Apr
1
credos and paedos
Posted by Jon Trainer at 12:39 pmFiled Under church
Can credo-baptists and paedo-baptists drink from the same fount or swim in the same pool? Probably not, if the fount has a sign hanging on it exclaiming, “Solo Paedo-Baptists!” or if the pool’s gate is decked with a placard proclaiming, “Dunkards Alone!” But what if both fount and pool were only cordened by, “Through Christ Alone,” and issues of baptism, both timing and mode, are clearly of secondary importance? Could sprinklers, pourers, dippers, and dunkers of babies, children, teens, and adults co-exist as a united body of believers under one church roof? That is the question.
John Piper has grappled famously with this issue already, having come to the conclusion that membership in a baptist church could be extended to one of a covenant persuasion if such a conclusion was a matter of faith and conscience clothed in beneficent deference to church eldership. Though such a practice is not part and parcel with how Bethlehem Baptist Church currently does business, it appears Piper is praying to that end (a small minority of the elders were not convinced of the change and so Piper deferred and put them on his prayer list).
Through God’s providence we find ourselves wrestling with the same set of circumstances and coming to the same conclusion as the majority of the leadership at Bethlehem. A number of families that align themselves with the covenantal system of doctrine identify with the gospel priorities of our congregation. Some of them have been a part of our community for not months, but years, and it seems inappropriate not to extend the benefits of church membership to them, believing that becoming a member, not simply remaining an adherent, of a local church is honoring to God. Hence the emphasis on unity in the blog as we work to demonstrate a real oneness despite theological differences on secondary or tertiary issues.
As a church we are committed to creedal baptism in faith and practice; however, it has been very possible to worship, serve, and build a redemptive relationship with paedo-baptists under the same roof. How is this possible? It is a blessing to witness believers agree about what is vital to the life of our congregation–the gospel, and have that agreement on what is essential be magnified by our honest disagreement on less vital points. Any disagreement must be approached along the principled lines highlighted for us by Champ in his post on Romans 14-15.
What does this look like–boots on the ground? A congregation grounded in the essentials of the gospel. A congregation united in God-centered worship on Sundays. A congregation united around the Lord’s table often. A congregation dedicated to the text and biblical theology first, and systematic theology second (this needs to be fleshed out). A congregation where deference is practiced (submit yourselves to your elders). A congregation where elders are seeking to know their sheep and pastor them in faith and practice. And so on.
May God give us wisdom as we seek to build a community of faith rooted in the gospel.
Increasingly I find myself disagreeing with Piper on this (sorry!). That is not to say I don’t think we can’t have fellowship and work togther on many things. But the heart of the issue for Piper, and for others having to make such a decision, is whether membership in the body of Christ should be equated with membership in a local church body. For Piper, he views the two as effectively synonymous. I don’t believe that personally. I believe that membership in a local church will require some affirmation of commitments that go beyond statements around the Gospel, and possibly could include some set of beliefs and/or practices that are part of “who we are”. This is where Al Mohler’s central tier in his triage article in the 9Marks e-journal comes into play – things that are so central to a local body that, for all practical purposes, the cards should just be on the table. It’s only fair to those exploring the community.
Let’s take another example: inerrancy. R. C. Sproul in “Scripture Alone” says he believes it is possible for someone to be a member of the body of Christ and not believe in inerrancy (and I would agree), but that a lack of belief in inerrancy has grave consequences and implications. If inerrancy is an integral part of who we are, shouldn’t we just make that part of the core set of affirmations?
I do think there is a clear distinction between membership in the body of Christ and fellowship with such others on the one hand, and membership and a closer agreement and working together within a particular local body on the other hand.
Then again, I have a very low view of local church membership. In my mind it is a cultural accommodation that all too often puffs up a church’s numbers-centricity, or gives an individual a false sense of assurance or “belonging”. Accordingly, I actually value the fact that I can have fellowship and do a lot in common with believers who may disagree with me on what I consider some fundamental points (viz, our workplace ministray or the Walk to Emmaus communities). But if we’re going to have local church membership, then let’s have it be meaningful.
