modern rabbi who won’t flip on a light switch on Saturday, but is happy if someone else does.
“[...] my children are in the covenant. We only differ on the qualifications for membership in the New Testament church. [...] will baptize our youngest when the time is right.”
The time is right, and I hope the elders strongly admonish you.
Your youngest isn’t a church member, but is a covenant member? So you think covenant membership is different than church membership?
Yes, I do. The word “covenant” needs to be defined, as there are more than one. There is the theological designation of “Covenant of Grace” which has salvific import referring to the invisible church, and there are the Biblical covenants, Abrahamic, Davidic, and New, which one’s children are born into. Both in the O.T. and N.T., one is born into that covenant. In the O.T., the nation of Israel was the covenant people, meant to be a light to the nations. As such, they were favorably disposed to God, born into the covenant, and were brought into the visible church early. They were saved by grace through faith in the coming Messiah, but the economy was designed by God so the nation of Israel, and everybody that touched that nation, was the visible church. In the N.T., with the type and shadow becoming substance and reality, many things regarding the visible church changed. The worship day changed, the sacrificial system changed, the feasts and new moons changed, the divinely appointed calendar changed, and more pertinent to our discussion, the qualifications for membership in the visible church changed. We now know what was “hidden and is now revealed”. I believe the N.T. is clear, now that the fullness of time has come, who are to be the recipients of baptism.
However, having said all of that, I have no trouble maintaining fellowship with my paedo baptist brethren, because we are both covenantal, and see great and glorious continuity, and one singular plan of redemption of the bride of Christ, the invisible church. Our points of disagreement are regarding the visible church. I hope this helps.
If one wants Communion — the repeating/continuing sacrament rite of the new covenant — they must go to church. We all agree Baptism is a prerequisite and the participant must not have been barred/excommunicated via church discipline. But I fail to see how one can continue in covenant without regularly assembling in a church with whatever children the Lord gives and have all listen to the Word and partake of the covenant food of the body together. With children sitting between parents, their “passover meal” is not merely watching elements pass over and watching the rest of the family eating them. You bring your youngest into the one body and eat all of your food even when they want to do likewise? So you proclaim they’re in need of the Word but not of Communion and you won’t share your drink in the Lord’s name based on what passage? I’m glad my covenant understanding didn’t come from being your youngest.
I’m not quite sure when the conversation shifted from baptist to communion. Of course, I have what I believe are Biblical answers for that as well, but in light of the abrupt shift in thought, I am compelled to wonder if any further dialogue would be edifying for us or Doug’s readers. I’ll just let what has already been said stand as our stated positions and let the readers judge for themselves. Thanks for the dialogue, brother.
The continuing atrocity is barring covenant children from the Table. We both agree baptism is a requirement. I think it is _the_ requirement (assuming the child can chew bread).
Back to the question that was first posed:
“Can a Credobaptist and Paedobaptist minister work together?”
Yes- we are a CREC congregation in Northern Indiana with about 100 members- and it’s around a 75% to 25% credo to paedo ratio, with 1 credo elder (me) and 2 paedo elders. This coming February 12th will be, Lord willing, our 5th anniversary as a constituted congregation, and so far this hasn’t been the slam-bang issue that everyone expected it to be.
“Can a Credobaptist baptize an infant, or a paedobaptist re-baptize an adult baptized as an infant?”
Time for some nuance (or inconsistencies- or both)- my own practical compromise is that I ‘hold the basin” if a baby is to be baptized, and their practical compromise is that they don’t demand (or pressure) a credo family into baptizing their babies.
I’ll admit- when we DO baptize a baby I’m thinking and praying (kind of like Doug did in the past when serving grape juice for communion): ” I know this ain’t quite right, Lord, but please sanctify it for the sake of greater unity!”
And my fellow undershepherds know it as well…
We’ve not yet had the experience of someone coming to Trinity and desiring a re-baptism who is coming from either a believing paedo background (PCA, OPC, etc…) or an unbelieving one (Roman Catholic, PCUSA, etc…), so I can’t speak to that specifically.
@Clint- sounds like we’re arguing from the same exact premises- good stuff…
Tim,
Amen, brother. I believe the issue of convenantalism is greater than the issue of the mode of baptism or of the qualifications for membership in the N.T. church. Great post!
Trackbacks