Featured Baptism: Credo- vs Paedo-

Any time you think "Reformed", think Reformed Roman Catholic.

They were never trying to start a new religion, new sect, etc, they were trying to change the church they loved - ROME.

They got mad at their daddy, the pope, and went prodigal. Vatican II even called them "separated brethren"

So....how do the children view baptism? Just like daddy who taught them


If you don't baptize babies, you certainly aren't Reformed

"fully" Reformed means 85% Roman Catholic

 

Tony, there is big "R" Reformed and then there is small "r" Reformed. The Big "R" would those denominations/churches that embrace full Reformed theology, which includes infant baptism and Presbyterian church polity (among other things too detailed to mention here). Reformed Baptists (like me) would be considered small "r" Reformed. We are not paedobaptists, but credobaptists. We may believe in elder rule but not Presbyterian church polity. As credobaptists we believe in regenerate church membership. Both groups are Monergists but they have real and substantial differences.

 

James----let me start by saying I like ya & I think you feel you have a firm grasp of the truth, so therefore that entitles you to set the world straight. Note, It doesn't.

When I married my lovely wife (who was raised strict Dutch Reformed) in a liberal New Jersey Presbyterian church, I had been a lapsed catholic (but I had an Italian Mother) so I was a born & raised RC & I was that for 35 years but I went to her Presby church because my son needed some religious structure that was provided by the Presbys......All right. Later on I gravitated to orthodoxy & was pretty close to cementing myself to a severe Orthodox Presby Church. That was till I saw some real, and I mean real issues with their balance between Justice & Mercy. My younger brother, a graduate from a Dispy Bible School in Pennsylvania took this as a sign from god to deliver me from those nasty Reformed types to the Fundamentalist Pre Trib Churches which I felt had some issues with mercy as well.

I tell you all this dross cause I want you to know that Ive gone through the ringer with these churches and I don't see any big difference between a Serious Reformed Pastor & Church and a Serious Fundamentalist church & Pastor. They will both weigh in on the judgmental side. Catholics are mostly machines programmed by years of Popery nonsense. That's what I feel anyway... & you know what opinions are like. :laugh:

 

Both groups would agree on the TULIP and salvation, but tend to disagree on issues such as baptism, church government, and even eschatology...

 

Take a look at Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion

Book 4, Chapter 16. Paedobaptism. Its accordance with the institution of Christ, and the nature of the sign.
Divisions of this chapter,
I. Confirmation of the orthodox doctrine of paedobaptism, sec. 1-9.
II. Refutation of the arguments which the Anabaptists urge against paedobaptism, sec. 10-30.
III. Special objections of Servetus refuted, sec. 31, 32.

You can find it online here.

 

Is there really any difference between sprinkling an infant and a 4 year old? I realize I am stepping on toes but most people on this BB should know to wear steel toed shoes by now!

I recall when Criswell announced he would not baptize anyone under 9 years???? of age.

 

:thumbsup::thumbs::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

I totally agree. Baptism is a symbol of our newness of life in Jesus Christ and His death, burial and Resurrection. It comes after salvation by immersion. This is the Scriptural model. There is nothing in the Bible that supports sprinkling infants. An infant knows about as much of the Gospel as my parrot does. If there is a covenant relationship between a parent an child, it does not save a child until he or she knows right from wrong. Only Jesus Christ saves.

 

Give Mr. Calvin a read. I posted a link in a reply to PastorTony about six posts back. Calvin contends baptism is an extension of circumcision in that they are symbols of the covenant. An 8 day old infant doesn't have any say about being circumcised either.

 

The problem though with that viewpoint is that the NT NEVER equates that water baptism functions same way as circumcision did under the Old Covenant, as we now have it as a symbol of the redeemed in actual truth, as believers receive that ordinance, and not as a "promised' one as circumcision did under old one...

 

Who am I to argue against Mr. Calvin.

 

Why you are Mr. WESLEY of course!:smilewinkgrin:

 

I am still interested in what a 4 year old knows about sin against God!

 

If you read Mr. Calvin's piece you'll see that it doesn't matter. A newborn doesn't know anything about the Abrahamic covenant either but that's no reason not to circumcise.

I'm not saying he's right. Just passing on the information as I read it. :thumbsup: