Piper Proposes Allowing Paedobaptist Members
- Thread starter Fly Caster
- Start date
- Status
ChristianasJourney
Puritan Board Sophomore
Perhaps the difference lies in the heart of the believer --
A believer coming to me, professing his belief and acknowledging his baptisim, even though done as an infant seems different to me, than two parents who want to baptize their infant and have the child accepted into the church. In one case I'm bending the rules, in the other I'm changing my theology.
A believer coming to me, professing his belief and acknowledging his baptisim, even though done as an infant seems different to me, than two parents who want to baptize their infant and have the child accepted into the church. In one case I'm bending the rules, in the other I'm changing my theology.
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Finalization of old news, in a way...see the third and fourth posts down on this page.
If baptism and visible Church membership are given their biblical weight, the former is no less a change in one's theology than the latter, as it is a definite change in someone's answer to one of the following two questions: 1) "Is it biblically possible for an infant baptism to be sufficient to consider someone a truly baptized member of the visible Church?" or 2) "Beyond a profession of faith, are the biblical requirements for true membership in the visible Church any narrower than the biblical requirements for true membership in the invisible Church?" Bethlehem seems to be changing their theology on the second of those questions, now answering in the negative.
[Edited on 9-9-2005 by Me Died Blue]
If baptism and visible Church membership are given their biblical weight, the former is no less a change in one's theology than the latter, as it is a definite change in someone's answer to one of the following two questions: 1) "Is it biblically possible for an infant baptism to be sufficient to consider someone a truly baptized member of the visible Church?" or 2) "Beyond a profession of faith, are the biblical requirements for true membership in the visible Church any narrower than the biblical requirements for true membership in the invisible Church?" Bethlehem seems to be changing their theology on the second of those questions, now answering in the negative.
[Edited on 9-9-2005 by Me Died Blue]
Piper\'s Envelope
...once more into the breech...
Here we go again....
From the Baptist perspective the issue is believers baptism. It is a common practice among Baptist churches to accept prior baptism by immersion from other like-minded churches. The problem with Bethlehem Baptist Church accepting prior paedobaptism is that the majority of paedobaptisms occur prior to a child having a cognitive ability to understand the gospel. While this presents no problems to those who adhere to paedobaptism, it is an inconsistency with typical Baptist belief. I would rather Bethlehem Baptist Church accept paedobaptism completely than to hold to believers baptism by immersion while not questioning someone who was baptized as an infant in the past. It is a mish-mosh and confusing.
[Edited on 9-9-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]
...once more into the breech...
Here we go again....
From the Baptist perspective the issue is believers baptism. It is a common practice among Baptist churches to accept prior baptism by immersion from other like-minded churches. The problem with Bethlehem Baptist Church accepting prior paedobaptism is that the majority of paedobaptisms occur prior to a child having a cognitive ability to understand the gospel. While this presents no problems to those who adhere to paedobaptism, it is an inconsistency with typical Baptist belief. I would rather Bethlehem Baptist Church accept paedobaptism completely than to hold to believers baptism by immersion while not questioning someone who was baptized as an infant in the past. It is a mish-mosh and confusing.
[Edited on 9-9-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Originally posted by crhoades
slippery slope
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
I don't see a problem from their perspective; however, if a paedobaptist does not have the conviction to attach him/herself to a Presbyterian covenant community, I would really wonder if they are truly paedobaptist.
Steve Owen
Puritan Board Sophomore
Just to say that this is not in any way unusual in Britain, and indeed is what my own church practises. It was, of course, the practice of John Bunyan's church.
We will accept into membership (but not leadership) those who make a credible confession of faith, who were baptized as infants and who are reluctant to be re-baptized. The reasoning is that although proper Biblical baptism is important, it is not of the essence of the faith. Therefore we are trying to observe Rom 14:13.
However, if such a brother had infant children, we would gently suggest that if he wished to have them baptized, he should join another church. Those who have joined us on this basis have tended to be elderly refugees from the apostate Church of England.
Such a position does not come from any doubts concerning the correctness of Believer's Baptism, but a desire not to put a stumbling block in front of a weaker brother or sister.
BTW, Scott, there is only one Reformed Presbyterian church within a hundred miles of where I live...........
