150 years ago there were Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, Episcopalians, Brethren, and “others.” They got along sometimes. They fought sometimes. They usually stayed to themselves. Specifically the Landmark Baptists were convinced that they alone were the keepers of the one true way. Then along came Modernism. Good Baptists were fighting bad Baptists. Good Presbyterians were fighting bad Presbyterians. Good Methodists were fighting bad Methodists. I’m not sure about Episcopalians…but for arguments sake lets say they had a Modernist controversy too. All of a sudden the good Methodists realized, “Hey we have more in common with these Presbyterians than with our fellow Methodists.” So they met up at conferences and founded inter-denominational schools. Suddenly believers from various church traditions began realizing that the body is bigger than their tradition. Does that sound anything like what the young reformed movement is going through today? Well, it’s not. Not at all. There is a fundamental difference between that kind of inter-denominationalism and that of today.
We are evangelical. We are reformed. We join together for the gospel. Anyone who exalts the monergistic sovereign majesty of God’s grace in salvation is our brother, our co-labor, our friend. Our heroes are Piper, Sproul, Mahaney, Dever, Mohler, Ferguson, Ryken, and Duncan. The fraternity of these men is a microcosm of the fraternity we feel for each other. And that is what separates us from the inter-denominational movement of the early 20th century. They went out from their churches, got together for conferences, and then went back to their own churches. We, on the other hand, are happy to have a PCA guy lead the worship in our SBC church that doesn’t use the name “Baptist” in its title.
With this new kind of inter-denominationalism comes an issue unique to us. What do we do about baptism and church membership? If I am in a leadership position in a paedobaptist church, do I insist that new members baptize their babies? If I am in a leadership position in a Baptist church, do I insist that a godly couple who was raised PCA get re-baptized before I allow them to join my church? As many of you know, Grudem, in his new Systematic Theology has moved away from a more lenient position to one that advises baptismal uniformity within a local congregation. And if you get mail from Desiring God you probably have read Piper’s response. Piper, once again, kicked my tail by pointing out that excluding believers from fellowship in a church is not a light matter at all. The debate will continue and must continue. This is not something we can ignore. This is OUR issue.
This really doesn’t have anything to do with the issue itself, but I can’t help but compare Piper’s gentle critique and Grudem’s gracious response with the recent Driscoll hoopla going on elsewhere, not to mention most of the discussions around the web. They are an example of what Christian grace looks like in the midst of an important theological disagreement.
I also have to say that Matias and I wrestled over this in planning the churchplant, and came to the conclusion that we will have to require credo-baptism for membership. Piper’s critique does raise one’s sympathies for the person being excluded from membership, but Grudem’s response is more detailed and reasoned. Check it out.
G,
I’m glad you and Matias were wrestling with it. I don’t know yet where I would come down, I just know I have work to do.
BTW, you mentioned Grudem’s response to Piper….where might I find that?
Does this mean we can be friends again? HA!
By the way, you can find Grudems response here: theologica.blogspot.com.
Hey, here’s a thought. If the only truly valid, biblical baptism is a post-regeneration baptism, what does that do with those people who believe that their genuine conversion was not when they were 4? I mean, how many people do you know who were “saved” as a kid and baptized and then realized later in life that they didn’t really come to saving faith in Christ until after their baptism event? Are they also rejected from membership in the Baptist church? Not in most Baptist churches. I guess ideally, we baptists (and yes I still include myself in that category…for now) should require them to be rebaptized or else exclude them just like someone who was baptized as an infant. What are your thoughts?
Bob,
College Church in Wheaton, R. Kent Hughes’ former church, practices both paedo and credo-baptism. I can see how such a view, given the right leadership, could work in a church . . . but I imagine that it would render the symbol meaningless. However, I also tend to think that allowing peado-baptists membership to one’s church does not render a church’s conviction in credo-baptism meaningless just as allowing an Arminian to become a member would not cheapen one’s Calvinism.
Will,
Isn’t that what usually happens in Baptist churches…that if you get saved later in life even though you professed to be saved and were baptized earlier, that they re-baptize you?
