Mucky Declarations

So, in looking at Presbyterianism vs. Baptist-ism, the most distinguishing difference is the doctrinal thoughts on baptism. Baptists are credobaptist (requiring a statement of faith, ie, "creed") while Presbyterians are padeobaptist (infant baptizing). The root of this entire conversation boils down to "what is baptism," which eventually reduces to "what is the church?" I highly respect (and currently hold to) the Baptist view that intends to induct into membership (read: baptize) only those who have professed faith in Christ. To me, this is a higher view of the church, as it strives to keep the tares from the wheat as much as possible in this life. I believe that it also respects the theme that I see resplendent throughout the NT: that "the church" is not (and never was intended to be) the visible community, but rather those who worship in spirit and in truth. The Baptist method most accurately correlates this "invisible church" (comprised of all believers) with the "visible church" (those who are church members). It is true that a nonbeliever may in fact know all of the right answers, and slip into the ranks of membership of a baptist church. It is also true that many baptist churches are not as thorough at examining prospective members to see if their profession is true. These are indeed issues, but in theory, it is a good system. Presbyterians, on the other hand, regard baptism as more closely to the working of OT circumcision, which baptism is said to replace as the covenant sign. In the OT, all family members belonging to the jewish household, as well as all servants, or alien children born in the camp, were to be circumcized. Circumcision was not a matter of belief, but rather a demarcation of the visible community wherein salvation is normally available. Baptism, in this system, is not a sign of faith, but rather the church's and family's faith in the promises of God, stating that children are blessed to be in a household of believers. For all intents and purposes, it is the same as a credobaptist church's "baby dedication." A baptized child that grows up only to reject the faith is indeed a tragedy, but it is not mocking the sacrifice of Christ (as is often accused by baptists, with their [biblical] presupposition that in baptism, we are "buried with Christ, and raised to walk in newness of life), as baptism is not taken as a presumption that the child is under the blood of Christ, but rather that he is merely a member of the covenant community. Presbyterains also point to scripture as the source of their doctrines. Several instances occur of new believers being baptized "along with their household." Children are never explicitly mentioned, but why else mention the household at all if the head of the family was not, in some way, charged with bringing his into the fold of the community? Paul describes the children of even one believing parent "holy" in 1 Cor. 7:14. It is clear that a special place is given to the families of believers, that they are blessed by the presence of even one believer, and are given a higher responsibility to believe, based on this direct testimony of a child of God in their lives. I believe that this "holiness" granted to families is consistent with the credobaptist position as well. The crux is simply whether these people should be considered a part of the visible community of Christ. Much of the history between Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians is shared. The two documents that creedalize (?) the beliefs of each are strikingly similar, and some would even say that some plagiarism may have happened. Altogether, I feel as though the true church exists in the hearts of believers, and that it should be the goal of the local church to have their congregation look as much like this "invisible" congregation as possible. The only way for such a thing to happen is to resort to a credobaptist model.