Hans
Hans,
Thanks for your thoughts. When studying the process Bethlehem has gone through, I don’t get the impression that membership is downplayed or made less significant. Just because the door to church membership is broadened a bit theologically, does not mean that issues such as christian life and practice are ignored. In addition, there are specific areas of submission that especially apply to paedo-baptists coming on board the credo-baptist ship…there is an even greater obligation to submit to the eldership and exercise deference in the assembly. If anything, I think the importance of membership is heightened and taken much more seriously. One cannot just go through the motions of a membership process in this instance…not that it should ever be possible to do so. The membership affirmation of faith coupled with the church covenant and a healthy dialog with the elder team provide layers of protection for both the individual and the assembly.
The more we try to accomplish…the more we have to agree about particulars. I can be associated with a pastor’s fellowship holding a yearly conference in a fairly broad manner, but if I am going to work to plant a church with a group of men we are going to have to be equally-yoked together at a whole other level. So I agree that a church must define itself and its constituents very clearly early on in the membership process.
It’s a very challenging question.
It seems to me that credobaptists are not bound to be rebaptizers, but I’m open to persuasion either way–at present, all the churches I’m involved with would require the believer to have been baptized since conversion, in order to be properly called members of the local church.
However, when one moves away from a very decisionist approach, it quickly becomes difficult to sustain that position. More than one I’ve known has been baptized twice in the same church because of a conversion experience after what they came to see as a false profession. How many times do we iterate this pattern? At some point we all begin to hedge: we begin to urge that “assurance” be differentiated from conversion, or to practice “wait and see” before baptizing or rebaptizing.
I can’t easily move off this one, though. Baptism is a key initial step of obedient public profession of one’s faith. It is hard to say that someone who will not take the commanded step as a believer should be called an obedient believer. It is hard to say that an unbeliever’s baptism could be anything but a (dis)obedient public (false) profession of faith.
What seems very clear is that the unbelieving (including the not-yet-believing, whatever hopes and promises we may claim for them) are not of the Body, and cannot therefore be called the members of any particular body. So the pedobaptist’s perennial problem of the partially-unregenerate membership continues to make interchangeable membership among pedobaptist and credobaptist churches impossible, so far as I can see.
Which is not to say that those who, reared in the faith, believing themselves to have been led in obedience by receiving baptism as infants; or those who, failing to grasp the truths of the faith, but baptized in all good faith into Christ–that these might not be received as baptized believers. I am certain that church is to acknowledge as members only those who are (a) baptized (b) believers; I remain uncertain to what extent clarity and correctness about the times and places and meanings of these things is to be required of the members.
Would it not be better, though, for the conscience of the church, to ask those who know that they have not received baptism as believers to receive baptism?
It is a thorny problem.
Peace,
PGE
I just have one question. How can the other mode of baptism be “valid” and “illegitimate” at the same time? If the baptism is illegitimate isn’t it not baptism ipso facto? I’m finding it hard to reconcile the two. Maybe I’m missing something here.
Harris,
This is the sticky wicket (and I know what that is thanks to you). We do not want to elevate baptism (a rite) to the level of regeneration (a spiritual reality) when it comes to membership. At the same time we want to practice what we believe scripture teaches and encourage others to obedience, while acknowledging that very good men disagree about what precisely scripture does teach when it comes to this issue. Both sides of the table agree that baptism has nothing to do with regeneration and that is key.
Piper says it well here, “Therefore, where the belief in the Biblical validity of infant baptism does not involve baptismal regeneration or the guarantee of saving grace, this belief is not viewed by the elders of Bethlehem Baptist Church as a weighty or central enough departure from Biblical teaching to exclude a person from membership, if he meets all other relevant qualifications and is persuaded from Bible study and a clear conscience that his baptism is valid.”
Piper goes on to say that the elders will continue to teach and pray for the paedo-baptist to come to a better understanding of the text and follow the Lord in believer’s baptism.
So we acknowledge that to the paedo-baptist their baptism is a legitimate application of their understanding of scripture, while at the same time believing from the credo point-of-view that it is not in harmony with NT practice. In either case we encourage a searching of the scriptures to see whether these things are so.
What I have observed practically, is that this works perfectly well with believers who share a reformed understanding of the gospel and submit themselves to one another and to those who watch over their souls in love.
Peter,
I am one of those credo-baptists that has been dunked twice. The credo-baptist position really doesn’t hold water (sorry) when decisional regeneration is the modus operandi of the church. How many baptist churches are just getting unbelievers wet? Walk an aisle Sunday morning and go under the H2O Sunday night.
In our culture it seems best to wait for an extended period of time before one is baptized. If guarding a regenerate church membership, to the degree that is possible, is really one of the key responsibilities of the eldership (and I believe that it is), then I am often far more convinced of the regenerate status of potential candidates over time. And I am very convinced, though fallen and often wrong, that my covenant friends are true believers, members of Christ’s body, and desirous of serving in His church here.
