Pastor Dever, Two quick points (if I may, without being thought too presumptuous):

1) The implication of the above is that there are people whom you are happy to have in your pulpit but not at the Lord's Table. That seems a little odd (note the employment of English understatement).

2) I notice that on access to the Lord's Table for those of differing views of baptism there has historically been a spectrum of views held by Baptists (I refer only to English Baptists, not knowing the story of y'all in the colonies). Disagreeing with you would be men as notable as Robert Hall (jr) and C.H. Spurgeon.

(Interestingly, I note that there are significant parallels between your disagreement with Pastor Piper and the disagreement between Robert Hall and Joseph Kinghorn in the early nineteenth century (see Michael Walker, Baptists at the Table (Didcot, Baptist Historical Society, 1992). Walker sums up that debate as being on the one hand focusing on the unity of the church (Hall/Piper), and on the other focusing on the question "whether persons who are acknowledged to be unbaptized ought to come to the Lord's Table" (Kinghorn/Dever, quoting Kinghorn as cited in Walker, p.44). I note that not really to make a point, other than that this is ground already trod by Baptists - a point I feel especially able to make knowing your (laudable) interest in church history.)

My question was similar to Timothy's:

If your Anglican Dean friend were preaching in your pulpit on a Sunday where the Lord's Table was observed - would you exclude him from participating?

Mark,

Thanks for this post. I find this sentence somewhat confusing: "I think John P recognizes the importance of unity among such a responsible body, but he understands [I think] the local congregation NOT to be this responsible body, but rather the active followers of the elders--but merely followers."

Perhaps you are repeating the same idea twice, in two different ways?

Respectfully,
Alex

I was wondering if you also reqire circumcision as a mebership prerequisite also? In fact you may want to start checking circumcissions at the door...

It sounds like your talking about membership to a club that YOU are in charge of, the last I read Jesus was the Head of His Body the "Bride of CHRIST" the Bride He choose not you or me or anyone else.

John 6:28-29
Then they said to him, "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?" Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent."

Notice in this passage when the people asked to know for sure what God expected from them, Jesus didn't say anything about baptism, communion, church membership, ceremonies, traditions... but simply the requirement is to believe in the one the Father sent, JESUS.

2 Corinthians 3:5-6
Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Brother I think you would be better off doing the work of the great commision of GOING to find the lost sheep and preaching to them the good news, and loving them into the Kingdom of our God and Father of the Lord Jesus, instead of loading them up with burdons to heavy to bear and then not lifting a finger to help them.

Pastor Jeff H.

#1. My question is the same as the top few. Namely, why would you let someone in unrepentant sin be teaching the flock at Capitol Hill? I am not taking a position right now, because I haven't come to a conclusion, just an honest question.

#2. I appreciate that in your response you exhibited the qualifications of an elder in 1Tim. "Pastor" Jeff, I sure wish I saw the same in your quite arrogant and presumptuous post.

Jeff,

It is a little peculiar that you should treat baptism as a ceremony or tradition that is unnecessary, or even as a legal "burdon" (sic) too heavy to bear, when you also refer to the Great Commission, where Jesus requires us to baptise people.

Whatever else baptism may be, it is part of obedience to our Lord, and specifically part of our obedience to the Great Commission.

Baptism has several aspects, and one is entry into the earthly church. The paradigm case is the never-been-baptized-by-anyone's-definition: born a pagan, raised a pagan, interested enough in Jesus to want to do what they do in the church. We have to draw the line there and not give what is only for insiders to outsiders. Not to mention the fact that they might die. Because of us. Not to be superstitious or anything.

JP draws a hard line pretty often, so I don't know why this should be any different in his eyes. In my own home church, the constant theme is God's love and acceptance, so that if we ever have to say no to *anything*, such as gross immorality, it is really jarring, and seems really unusual.

How many theologically sound Baptist churches have had to deal with true converted Presbyterians joining their church? More than just those who live in Minneapolis and DC, I'm sure. The crux of this debate lies in defining the roles of elders and the congregation.

Our church resolved this issue, concluding that baptism by immersion would be required of true converted Presbyterians (for example). The reason that communicated well to these people was, in effect, "While we recognize the theological debate is endless on this matter, for the sake of congregational unity, we ask that you be immersed ... not that your infant baptism was meaningless or your conversion incomplete, but simply for congregational unity."

Anybody see any issues with this? Idealistic theology is great until the rubber hits the road .... then realism and pragmatism set in. Leaders and members seem very comfortable with this kind of wording and practice here.

For what its worth, as a member of Bethlehem Baptist, we do practice open communion. I've wondered before if the open membership question is much different in principle. It apparently is much more controversial. But the old Baptist confessions (I'm thinking of the 1833 New Hampshire one) expressly state baptism must precede communion.

Pesonally, I think in light of the NT silence on how to view the children of believers in this area, and in light of hundreds of years of opposing positions, there is room for varying beliefs of what constitutes baptism, even in a church. I still could be convinced to the contrary, however.

I wonder about the Biblical nature of church membership. Is that more of an American ideal, a congregationalist constitution model? And why do so many churches today treat nonmembers and members virtually alike. That is one of the big arguments against Piper's position: "They are already similar anyway, so why change the church constitution?"

For all this "controversy" let me say I loved following the T4G conference, even though I couldn't attend. Praise God for real unity around real truth, in such a day as ours!

Thanks for opening up the discussion for comments, and for sharing your thoughts even while on vacation.