.........and it is credo-baptist
[an Ian Paisley church plant]
Martin
[Edited on 9-9-2005 by Martin Marprelate]
We will accept into membership (but not leadership) those who make a credible confession of faith, who were baptized as infants and who are reluctant to be re-baptized. The reasoning is that although proper Biblical baptism is important, it is not of the essence of the faith. Therefore we are trying to observe Rom 14:13.
However, if such a brother had infant children, we would gently suggest that if he wished to have them baptized, he should join another church. Those who have joined us on this basis have tended to be elderly refugees from the apostate Church of England.
Such a position does not come from any doubts concerning the correctness of Believer's Baptism, but a desire not to put a stumbling block in front of a weaker brother or sister.
BTW, Scott, there is only one Reformed Presbyterian church within a hundred miles of where I live...........
.........and it is credo-baptist
[an Ian Paisley church plant]
Martin
[Edited on 9-9-2005 by Martin Marprelate]
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
BTW, Scott, there is only one Reformed Presbyterian church within a hundred miles of where I live...........
.........and it is credo-baptist
[an Ian Paisley church plant]
Martin
[Edited on 9-9-2005 by Martin Marprelate]
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
Way to go, Piper. I'm all for a Baptist church dropping Anabaptist tendencies.
Puritanhead
Puritan Board Professor
Larry Hughes
Puritan Board Sophomore
I think it is great news that Dr. Piper is moving in this direction. Like many of us he is wrestling with the issues at hand.
It has to be tough as Dr. Piper himself has said to wonder why many if not most of his "heros" of the faith, Luther, Calvin, Owen, Edwards saw baptism the way they saw it and why they could never be elders/leaders in his church. In the quite of the night that has to make one think regardless of where one falls on the issue. Certainly sinful men are not infallible, but that humble pie slices both ways.
Ldh
It has to be tough as Dr. Piper himself has said to wonder why many if not most of his "heros" of the faith, Luther, Calvin, Owen, Edwards saw baptism the way they saw it and why they could never be elders/leaders in his church. In the quite of the night that has to make one think regardless of where one falls on the issue. Certainly sinful men are not infallible, but that humble pie slices both ways.
Ldh
BrianBowman
Posting Priviledges Revoked
... with Luther's view on D&R he certainly could not be an elder or deacon under Dr. John Piper.
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
I really didn't like the cover sheet with the Romans verse. It shows they believe paedobaptists to be of a lesser faith. This seems contradictory because the have allowed Presbyterian pastors preach in their pulpits (J. Ligon Duncan, Phillip Ryken, etc.), recognizing they are ordained ministers of the gospel. Then they say they are of lesser faith or weaker faith. This seems rather contradictory to me.
Andrew - I agree with you. Is it enough that we are like-minded on the sovereignty of God? Presbyterians and Calvinistic Baptist are part of the body of Christ. We still maintain some doctrinal distinctives because both groups consider their own positions to be more faithful to the bible. We should maintain dialouge, certainly. But to blend beliefs while contradicting others? I feel it weakens what we do believe. It is also inconsistent. Just my opnion.
[Edited on 9-10-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]
Steve Owen
Puritan Board Sophomore
I'd sooner be in line with the Biblical Christian faith
Martin
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
I'd sooner be in line with the Biblical Christian faith
Martin
Really, Martin? In that case, congratulations on your conversion to the Biblical doctrine of paedobaptism and the covenant inclusion of children!
Steve Owen
Puritan Board Sophomore
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
I'd sooner be in line with the Biblical Christian faith
Martin
Really, Martin? In that case, congratulations on your conversion to the Biblical doctrine of paedobaptism and the covenant inclusion of children!
My mind is always open, Joseph.
Just show me that text in 3Corinthians where Paul tells them that they're not baptizing their babies properly.......
Or the chapter in Second Titus where Paul explains the procedure for infant baptism......
And I'm all yours!
Martin
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
You have a deal, Martin . . . just as soon as you show me that text in 4th Corinthians where Paul gives an explicit command to give the Lord's Supper to women . . .
I'm happy for this decision but not all the suprised. If someone does a search for stuff on Piper and Baptism on this board it was mentioned a long time ago that this issue was emerging.
I agree with Piper's position on this and to be consistant I would also like to see Presybertian/Dutch Reformed churches allow believers in Cedo-Baptism to join. Won't happen, but I would like to see it.