Even those in the covenant camp believe that pagans should be baptized upon a confession of faith, at whatever stage of life. And I believe that Sproul even practices immersion in these cases, though I may be wrong there.
The church should certainly not accept into membership any person that has not been baptized. I agree. And would press, just as you recommend, for each person to wrestle with whether or not they should be baptized as believers, just as my paedo-baptist friends would inquire of me why I have not baptized my children by faith into the covenant.
PS I am tempted to do a sonnet on paedos and credos in speedos, but am so far resisting the urge.
Jon, a few observations/questions:
1. Yes, credo-baptists have gotten some unbelievers wet. On the other hand, paedo-baptists ALWAYS get unbelievers wet, right?
2. Is it possible that a policy of admitting paedo-baptists into a credo-baptist church could result in the paedos outnumbering the credos at some point? What then?
3. What to do when the paedo brings his baby to you?
All that to say I think this is no insignificant issue. I think it utterly destroys all rationale for credo-baptism.
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
1. Yes, but they are not getting them wet for the same reason. I can acknowledge that without agreeing to the position. The paedo-baptist is being intellectually honest and sincere in their interpretation and application of their hermeneutic. It differs from mine, but it does not undermine the gospel.
2. Anything is possible. The founding docs of the church have a clear credo-baptist position. The church is elder rule, not congregational rule, so any change to the position would require paedo-baptists being appointed as elders (elders appoint elders) and the board becoming fully persuaded of the position. We don’t vote on anything, so this seems very unlikely. The burden for deference is clearly placed on the paedo-baptist’s shoulders. For them to then campaign for a certain doctrinal position would be to undermine the unity of this body. The consequence is clear. That does not mean that discussion and debate around the two systems is discouraged…it is not. As a church we are comfortable with a little less homogeneity than others might be.
3. Already happened. I said, “I’m sorry but I can’t baptize your child. I would be happy to have you participate in an infant dedication. Perhaps you can find a presbyterian pastor who will baptize your child.” Regardless, this is an opportunity for the family to search out what they really believe on the issue. Is this a matter of tradition or real biblical conviction? This is a good thing. I’ve had far more credo-baptists ask me to baptize their far-too-young-to-be-baptized children. They are assured their child “has made a decision” while at least the paedo-baptists parents are encouraging their kids to “work out their own salvation with fear and trembling.” There are plenty of practical pitfalls on both sides of the issue.
I don’t think it destroys the rationale for credo-baptism at all. As I pointed out above, even paedo-baptists will baptize a new convert from a pagan background.
This certainly isn’t for everyone, Don. We are uniquely situated because we are not a baptist church. It took some gumption for Piper to propose this in a baptist denomination! We have been wrestling with this for a few years now because of the mix in our congregation. The demographic has actually made us a stronger body, not a weaker one. So we have been living out the pursuit of unity despite theological differences for some time, now we are just putting it on paper…and mostly because our covenant friends want to live under the benefits (accountability) of elder rule. We’ve got some “plenitude” as Peter would say, and I believe we are better for it.
Well, I agree that there is a huge problem in Baptist circles with what I call “delayed infant baptism”. I don’t even do baby dedications.
And I agree that Piper’s proposal required something in a Baptist church, although I am thinking of a different “g” word than “gumption”, but I’ll leave that one alone for now. I am running low on grenades!!
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Jon, it is definitely a tough question. I would never presume to declare terms on which the elders of another church could resolve it in practice for the body in that place.
It does come down to the same thing you and Hans were discussing early on: when we say only baptized believers are to be received as members, are those who were [baptized?] in a manner we cannot honestly acknowledge as baptism to be so received?
The special problem of baptism among doctrines comes in its position at the boundary of the community, of course. Hence its position as a practice is akin to those doctrines whose rejection causes us to doubt another is a believer.
It would seem, then, that you have a very lively Romans 14 situation. Without prejudice against those who fervently believe otherwise, you are receiving those whose apprehension of the faith you regard as misguided, a matter of prayer for correction; they are in that sense “weaker brothers” to be received “not for doubtful disputations” or “not for the sake of pronouncing judgment on their opinions.”