Baylor,
Lets play with that. What would you make you more uncomfortable: letting an Arminian join or letting a peadobaptist join? Previous generations would have been stricter on the baptism than the soteriology. But we define ourselves by our soteriology. Probably none of the churches we come from require you to chose a soteriology camp, but I bet most of them have “baptized by immersion” as a requirement for membership. If we had to choose, wouldn’t all of us switch that around though…not to say that we have to choose. So if we allow both to join (heeding Piper’s warnings) do we tell them when they join that we will try to change their views?
Let’s play a little more. Who would you be more upset at…the paedobaptist you allow to join who then tries to indoctrinate all of your sheep with paedobaptist teaching or the Arminian who spreads his heresy? Or do you tell them when they join that they are allowed to join but not spread their teaching?
No. I’ve rarely seen this happen. When the person who comes to Christ asks to be baptized then it happens, but there are tons of people who professed Christ when younger, were baptized but never exhibited a regenerate heart until later in life. I think the problem is not with baptism as it is with the Church’s understanding of the gospel. Hence, I would agree with you to a certain degree about Arminianism being a more troubling problem than baptism.
Bob,
I do think that I would be more concerned with someone spreading Arminianism in my Church than paedo-baptism . . . but that might have more to do with the fact that Arminianism, unlike paedo-baptism, is a wanton expression of original sin. In all seriousness, though I would welcome both a paedo-baptist and an arminian into my church membership, I do think Arminianism has a kind of “incindiary” nature which the issue of paedo-baptism doesn’t have.
On the other hand, I think our generation ought to handle the issue of baptism carefully — I speak to myself here — because I think that if we treat baptism too casually we may divest a significant Christian symbol of any meaning at all, if this hasn’t happened already. Baptism is a great Christian symbol and in a Postmodern age, may communicate much more about the unity and ecumenicity of the body than any confession.
Hi
I found your blog via Anwoth (Will). As I read through both Piper’s first essay, and the whole business back in 2005 in Bethlehem, and Grudem’s response the one thing at the heart of this whole issue is not so much Baptism (or certainly not that alone) but membership.
Frankly as I read Grudem’s response what shocked me was that according to him most baptist churches offer almost all privileges including the Lord’s Supper to non-members, by that I assume he means folks who aren’t members anywhere. I think this is just plain wrong. I’m a Reformed Baptist and our practice has been to offer the ordinance only to members in Biblically ordered church and not under discipline etc. and that may include paedobaptists. To my mind Grudem is disorderly in this regard. That said I think Bethlehem are as well….but I have a feeling this may be what is driving Piper. I think he is coming to a stronger, and my opinion more Biblical view, and this causes him to see the seriousness of not allowing the paedobaptist into membership as he would de facto then be prohibiting the means of grace to be used by that person.
Overall my opinion at present is that in the general situation in the States (and elsewhere) where there are faithful biblically ordered churches in both baptism camps it would be better where possible to counsel convinced paedobaptists to join paedobaptist churches. Now in the future where maybe many churches have went into apostacy and the true people of God need to “stick together” things may be different.
JP
Bob,
Right on point with this post. I like many other apparently am wrestling with the practicality of the baptism issue. I am aware of Baylor’s thought (ala Bruno) that dual practice can render the symbol meaningless. That being said I think in a church setting I would still preach and push for creed and dunk. I would not rebaptisze those previously immersed citing the alternative as a possible position I could differ on. If under my teaching a paedo baptized believer desired to be dunked I would allow it. This way I am not denigrating another biblically possible position or causing an undue schism, but still holding my own. Right now ironically, I am attending an EPC church though (hope they won’t make me get sprinkled).
JP,
Thanks for the insight about offering communion to non-members. I’ve always been in churches where we do that and never thought twice about it. But you’re absolutely right…we are offering a fellowship meal to free-loaders. You do know, however, that every Baptist cringed when he read your “means of grace” statement. We’ve all been taught it’s purely a symbolic act with exclusively recollective purposes….i.e. neither baptism or communion are means of grace. The floor is all yours if you would care to enlighten us
Bob