We all know how divisive the “baptism issue” is between credo-baptist and paedo-baptist. So in the spirit of Christian unity I want to propose the following thoughts and see if we can find common ground.
Both paedo’s and credo’s agree that some New Covenant practices are commanded and some are inferred. We disagree on what is commanded and what is inferred. But my desire is focus on what do we both agree is commanded and what do we both agree is inferred. Lets find that common ground.
First lets find common negative ground:
- Both paedo’s and credo’s agree that there is no command in the Scriptures to baptize infants.
- Both paedo’s and credo’s agree that there is no command in the Scriptures that female should partake of the Lord’s Supper.
Second lets find common positive ground:
- Both paedo’s and credo’s agree that there are commands in the Scriptures for professing believers to be baptized.
- Both peado’s and credo’s agree that there is a clear inference in Scripture that female disciples should partake of the Lord’s Supper.
So here we have clear Biblical common ground on which both paedo’s and credo’s agree:
- Professing believers are to be baptized.
- All disciples should partake of the Lord’s Supper, both male and female.
If my proposal is true… then so far we are all credo-baptist.
So, why don’ you paedo’s just quit being so divisive and join us Baptist? 
[Remember this is not a debate about commands vs inferences. This is an attempt to find what is the common ground inspite of the unending debates.]
Tweet
Jason Robertson is a husband and a father and a pastor. He is dedicated to leading and equipping his the Church with God’s word and biblical theology for life ministry, using a combination of pastoral, church planting and evangelism experience. He holds a Master of Divinity from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He is experienced in church planting, evangelism, missions, and the training of pastors and Bible teachers.
Jason has been preaching the gospel since 1985, serving the first ten years of ministry as a Southern Baptist itinerant evangelist out of Milldale Baptist Church in Zachary, LA which ordained him in 1993. He has preached in hundreds of churches in over 30 States and 4 countries. He planted churches in Siberia, Russia in the summers of 1993 and 1994. He founded Murrieta Valley Church in California, which he planted in cooperation with the SBC NAMB in 2001. He also teaches ministry students at California Baptist University.
You can hear his sermons and read his manuscripts on sermonaudio.com. Just follow the link to "sermons" at the top of this page.
hmmmm, tiny bit unfair. I think a more accurate piece of common ground would be “both agree that whole households were baptised when it is not clear whether the individuals were converted”
David,
How can you say “both agree” on the statement you made?
I’ve frequently noted that hymn-singers and exclusive psalm-singers both agree that the Psalms should be sung… our disagreement is whether other songs should be sung. How about we apply your logic here?
Jason, obviously we Paedobaptists do not join Anti-paedobaptist churches because of the points wherein we disagree. We might as well ask why Anti-paedobaptists left Paedobaptist churches in the seventeenth centuries over their “divisive” insistence upon exclusive credobaptism.
But you’ve ignored my question. If we agree on the singing of Psalms, and only disagree on the singing of uninspired compositions; then following your logic, shouldn’t hymn-singers quit being divisive, and join with churches practicing exclusive psalmody?
Maybe I can share a point that I think both the credo and paedo baptists confuse horribly thus they both agree to be incorrect and that is why the paedo is unable to teach the credo correct theology? The fact that both sides confuse the definition of “men” in MOST (not all) places in the Bible.
Sean, Oh, my bad, I see what you were trying to say. Good point.
You know, there are times when I think it would be good if we could have a corporate worship service where all the Reformed could worship is complete agreement at least on the liturgy of that particular corporate worship service. In such an attempt, I would not mind singing just the Psalms if that would be something everyone could agree on. Hopefully we could agree that the Bible does not restrict us instrumentally. What do you think?
So are we not to teach and admonish one another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs?
Was Jesus wrong to sing a hymn?
Oh, yeah, maybe the disciples sang a hymn and then JESUS left, because it was wrong for the disciples to do so.
As with the regulative types over here in the Restoration movement, you’re setting up an impossible and unbiblical standard.
Unless you can show me where synagogues are mentioned in the OT.
Actually, being in the Covenanter “tradition,” I would argue that the Bible restricts us instrumentally — as also maintained by all Reformed, Presbyterian and Baptist churches, up until about the nineteenth century…. And Alexander Campbell’s father, Thomas, was originally a minister among the Anti-Burgher Seceder Presbyterians in Ireland; kind of our distant half-cousins. The “Restorationist” Campbellites got it from us, not the other way around.
And show me one commentator — just one — who thinks that the hymn that Christ and the apostles sang was a composition outside the Psalter.
http://www.xanga.com/Kaalvenist/609163233/item.html
http://www.xanga.com/Kaalvenist/609916527/item.html
Once again. Synagogues in the OT. Show me.
And then show me the where the regulative principle appears in scripture.
Jason,
I also find your comment about paedo’s being “divisive” a bit unfair. I find most “paedo” churches allow “credo’s” to their Lord’s Supper while the opposite is just about never the case. We “paedo’s” have no problem with the “credo” position, only when it becomes exclusive. So the “credo” position is already a common ground. It would just be nice if our “paedo” position wouldn’t be a stumbling block for sharing the One bread and wine.
