In the past, I’ve explored the baptism debate on my blog. A friend of mine, Nathan Pitchford, has 4 excellent articles covering almost all sides of the debate. He started out defending Baptism from a Reformed, Covenantal perspective, but went on to retract his position and affirm a paedobaptistic view. I summarized that view as clearly as possible in an attempt to hone in on the real areas of dispute.
Many a Baptist would roll his eyes at my attempts to understand the other side. What’s the point? I’m sure that would have been my view, back when I was a dyed-in-the-wool strict fundamentalist. Of course our view is right, its historical (think Trail of Blood, here)!
Even after coming to leave strict fundamentalism and embrace Calvinism, I still had much skepticism over any non-Baptist view. So I wasn’t prepared for the dramatic results of entering the debate. I quickly learned that the Reformed paedobaptistic view has a lot of Biblical support. This is apparent when you understand the view from their perspective. I also learned that much of my “unshakable” arguments were actually irrelevant. Paedobaptists affirm the need for adult converts to be baptized, the question surrounds what to do with the children of believers. Pointing out NT examples of adult conversions does nothing to address the debate.
Through the whole exchange I gained an appreciation and respect for Bible-believing, thoughtful paedobaptist brothers. And I was prepared all the more to agree with my pastor, John Piper’s contention that baptism should not be an issue to divide Christ’s church over. It should be a big deal to refuse someone membership into the local church. Church isn’t about being on the same team or membership in a club — its about recognition of membership in the Body of Christ. My friend Nathan has some strong arguments that an even more dramatic unity should be pursued, than that for which John Piper was calling for. And I do agree that believers in today’s specialized world take for granted the full array of choices for the Western church-shopper.
Piper advocated a compromise of sorts. Elders would need to affirm an explicitly Baptist confession of faith, but believers who conscientiously held to a Bible-based understanding that paedobaptism is valid, would be allowed into membership, and only after having submitted to a meeting with an elder who would try to convince them of the Baptist view. In this way, a Baptist church could affirm the salvation of fellow believers who differed over this point of what is a valid baptism. And a similar position was held by none other than John Bunyan, one of the most famous historic Baptists.
The proposal was rejected by our church, at least at this time. There is hope of its being revived and accepted in the future, perhaps. What I found interesting at the time, was reading Wayne Grudem in his Systematic Theology propose something very similar to what our church was considering. He also pointed to the Evangelical Free Church which has a similar compromise in place at a denominational level.
I am writing about all of this because Grudem recently revised his section on the Baptism question with regard to this issue, effectively taking back his previous proposal. Justin Taylor posted the reworded section on his blog recently. Today, John Piper responded with a rebuttal to Grudem’s reversal.
I think the issue is worth considering, and if you haven’t explored the issue you should. Baptists particularly have been extremely divisive on this issue and have probably been guilty of shameful ill-will toward fellow believers. But of course historically, the Baptists have been maligned and worse in years gone by!
If you are interested in understanding the paedobaptist position, you should really read Nathan’s articles. The comments are a virtual debate that for the most part stays very charitable, and extremely insightful. Also, I recently read an 11 part series on the Reformed view of Baptism which specifically interacts with the Baptist position by Drake Shelton of Post Tenebras Lux. His articles are actually a quick read, and the first few provide an excellent case for sprinkling/pouring as the Biblical understanding of baptizo. If you are rolling your eyes again, you better check them out — they really are quite convincing!
If you’re wondering, I am still a Baptist. But I view the issue as much less definitive, and have planned to do some serious reading on this issue in the future. For the sake of growing in your appreciation of other believers in Christ, I would urge you to consider the matter. We may not see eye-to-eye on some of the issues this brings up, and that’s okay! But I encourage you to study and perhaps enter a discussion in the comments below.
With that in mind, you might be interested in reading the Mark Dever’s thoughts on the matter (accessible here), at the conclusion of an address establishing John Bunyan’s open membership views.
UPDATE: I have a question: How far removed is the open membership question from the open communion question? The New Hampshire Baptist Confession of 1833 affirmed: “Christian Baptism is the immersion in water of a believer… that it is prerequisite to the privileges of a Church relation; and to the Lord’s Supper…” Is not the historic acceptance of open communion among Baptists not an historic support for an open membership view?
UPDATE #2: Grudem has responded to Piper’s rebuttal. (You may also be interested in the comments here on Justin Taylor’s blog).
Grrr. Matt Sims & company over at Post Tenebras Lux need to employ the new blogger feature: labels! That would make linking to some of their post series, easier! So here are all 11 links to Drake Shelton’s Baptism series:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
UPDATE: I have a question: How far removed is the open membership question from the open communion question? The New Hampshire Baptist Confession of 1833 affirmed: “Christian Baptism is the immersion in water of a believer… that it is prerequisite to the privileges of a Church relation; and to the Lord’s Supper…†Is not the historic acceptance of open communion among Baptists not an historic support for an open membership view?