I am grieved that I cannot see an alternative which leaves intact both full fellowship among believers and the fullest practice of “all things, whatsoever I have commanded you.” Truly. I couldn’t embrace the step you’ve taken, here, but I wouldn’t let the moment pass (were it my church’s problem) without the fullest possible consideration. You elders of New Hope are the ones in that position, and may the Lord show you the best way through it!
Peace,
PGE
Thanks for the kind and challenging words, Peter. Your prayers for us are coveted. You say, “Hence its position as a practice is akin to those doctrines whose rejection causes us to doubt another is a believer.” This has become part of the rub for me…I don’t have any reason to question the genuine faith of many paedo-baptist friends. Quite the opposite, they are often the most diligent and sincere students of the Word. The elevation of a rite or ritual to a position where its absence causes me to question one’s faith is a position I find difficult, especially when the person in question can present a biblical defense, albeit from a different hermeneutic, for a contrary position.
Amazing quote, Harris. In one paragraph Spurgeon says he detests the man’s doctrines, but adds him to the twelve. Graciousness on display.
FWIW, the Arminianism is more disconcerting to me than paedo-baptism. It strikes closer to the heart of the gospel.
It is amazing how quick we are to question one’s faith when they hold to a different position. Why can’t we have the spirit of Spurgeon? If he was able to have this attitude toward an Arminian, surely, we can show some grace on this issue…. nuff said.
“… far be it from me to imagine that Zion contains none but Calvinistic Christians within her walls, or that there are none saved who do not hold our views. Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitefield and John Wesley. The character of John Wesley stands beyond all imputation for self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God; he lived far above the ordinary level of common Christians, and was one ‘of whom the world was not worthy.’” –Spurgeon’s Autobiography, Vol. 1, The Early Years (Banner of Truth); p. 173
As one of the “weaker brethren†I have been reluctant to join in this conversation, preferring rather to avoid any appearance of argumentation on the issue at hand. I have enjoyed reading the discussion mainly because it has not regressed to argumentation about the two positions, but on whether a CB church should admit one of the PB persuasion.
I think it was Champ who characterized the decision of the NHBC Elders as a “slippery slopeâ€, and I think Peter is agreeing with that in his most recent post. I would use that characterization as well, but maybe for a different reason. I think it could be a slippery slope for a CB church because it forces a hard look at why this issue has been used as a point of separation. Since that hard look must include coming to a deeper understanding of the biblical basis for each position, I expect one to come to the same conclusion that it appears Jon has. And that is that we have far more common beliefs on the subject of baptism than differences, not to mention all of the other common beliefs that we share. Once a better understanding occurs then I would expect that what was once considered to be a major error (baptizing infants) may get relegated to a less critical error, or perhaps even a “doubtful disputationâ€. Thus, the slippery slope…. If we turn one major into a minor, what other issues will we have to re-categorized?
So our theme verse must be, “But as for me, my feet had almost stumbled, my steps had nearly slipped” (Ps. 73:2)!
Theme song: http://tinyurl.com/35albd
Nice comment, Mike.
Yes, guilty as charged. I am the one who made the “slippery slope” comment. (Of course, as you and I have discussed, it was motivated for the sake of discussion–not because I think it is truly a slippery slope.)
If re-examining who I am, what I believe, how I live in light of Scripture is starting down a slippery slope, then I agree with you: “Hold on, because we’re going sledding!” That’s a slope I want to slip down.
Again, I think you are spot on about understanding each others’ position. It seems to me that a slope only really becomes slippery (in the sense that most people mean when they talk about “the slippery slope”) when the change/shift/”slip” is not understood. If you know where to put your foot and why, then it’s not out-of-control slipping. It is deliberate, careful progress.
Here’s to falling forward.
It is amazing how quick we are to question one’s faith when they hold to a different position. Why can’t we have the spirit of Spurgeon? If he was able to have this attitude toward an Arminian, surely, we can show some grace on this issue…. nuff said.
Friend, if I’ve been unclear, I apologize, but my point wasn’t that someone who differs is unsaved, and I feel slightly affronted by the implication (but I don’t resent it, and welcome your correction). I have too many of my most cherished believing friends among the Presbyterians and Anglicans to believe that, and have read too much of church history to believe that the Gospel would have reached our century if it could only travel in purity among credobaptists.
Like I said, it’s a difficult position. What I’m saying is that from *any* major position on baptism I know, whether Presbyterian or Roman or Anglican or Baptist, we have a problem of affirmation when we deal with the baptism of others. Simply put, I can’t both teach what I believe to be true of baptism (that it is integral to the meaning of “obedient believer” and “member of the body” that one receive baptism as a believer) and teach that one may refuse baptism as a believer and still be considered “obedient.”