Jim, a NZ calvinist
Jason,
YES we would agree that women are not to teach in church services! That’s just one spot where when it says men it means men and where it says women it means women, but notice that it gives both which indicates that it isn’t speaking to mankind in general.
David,
Psalm 74:8: “They said in their hearts, Let us destroy them together: they have burned up all the synagogues of God in the land.”
Additionally, see the following link, from Richard Bacon’s doctoral thesis, regarding the synagogue:
http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/synagogue.htm
And it seems as though you didn’t read my paper too carefully. Footnote 1 lists several texts designed to evidence the Scriptural support for the regulative principle; and footnote 2 referenced three different works dealing with the topic, two of which had hyperlinks provided.
“See especially Leviticus 10:1-3; Deuteronomy 12:28-32; Matthew 15:1-9; Colossians 2:18-23.”
“Because of the limits of space, I will not here attempt an exhaustive defense of this principle. For further study, see James Bannerman, The Church of Christ: A Treatise on the Nature, Powers, Ordinances, Discipline and Government of the Christian Church (1869; rpt. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1974), 1:335-375 [Ed.–available at http://www.naphtali.com/bannerman1.htm; Michael S. Bushell, The Songs of Zion: A Contemporary Case for Exclusive Psalmody, 3d ed. (Pittsburgh: Crown and Covenant, 1999) pp. 107-153; G. I. Williamson, “The Regulative Principle of Worship: A paper presented at the 2001 International Conference of Reformed Churches” (available at http://www.reformedprescambridge.com/articles/ICRC_RPW_Final.pdf).”
Should I presume, since you didn’t address any points that I raised in my response to you, that you agree with my response, so far as it goes? That is, that it is wrong to falsely impute such opinions solely to the Campbellites, without likewise condemning all of your Reformed or Baptist forefathers; and that when Christ and His apostles “hymned” (Greek, humnesantes), in Matthew 26:30 and Mark 14:26, they sang from the Psalter?
Jim said, “I also find your comment about paedo’s being “divisive” a bit unfair.” It was meant to be… thus the little smiley face. Lighten up.
hi Jason, you ask
“How can you say “both agree” on the statement you made?”
what I mean is that there are a number of cases where whole households are baptised, prompted by the conversion of the head of the household.
I’m not saying at all that it means anything either way, just that it does provide something of a interesting case. Surely we can agree that the spiritual status of those in that household is not given to us by the text?
David, I am not trying to be difficult, but please give further explanation.
I am looking for common ground that paedo’s and credo’s agree upon with no difficulty — so that we may come together for the gospel.
And I do believe with all my heart that it would be best if we could come together more often than not in these days. And I am not fond of sweeping our differences under the proverbial rug, but I do think that it would be to our benefit to find that common ground.
I look forward to our church hosting such meetings in the not-so-distant future. I truly believe that Reformed theology is having a “revival” of sorts. And even though we need to continue to study our differences and both learn from each other, I think we must capitalize on our agreements and together expand the kingdom for God’s glory by the power of the Gospel.
both sides confuse the definition of “men” in MOST (not all) places in the Bible.
So Luvmom would you like to post and enlighten us on this great universal hermeneutical error?
Thank you, kaalvenist, for all the time, effort, and study you’ve put into your position. I have not put in so much time, effort, and study into refuting the regulative principle. I will bow out of the debate.
BTW, I (although I go to a Restoration Movement church) am not a Restorationist. I grew up Mennonite (You can drown me later
.
Dave, don’t feel bad. One thing I have discovered is a lot of those that jump on the regulative principal bandwagon are kind of like the Emergents in the fact that figuring out what “regulative principal” practically means is like nailing jello to the wall.
Talk to 10 of them and you will get 10 different answers on how it practically plays out in a worship service.
In fact if you take just the definition of the regulative principal alone “…the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imagnations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture I would probably say I agree with it.
However, since talking with most reformed people I quite saying I followed the regulative principal, because depending on who you talk to they see it as meaning different things.
Scott, the regulative principle (not “principal”) simply says that we are to worship God only according to His own appointment, and not according to our own innovations. The differences to which you refer come up in how different people with differing interpretations apply the regulative principle, or claim Scriptural warrant for a practice. For example, both Baptists and Presbyterians claim that their practice with regard to baptism is Scriptural, and therefore falls under the regulative principle. It really is no different than the claims of some Papists, that if you ask 10 Protestants (who believe in sola scriptura) a question on a particular point of doctrine, you could hypothetically get 10 different responses. Are Protestants therefore like Emergents?
However, David appears to take issue not only with a supposedly “stricter” application of the regulative principle, but even with the principle itself — putting him outside of Reformed confessionalism, both by his own confession, and by our own confessions (WCF 21.1; WLC 109; WSC 51; BC 32; HC 96; 2LBCF 22.1, etc. etc.).