Bob,
In the shower, immediately after posting, I realized someone was going to mention John Bunyan. I meant to come back and delete my question, but you beat me to it! 🙂
However, I’m not sure it is that simple. For one, many prominent Baptists who do not embrace open membership do allow Presbyterian ministers to preach in their pulpits (both today and in the past). Secondly, I’m not sure John Bunyan is the best example, as Mark Dever has discussed elsewhere.
Even allowing for the (anomalous) Bunyan example, is it not the case that the majority of Baptists and Presbyterians have historically shown love across denominational lines, rather than suppressing the issue for the sake of intra-church unity?
The problems Grudem points to are real, as are the examples of parents in Presbyterian churches who have been threatened with church discipline if they don’t baptize their infants. (Though I’m told that such decisions are made by individual Presbyterian churches, and that their denominations don’t mandate this policy.)
Hope you are doing well. No loss of love or admiration,
Alex
Having personally run the full gamut of churches with varying “correct” modes of baptism, I thought I’d add my personal experience (nightmare) over this issue. I was infant baptized in the episcopal church (though not raised as episcopal or Christian), became a Christian as a freshman in college- got adult baptized in a Church of Christ 2 years later…. left the Church of Christ after discovering that they explained that it was necessary for my salvation (they also told me I had received the Holy Spirit at my baptism- which doesn’t jive well with the radical transformation that had already taken place for the 2 years prior since my conversion!)….
….got married and attended a Grace Brethren church for 2 years. Was now being told that to become a member I needed to be rebaptized “correctly” by triple immersion, since these folks believe this is the strict teaching from Matt. 28:19-20. My wife and I refused rebaptism on the grounds that it symbolized something that occurs only once in a Christian’s life. So we felt we had no choice but to leave since we couldn’t be actual members (painful process- felt like divorce)…
…finally, we are now actual members of a Presbyterian church (PCA), and have slowly come to embrace the teachings on baptism (and infant baptism) taught there.
That’s my story, and I’m sticking with it.
Thanks, Alex. It’s okay to disagree 🙂 Thoughts on the open communion angle??
Steve,
I appreciate your candor. I’m surprised you are entering the discussion, AGAIN! Glad you are sticking with it though. I do respect your position.
Blessings, brother,
Bob
If you are interested, PastorBlog has a poll at the end of this post, where you can vote on your position regarding the debate.
Open membership sounds like the ideal to me. And it would lend credibility to those who say views on “non-essentials” (albeit very important) like baptism shouldn’t divide brothers in Christ.
In my opinion, the pedobaptist view is the best of both worlds, because, as you already know, we, like Baptists, affirm the baptism of adults (or shouldn’t that be, everyone older than an infant?), but, unlike Baptists, we include the infant children of believers, too. We even affirm, like Baptists, the validity of immersion as a mode. Pedobaptism incompasses everything without all the onlyisms inherent in Baptist tradition.
I recognize that historically pedo’s were hard on credo’s (can you say, “understatement”?), but that doesn’t mean credo’s need to respond in kind by such an exclusionary stance, now that we all agree, I think, on “separation of church and state”.
I like Bob. He’s so open-minded. Resistance is futile–you will be assimilated. I also like what Bill Bennet said about open-mindedness (although it’s probably not original to him): keep an open mind long enough to learn the truth and then close it!
What I’ve written above is what I’ve become close-minded about.
You’re right, John. Credo’s shouldn’t be so exclusionary against paedos. Often a bad mischaracterization results, and we end up claiming only Baptists are really saved.
And as far as open-mindedness, I think it’s next to charity and stands as a virtue. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t hold to our own opinions firmly, as you would agree.
Thanks for dropping by!
This is not an easy subject to tackle, and considering that there are implications beyond the ‘mode of baptism’ itself (church membership, fellowship, cooperation, and separation being others), it would behoove us– especially Baptists– to be able to consider the arguments of paedobaptism (although I personally reject it as being an extra-biblical practice). Thanks for the many links to articles, Bob. I will hopefully have the chance to read them all soon.
One interesting ‘monkey wrench’ in the debate is how one’s views on Covenant theology affects one’s views on baptism. Baptists who are also Covenantalists (Reformed Baptists come to mind here) probably have the greatest struggle, and I think this is where Bob is. I think I would understand the sometimes conflicting views that Covenant theology might present to the practice of NT baptism, especially to a Reformed Baptist. I wonder if this angle has been explored somewhere within the links to the posts that Bob provided?
Hi Bob,
It’s not so much that I’m re-entering the discussion with the goal of rethinking my views. I just saw the topic and it immediately reminded me of this hard personal journey over the baptismal modes. I will add that it took several years of membership in the Presbyterian church to fully swallow the “red pill” of infant baptism. But if you hang out with covenant/reformed folks long enough you tend to become sympathetic to the covenant system of theology with all its practical implications.
I also appreciated that despite our initial disagreement with the PCA/Westminster position on infant baptism, they gladly embraced us into full membership. I appreciate that they allow elbow room for such debatable matters- at least in terms of church membership.
