If you are in need of a solid, basic web site for your business, church, or organization, check out my web design services at 
Subscribe
A Sincere Question(s) for Paedo’s
Posted by Brian Thornton on September 17, 2007
For those unfamiliar with the terminology, by the use of Paedo’s, I am referring to those who hold to the practice of baptizing infants…those who believe that the children of believing parents should be baptized. For the sake of balance, Credo’s would be referring to those who practice the baptizing of only those who profess faith in Christ. They do not believe anyone should be baptized who does not express faith.
Here is my question, and it is a sincere one.
Under the Old Covenant, a father and his male children would be circumcised as a sign of the covenant, but the whole family would be considered under and a part of that covenant community. When an alien (an outsider, a foreigner) expressed a desire to join the covenant community of Israel, he and his male children would be circumcised as an outward sign that the whole family was now a part of that covenant community.
Under the New Covenant, Paedo-Baptists believe that when a man expresses faith in Christ and is saved, not only is he to be baptized, but his children are to be baptized as well as an outward sign that they are all under and a part of the covenant community of the body of Christ. The New Testament gives us examples of what it calls “households” being baptized.
My question is this: If you, as a Paedo-Baptist, believe that there were children being referenced in the NT accounts of households being baptized, then do you also believe that there were older members of those households also being baptized but who did not express faith, such as the wife of the household?
The reason I asked that is this: Do you, as a Paedo-Baptist, believe that when an adult male head-of-household gets saved, his unbelieving female spouse along with his unbelieving male and female children should also be baptized as a sign that they are now under and a part of the covenant community of the body of Christ?
If you do not hold that an unbelieving female spouse should be baptized, why not? In your view, does not “household” mean the whole household, regardless of whether or not those individuals have faith or not? If you believe that the whole household is now a part of the covenant community of the body of Christ, why would you exclude the spouse from that outward sign, even though they may not yet express faith? And what about other dependent family members, regardless of their age? What about unbelieving parents of the newly professing male Christian who are also a part of his household? Under your view, shouldn’t they also be baptized as a sign of their now being a part of that covenant community? What about children who are no longer infants, but are already of an age where they can make a decision for themselves?
Finally, if you do not believe that the unbelieving female spouse of the believing husband should be baptized, then why are unbelieving female children baptized?
I am totally sincere when I ask these questions, and I would truly hope to see some honest answers to these questions concerning Paedo-baptism.
Thanks.
Robert N. Landrum said
In instances where people are unequally yoked there is usually a reluctance on the part of the unbelieving party to be baptized. In fact, I know many instances where a believer is lucky just to get their unbelieving spouse to come to church (maybe on Easter or weddings, etc. but that is it). How can we expect them to be baptized? They are usually hostile to the notion. They no longer fall into the description of infants that would be raisd in the things of God and held responsible in that sense. Also a good understanding of 1Cor:7:14 wil shed some light on your question.
Brian Thornton said
So, are you saying that, since the unbelieving spouse would basically be baptized against her will, then there is no need to even try (even though she should – being a part of her husband’s household), and she is therefore not to be considered a part of the covenant community? That seems to go against your own reference to 1 Cor. 7:14. Isn’t the unbelieving spouse (in your view) to be considered part of the covenant community BECAUSE of his/her believing spouse?
Secondly, is it not true that baptizing an unbelieving child is the same as baptizing an unbelieving adult…when both examples are done against the person’s will and apart from any faith in them? In fact, would it not be even MORE against the child’s will to be baptized, since they (depending on their age) can’t say no (and wouldn’t really understand what was happening to them anyway), whereas the adult would have to give consent for the baptism?
I am not trying to appear goofy or argumentative with this…just attempting to gain some understanding on how the Paedo view of baptism is consistent with Scripture.
I guess the most direct way to ask my question is this:
When a man gets saved and baptized, WHO within his household should also get baptized?
ps. I would still like to know why Paedo’s baptize female children.
Thanks for the interaction!