I’m most reluctant to sort this one out thoroughly, because it is a mess that cuts through roughly 1800 years of church history.
If the teaching of the church is that one must be baptized as a believer, then a member who was thoroughly acquainted with that teaching, yet refused baptism, would be “walking disorderly,” would he not? The problem of deference bumps into the problem of obedience to a command: after all, the Great Commission is “go and make disciples” by baptizing and teaching them to observe all things, right?
I’m honestly not taking a hard line because I’m such a Baptist loyalist; I spent more than three years of my time in Texas attending (but not joining, for some of these reasons) a PCA church, and made many of my best Christian friends there. I have no doubt that they are imperfect believers, as I am. I would long for us to figure out a way to bridge these gaps. I grieve that I can’t see it, for this issue (actually, getting across Calvin-Arminius is child’s play by comparison–that’s a very modernistic dispute that can be chucked when we get over ourselves).
And, Mike, if my mention of the “weaker brother” principle sounded like a slur, that’s the farthest thing from my mind. I was intending to point out that if we deploy these texts in order to work past these differences, we’ll have to attend to the implications in each of them that one party is intended to change toward the other. . . .
Peace to ALL,
PGE
From the Free Presbyterian Church’s Articles of Faith
( http://tinyurl.com/2a43zq ):
Baptism — The Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, under Christ the Great King and Head of the Church, realizing that bitter controversy raging around the mode and proper subjects of the ordinance of Christian baptism has divided the Body of Christ when that Body should have been united in Christian love and Holy Ghost power to stem the onslaughts and hell-inspired assaults of modernism, hereby affirms that each member of the Free Presbyterian Church shall have liberty to decide for himself which course to adopt on these controverted issues, each member giving due honor in love to the views held by differing brethren, but none espousing the error of baptismal regeneration.
Bingo.
Yes, that’s definitely an available position, and can be reached from a number of starting points:
XII. Baptism
16. We believe that Christian baptism, commanded by our Lord, is a sacrament signifying acceptance of the benefits of the atonement of Jesus Christ, to be administered to believers and declarative of their faith in Jesus Christ as their Savior, and full purpose of obedience in holiness and righteousness.
Baptism being a symbol of the new covenant, young children may be baptized, upon request of parents or guardians who shall give assurance for them of necessary Christian training.
Baptism may be administered by sprinkling, pouring, or immersion, according to the choice of the applicant.
(Matthew 3:1-7; 28:16-20; Acts 2:37-41; 8:35-39; 10:44-48; 16:29-34; 19:1-6; Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:26-28; Colossians 2:12; 1 Peter 3:18-22) (From the Nazarene Articles of Faith)
As Wesley himself: http://www.shol.com/featheredprop/theo3.html
Though Wesley’s Anglicanism makes him suspect of baptismal regeneration, which remains a challenge for confessional Anglicans today . . .
I quote these only to note that the question of the meaning, mode, and mandate of baptism has a life of its own beyond the Reformed/Baptist edge where you’re experiencing it.
Well, I would very much like to read anything you’ve written up with some of the reasoning and conclusions among your elders as you’ve worked through this, if you’d care to email it to me (my ID here at gmail would be great), but I better let go of the question, now. Most sincerely, my interest is in our being able to do what you seek to do without being disobedient in so doing; I’d *love* to find the way past these things.
Peace,
PGE
A pedant, a stickler, a credo
Said, “It’s like Play-Doh, not Speedo,”
’til the hour had passed
For discussion at last;
He’d knead pie dough that night with a paedo.
Methinks a limerick, for this one.
With apologies,
PGE
Peter,
Though we did produce a short paper for our congregation, you really can’t do better than read through every last whit of what they have produced as they have managed this process at Piper’s church. Link here: http://tinyurl.com/3f4w73
For others:
If you would like to watch a reasonable session defending the paedo-baptist position, you can find one here: http://tinyurl.com/4xgdvw
And finally, if you would like to explore another church with a similar position (since the late ’70s), you can read the pastor talking about it here: http://tinyurl.com/58akun
Have read some excellent defenses of the paedo position, and did hang out with the PCA for several years, so I feel pretty ‘up’ on that (worthy link, though!) . . . will definitely look over the other materials, too.
Cheers!
PGE