| I attended a credo vs paedo baptism debate last Lord's Day evening, and I was very impressed with the rhetorical cunning of Paul Manata, speaker on behalf of all paedos everywhere. Only one thing: He could have used a dash of FV when the subject came up on the of the federal (covenant) headship of baptized infants. He argued rightly that all infants of believers are in covenant with God and therefore should be baptized, but when the question came up as to who was their federal (covenant) head, he dove for WLC 31. Ok, ok, maybe two things: He spoke more logically, technically, and rapidly than the typical credo is used to and thus is likely to have lost many of them at premise 2. I was so not impressed when following the debate, the speaker on behalf of the credo position called me an arminian when I tried to show him that Romans 11:17-22 and 1 Corinthians 10:1-12 (among others) prove that there are non-eternally-elect members of the New Covenant, contrary to his understanding of Jeremiah 31:34. Well, what did that great arminian John Calvin have to say about it? “… any point of difference destroys the force of the comparison, Paul premises, that there is no such dissimilarity between us and the Israelites, as to make our condition different from theirs. Having it, therefore, in view to threaten the Corinthians with the same vengeance as had overtaken them, he begins in this manner — ‘Beware of glorying in any peculiar privilege, as if you were in higher esteem than they were in the sight of God.’ For they were favored with the same benefits as we at this day enjoy; there was a Church of God among them, as there is at this day among us; they had the same sacraments, to be tokens to them of the grace of God; They have felt the judgment of God, and have not been able to escape it. Be afraid, therefore; for the same thing is impending over you. Jude makes use of the same argument in his Epistle. (Jude 1:5.)” “’But many of them...’ We have now the reason why the Apostle has premised these things — that we might not claim for ourselves any dignity or excellence above them, but might walk in humility and fear, for thus only shall we secure, that we have not been favored in vain with the light of truth, and with such an abundance of gracious benefits. “God,” says he, “had chosen them all as his people, but many of them fell from grace. Let us, therefore, take heed, lest the same thing should happen to us, being admonished by so many examples, for God will not suffer that to go unpunished in us, which he punished so severely in them.” ~ Calvin’s Commentary on 1 Corinthians If JC was an arminian, I receive the designation with pride. The most ridiculous and favored argument of credos who are at least sophisticated enough to argue further than, “there is no explicit command to baptize infants” is Jeremiah 31:34. “… all shall know Him” Suppose all the ‘alls’ mean ‘all without exception’ and Jeremiah 31:34 indeed means that only the elect are in the New Covenant. So what? Does this therefore mean that we should restrict baptism only to those who profess faith? How so? We have no more knowledge as to the final destination of a professor of faith than a child graced with Christian parents by his Heavenly Father . What reason is there to restrict baptism to professors of faith only? Listen to the debate. EDIT: I have recently realized that since adults are more capable of deception than children, if we hold to the credo view of Jeremiah 31:34, we should be more apt to baptize children than adults. |
