Friday, December 15, 2006

children bobbing like carrots and potatoes

My friend at Byron of Isaiah 8:16 as recently posted about question and a mini-response to a poetry blogger's thoughts about paedobaptism and credobaptism. I have some thoughts of my own, but not enough time to go into it in depth or to plug-in in all the Scripture. Maybe Byron will drop by and settle the whole sprinkle the baby or dunk a believer controversy...




To argue for paedobaptism and assert that more Scriptural that credobaptism would seem to defy proper theology. To say that it is indeed appropriate to submerge infants because one can not prove salvation of an adult member is the issue because some have “crept in unawares” is fool hearty at lest as it says that we should ascend the helm of judgment. A lowered standard of Church Membership is not justification for heterodoxy, if so homosexuality would be an appropriate remedy to a bad marriage. What other left over Roman Catholic traditions that have not been fully reformed would one like to add to Scripture? This doctrine would seem to be equivalent to the Mormon heresy of baptizing for the dead.

Baptismal water should only ripple for a professing believer and not be a soup broth of children bobbing like carrots and potatoes around the pot roast of believers. It is the "get them all wet" attitude that would seem to be inappropriate as it belittles and contradicts the Doctrines of God. It would seem that God’s sovereign election would have been superseded by man’s fancy and His willed election is now trivial as we have baptized all into the kingdom. That is those God foreordained and men chose. Truely a universal(ist) error. This alone creates a problem of those that have not “crept in unawares,” but of those who were purposely brought in by the unaware. Additionally by dipping the innocent we create a false hope and security. How is this superior? Non-believers are now under the influence of the of the paedobaptistic waters with the idea that they too will inherit the Kingdom of God. Now the false Christ claimers, the unregenerate are the face of Christ’s Church

7 comments:

Steve Bezner said...

I read a quote by Stanley Hauerwas when he mentioned that he learned from his Jewish friend (Peter Ochs, I believe) that any religion that doesn't tell you "what to do with your genitals and pots and pans isn't a very good religion."

I think I agree.

He concludes that our bodies belong to Christ and therefore the church...I think I agree with that, too.

Steve Bezner said...

I read a quote by Stanley Hauerwas when he mentioned that he learned from his Jewish friend (Peter Ochs, I believe) that any religion that doesn't tell you "what to do with your genitals and pots and pans isn't a very good religion."

I think I agree.

He concludes that our bodies belong to Christ and therefore the church...I think I agree with that, too.

Steve Bezner said...

I read a quote by Stanley Hauerwas when he mentioned that he learned from his Jewish friend (Peter Ochs, I believe) that any religion that doesn't tell you "what to do with your genitals and pots and pans isn't a very good religion."

I think I agree.

He concludes that our bodies belong to Christ and therefore the church...I think I agree with that, too.

Steve Bezner said...

I read a quote by Stanley Hauerwas when he mentioned that he learned from his Jewish friend (Peter Ochs, I believe) that any religion that doesn't tell you "what to do with your genitals and pots and pans isn't a very good religion."

I think I agree.

He concludes that our bodies belong to Christ and therefore the church...I think I agree with that, too.

Chris said...

i see you really like this quote steve. it must really be something you think about over and over and over.... Hmmm. :^)

Byroniac said...

Blogger is so slow sometimes (probably due to popularity!) that he probably kept waiting on his comment to post (and it did each time) but it might have timed out on him each time he tried.

Byroniac said...

Well, I'm certainly not going to settle the credobaptist vs. paedobaptist debate. The best I've managed so far is to muddy the waters a little. I do have some problems with paedobaptism as a credobaptist, such as the following:

1. (OK, help me out here Chris) the Greek Baptizo was transliterated instead of translated, as it means "immerse" or "dip" from what I've read.

2. Linking OT circumcision (males only) to NT baptism (males and females). Lydia was baptized (Acts 16:14-15) and in other instances households were baptized, which would include females (the NT pattern as best I understand it is believers-only).

3. Related to my comment above, there are NO explicitly paedobaptist references in the NT that I know of. All explicit references are Credobaptist in nature (I believe deliberately, in order to establish the apostolic pattern at first).

4. (Calvinist disclaimer) Paedobaptism by its very nature is designed to show membership in a covenant and not necessarily election unto eternal salvation. My understanding of this is probably simplistic, but I cannot see what benefits the infant possibly acquires outside of earthly covenantal membership benefits of the church, if God is truly not obligated to grant salvation to the baptized infant by the act of baptism. Even if Calvinistic election is not true, paedobaptism effectively shows nothing positive in the spiritual realm if the individual does not come to belief and salvation in Christ that I can see (it's simply a case of quite literally "going through the motions" and "joining the club").

5. The strongest arguments for paedobaptism generally come from two areas: historical church tradition (see #3 above) and Scriptural inference (if paedobaptism is true, it is a puzzling difficulty to explain the lack of a single explict paedobaptism in the NT as one would reasonably expect... however, this point is softened somewhat by the paedobaptist focus on the many references to household baptism in the NT).

Paedobaptism and Credobaptism are both positions worthy of respect and study. However, I believe both sides would agree that the two are mutually exclusive: they both cannot be right. In my opinion, that honor falls to Credobaptism alone. However, this is not a fellowship issue among Christian brethren, or at least should not be.