Steve,
I appreciate your candidness, it adds to our discussions here.
Larry,
You are right on the covenantal issue. Dispensationalists often ignore parallels between the old and new testament communities of faith. Sure there are significant differences–improvements for us on this side of the cross, but there is a great amount of unity. Ignoring that makes it harder to understand the paedo argument.
Baptism was not invented with no precursors at all. One point I feel that Baptists, particularly dispensaitionalists, miss about baptism is the significance of WATER. Baptism at its root signifies the washing away of our sin (Acts 22:16) — it signifies the fact that Christ cleanses believers.
Grasping that point, the parallels with the ceremonial washings and cleansing rituals in the old testament worship become clear. Against the backdrop of cleansing various utensils and even people cermonially with water, baptism is introduced as a ritual depicting our personal cleansing from sin effected by Jesus Christ.
And once you see that connection, the thought of sprinkling as a concept makes more sense.
I agree that there is much to consider with this whole issue. And I don’t necessarily look down at those who aim to continue Baptist tradition and safeguard the membership of the church. But still, I think Vern Poythress’ articles (linked in my latest post on the issue) bring up some important issues that relate to the concept of safeguarding the church.
Anyways, as always, I appreciate the charitable interaction, Larry.
[taking a big sigh]
I don’t think that a ‘dispensationalist’ would have an issue with regard to the mode or method of baptism. It’s simply irrelevant since the dispensationalist (like myself) doesn’t have a horse in the race, so to speak. There’s a considerable discontinuity between the church and the OT theocratic temple system (although all believe and have faith in God). Secondly, are there any witnesses of the ritual ‘washings’ of babies in the OT? It’s clear from the NT that baptism follows a profession of faith in Christ. Covenantalists seem to easily confuse an unsupported (and supposed) OT practice with a completely different NT practice of baptism. How you arrive to the conclusion that dispensationalists miss the meaning of the water in baptism is pretty much beyond me– I think we understand it as well as you do. What we ‘err’ with (in our disagreement with the Covenant system of theology) is that there isn’t much in common with the practices from the OT to the NT church, and those practices are remarkably different in the church where we now only practice a baptism after profession (credobaptism).
[dispensationalist– and Baptist– is now running for cover!]
I forgot to add that I read the exchange between Grudem and Piper, and I would say that Grudem’s arguments are very well done and that I would agree with him over Piper. His mentioning of the practice of allowing non-members some fellowship in the local church is one that we practice at my church.
Larry,
Don’t run away!
Maybe you don’t miss the water picture, but I did. It is stressed so often that baptism symbolizes burial (which it does), that the concept of it picturing cleansing from sin, based on the use of the water, escaped me. At least it is not emphasized much at all.
I’m not saying the OT has baptismal washings, I’m saying the cleansing rites performed with water are similar to baptism. They both signify cleansing and employ water. A typical dispensationalist Baptist (at least the common, bump-on-a-pew variety, like me) doesn’t even begin to think of those OT cleansing rituals as remotely tied to the concept of Baptism. They don’t know the same word in the NT is used in reference to those ritualistic cleansings and for Baptism.
All I’m saying is covenantal theology leads me to give more credence to the paedo view, and it helps me understand the significance of Baptism better. I’m still a credo, however.
With regards to Grudem vs. Piper, there is a point about non-members having fellowship. But why is that? Sure it is charitable and all, but what’s the point of membership then? Just to have an Americanistic vote on the color of the carpet? Piper is saying covenant membership in the local body should be important and should result in things being different for you. Sadly it often doesn’t.
Thanks for your thoughts, Larry. They are always well expressed and on target, even if I tend to disagree with my dispy bro. every once in a while! 😉
Bob,
You might want to see Larry Rogier’s blogsite.
He comments about the baptism issue, and I
think Larry has some good comments.
http://stuffoutloud.blogspot.com/2007/08/grudem-piper-and-baptism.html
Thanks for the link, Larry. Of course you would think Larry would make good points, right Larry?
Kidding aside, Larry does have some good points. Keith in one of his last comments showed how Larry misquoted Piper on a key point. I don’t think this is a postmodernish thing. God does care about your heart and motivations are key.
I don’t see how Larry can say there should be no different qualifications for leaders over and against members in light of 1 Tim. 3. The whole Biblical concept of elders implies that the average membership needs to grow in their understanding of the truth. Why else do they need to be taught?
And again I think excluding people from membership implies you think they are seriously in sin. Again, is it a sin to be wrong? Doesn’t the NT address people who are willfully sinning, when it tells us to exclude them from membership?
Anyways, thanks for your continued interaction. I left a comment about 1 issue with Keith and Larry’s debate that was being overlooked. The NT examples of Baptism do not address the difference between paedos and credos. In the case of nonChristian adult converts, both would agree they need to be baptized upon profession of faith. There are no clear NT examples of what to do with the children of believers or the 2nd generation of believers. That is the focal point of the debate.
Gotta run.
A double-minded person is unstable in all his ways.