Robert N. Landrum said
For an adult it ought to be self-evident that they are to repent and be baptized. Having not been baptized as an infant they are now confronted with the fact of the gospel and must submit to God or not in this respect. Re-read the Corinthian passage, there is a sense where the unbeliever united to the believer partakes of the covenant blessing of a believing home. Both the unbeliever and the children are sanctiified. As for females they are under the covenant as much as males. They are to be baptized too. It is a low view of covenant theology that allows for the jump of excluding the children of believers from God’s blessings. If someone absolutly refuses to benifit from God’s blessings then what can you do? You cannot force someone to believe. Is this unfair to children? No more unfair than your father Adam representing you under the covenant of works and plunging you into sin! And me too. Do a systematic study of covenant theology and then ask the question of which side is true to scripture. The baptist fumble the ball at this point.
Brian Thornton said
It is a low view of covenant theology that allows for the jump of excluding the children of believers from God’s blessings.
What “blessings” from God are baptized children receiving that my unbaptized children are not receiving? What do Paedo’s believe the baptism conveys to the child that the unbaptized child does not get conveyed to him/her?
I know that a baptized child of a believer is considered to be a Christian and a member of the visible church…but why are they prohibited from voting and excluded from the Lord’s Table?
It is not a low view of covenant theology that allows for the Credo-Baptist position, but rather a high view of the clear examples (and commands) of what is found in Scripture.
Do a systematic study of covenant theology and then ask the question of which side is true to scripture. The baptist fumble the ball at this point.
Do a systematic study of ONLY baptism, and tell me what conclusion one would draw as to the mode practiced in the New Testament, according to Scripture. The Paedo’s view of the meaning of systematic seems to be that there has to be a one-to-one correlation between the two. Since you mentioned Scripture, show me one example of an infant or unprofessing child being baptized in the NT.
The New Covenant sign of baptism is specifically for the true Israel (those circumcised of the heart), and is not a covenant of affiliation or ethnic origin. Yet Paedo’s seem to make it no different than the old covenant sign that was applied to the nation as a whole.
Thanks.
D. Stanfield said
Because the comments were closed on the Baptism discussion, I happened to scroll down and find this one. Don’t worry, I promise not to hijack this thread
! I am not going to engage in the credo vs. paedo debate here as that would be inappropriate, even though I am extremely disappointed that it ended so abruptly.
I want to mention that our denomination practices household baptism. If a wife were not hostile, (obviously you would not drag someone down the aisle, hold her down and baptize her) she could be baptized. The same for older children.
This was said:
“I know that a baptized child of a believer is considered to be a Christian and a member of the visible church…but why are they prohibited from voting and excluded from the Lord’s Table?”
We practice “heads of household” voting. The husband’s vote represents the family. Very little voting is done in our church. We are ruled by the elders, who were elected by the people.
Baptism is a passive ordianance whereas the Lord’s Supper is active. One needs to be able to examine himself before he/she partakes of the Lord’s Supper (I Cor. 11: 25-29). When a child desires to partake of the supper, the elders examine them to make sure they have a proper understanding of what it means to examine themselves. If they demonstrate to the elders that they do, then they are admitted to the Lord’s table.
D. Stanfield said
Brian,
I must admit when I checked your blog today that I was excited to see your latest entry. However, when I went to comment, I see that the comment section is closed. Why? I thought you were interested in having open dialogue with paedobaptists in order to better understand what we believe. Your assessments misrepresented us, and yet we are not allowed to respond. What happened to “iron sharpening iron?”
dss
Brian Thornton said
D,
I have requested clear, succinct, and direct answers to the questions I posed under the other thread in comment #25 to Glenn and, as I stated in my closing comment on that thread, I will gladly post them (answers can be emailed to me). But they must be answered in a non-derogatory way (without counter-questions or opposing points), but instead answered in a simple and straightforward manner.
The questions are pointed and clear…and I would like some return answers that are also pointed and clear, but without an attempt to second-guess why the questions are being asked, or to put down the Credo view.
If I could get some clear, short and straightforward answers, it might go a long way in helping people like me and others who may read them understand what Paedo’s really believe and why.
Thanks
ps. I have no intention of misrepresenting anyone, which is why I wish I could get some honest answers to my questions about infant-baptism…and which I have agreed to post with no rebuttal.