Bryan
SDG
I agree with Piper's position on this and to be consistant I would also like to see Presybertian/Dutch Reformed churches allow believers in Cedo-Baptism to join. Won't happen, but I would like to see it.
Bryan
SDG
I'm not sure I understand why they are doing this. Must be some kind of reason, but at our church we would recommend that they go to one of the excellent reformed paedobaptist churches in the area. I've fellowshipped with the excellent PCA men's biblestudy down the street many times in the past. Love them and would recommend them in an instant. Until I found out there was one lonely 1689 church in the Portland area I was considering going there. I would have done whatever was necessary so that I was officially under the authority of the elders there. If that meant some kind of "lesser membership" or whatever I wouldn't have had a problem with that becuase I would have understood that I was out of line with a major teaching position of the church and it's confession. I personally wouldn't find this to be insulting in any way. There's a couple more PCA on the other side of town and at least one good OPC church that I know of. There are also some good congregational Reformed Paedobaptist churches in the area. I don't understand why someone would want to join a Credobaptist church unless there are extrenuating circumstances. Like distance problems (a problem for Reformed paedos and credos alike unfortunately). But I should expect that there are very good Reformed Paedobaptist churches in Piper's area that (in my opinion) these people should be joining and building up. We should all seek to be under the teaching, preaching and authority of a like-minded Eldership. Now, as I stated, we don't live in a perfect world and if there are distance problems, or some other extrenuating circumstance, then things need to be evaluated. But I still believe they should be encouraged to become members at another good church in the area under normal circumstances (normal meaning there are solid options available to the person, which sadly isn't always the case).
In the end, at the least, there should be some serious questions asked about why these people aren't seeking membership in a like-minded church before membership is considered.
In the end, at the least, there should be some serious questions asked about why these people aren't seeking membership in a like-minded church before membership is considered.
BrianBowman
Posting Priviledges Revoked
Ron,
Great insights. In fact, it is interesting that in our PCA their are a "handful" of families who don't go along with paedobaptism, yet are still members in good standing. It is my understanding that they go to a Baptist pastor for Baptism in our area once their kids have been Catechized and make a credible profession of the faith to our Elders. Thereafter they are considered communicant members in our PCA congregation.
Great insights. In fact, it is interesting that in our PCA their are a "handful" of families who don't go along with paedobaptism, yet are still members in good standing. It is my understanding that they go to a Baptist pastor for Baptism in our area once their kids have been Catechized and make a credible profession of the faith to our Elders. Thereafter they are considered communicant members in our PCA congregation.
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Bryan
I agree with Piper's position on this and to be consistant I would also like to see Presybertian/Dutch Reformed churches allow believers in Credo-Baptism to join. Won't happen, but I would like to see it.
Bryan,
I believe they already do, don't they? I'm pretty sure any PCA church, for example, would welcome credobaptistic people into membership.
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
Originally posted by Bryan
I'm happy for this decision but not all the suprised. If someone does a search for stuff on Piper and Baptism on this board it was mentioned a long time ago that this issue was emerging.
I agree with Piper's position on this and to be consistant I would also like to see Presybertian/Dutch Reformed churches allow believers in Cedo-Baptism to join. Won't happen, but I would like to see it.
Bryan
SDG
Ah, Bryan...they do.
Just trying to work this out; If a couple who is Credobaptist was to join a PCA church, then have a child and refuse to have him baptized would they not be committing a great sin by neglecting his/her baptism? Would the PCA church not be forced to discipline the parents for this "great sin", or do they allow exceptions on this point?
Likewise the Dutch Reformed Churches I would assume would definitly be a no go since they do not have exceptions and therefore members must be in agreement with the Heudelberg's question 74?
Like I said, I'm all for having Padeo/credo baptism have no bearing on membership so if as you say it is the case then I'm glad, but looking at the doctrinal statments I don'understand how that could be the case at this time.
Bryan
SDG
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
The PCA church in McKinney, TX *currently* has credobaptistic members with children (friends of mine). They are good friends with the church's pastor, and I don't believe there is any discipline going on.
I think this is standard for the PCA. I have never heard of a credo family being disciplined for being credo.
I don't know about the Dutch Reformed churches, though. Someone else will have to answer that.
I think this is standard for the PCA. I have never heard of a credo family being disciplined for being credo.
I don't know about the Dutch Reformed churches, though. Someone else will have to answer that.
- Status