Blessings from the Cross,

Bob Hayton

I wonder if Pastor Dever could interact with Vern Poythress' papers that Justin Taylor posted? They concern the baptism of young children.

I've heard there is an audio message by him addressing that topic. I wonder if anything is in print or online by 9 Marks?

Pastor Devers,

Thanks for your thoughts.

I think it's clear that Jesus commanded baptism and of course to disobey any of his commandments is sin but I wonder if this issue could be regulated as "secondary" to church unity/inclusion (like food laws -1 Corinthians 10). So I think this issue is not so much if we are getting God's word right (which is very important) but to see if this is an issue that we should excluded people over.

In my experience, it's so hard to find people, who love Jesus with all their hearts, and it seems to me to excluded them because of this issue would provide an unnecessary burden on them.

Blessings,

Dan

I thought Timothy Edwards raised an important point: "The implication of the above is that there are people whom you are happy to have in your pulpit but not at the Lord's Table." I would love to hear Dr. Dever's response to that problem. At least it seems like a problem to me. How do we reconcile allowing a Presbyterian to preach in the pulpit and yet deny him communion? Or put the other way, if we deny a Presbyterian like Ligon Duncan communion, are we not saying there is a fundamental lack of obedience in his life, that he has not been scripturally baptized? What does it say then about allowing him to stand behind the sacred desk? What does that say to the Baptist congregation? That on the one hand we insist that you out there in the congregation be baptized as a first step of obedience to Christ, but when it comes to someone who is delivering authoritative teaching to that same congregation, we will close our eyes to what appears to be a rather large inconsistency. In other words, is not the congregation getting something of a mixed message? How do you explain what seems like an inconsistency to the congregation?

For me, the issue is who is ultimately responsible for "policing" the Lord's table. In the early church period, it seems the congregation took this role on themselves. The ecclesiastical hierarchy that rapidly developed also seemed to take on the role of "sacramental police chief". The Baptist's that arose in the early 17t century also assumed it was their job (either that of the leadership, or that of the congregation) to "guard the door" to the table.

Yet I do not see this in scripture. I do see Scripture teaching us to "examine yourselves", which seems to indicate an individual self-assessment.

Also, I agree with others above. There seems to be an inherent inconsistency in refusing to allow entrance to communion yet opening the pulpit to such persons. On the other hand we deny the most intimate unity possible between Christians, yet on the other hand we trust them to teach us authoritatively from the holy Word.

In the New Testament, not being allowed to fellowship with a body of believers is tantamount to proclaiming belief that this person's profession of faith is not valid. In other words, to deny someone fellowship is to proclaim them unregenerate. This problem is insurmountable. Are they your brothers? If yes, why will you not let them be apart of your local church? If not, why would you spend time "fellowshipping" with them outside of the meetings? Where is this third catagory in the NT (i.e. someone is not being disciplined but cannot be apart of the fellowship)?

MV brings up the most important point I've seen here so far. The NT's teaching on exclusion from membership always revolves around the idea that that individual is to be regarded as unregenerate.

It is surprising to me that the unity of the church (the importance of which is incredibly clear in the NT) is considered secondary to our policies on formal church membership (a doctrine is is difficult to defend from the NT in the first place).

I see this issue as clearly one where God's commands for unity are nullified in light of our traditions.

I also meant to comment on this statement: "Baptism SHOULD be required for church membership:"

This heading is misleading and promotes further misunderstanding to an already confused discussion.

Of the major players in this debate, NO ONE is arguing someone who hasn't been "baptized" in some way should be admitted into membership.

Dear Mark,

As usual, you bring both clarity of thought and a strong sense of principle to this discussion. I agree with you that we should not compromise important principles (even those on which I will disagree with you) for the sake of ecumenical concerns. I do, however, have two bones to pick with you on this.

First, can you really be serious in suggesting that there is "relative unanimity"... "from Jesus until now" in support of the craedo-baptist position? Much as I want to distance the Roman Catholic view from the Reformed view of infant baptism (and they are fundamentally different), one must observe that a whole lot of babies have been baptized "from Jesus until now".

But far more eggregious is your comment that we who baptize our covenant children have acted in "disregard" of "Jesus' command". That is wholly untrue and should not be said, by you of all people. The reality is that paedos and craedos have a different understanding of baptism. But we paedos give just as much "regard" to Jesus' command as you do (we would argue more). You might not accept our baptisms, but that does not mean that we have sinfully disregarded Christ's command. We have regarded Jesus' command to baptize in keeping with our beliefs concerning the sacrament.

As for whether or not CHBC will permit visiting paedo-baptist preachers to participate in the Lord's Supper, I think I can speak for my friends in saying that no offense would be taken. We would continue to respect you for following through in your convictions with integity.

So thanks for your contribution to this debate, Mark. Not only do I appreciate your integrity, but it is all a wonderful advertisement for Presbyterian polity!

The prevailing issue in this debate is not baptism itself, but what constitutes baptism. There is no question that both Presby's (peado-baptists) and Baptists (or, credo-baptists) take baptism seriously - as does Piper. Baptism in both circles is paramount to a believers obedience to Christ and even the membership of the local body, even the partaking of the Lord's Supper. For some reason, the question of whether or not Piper or anyone is taking this issue seriously is quite mind boggling. This is simply not the issue.

The issue is whether or not a local body will recognize a differring view of baptism within their ranks, not whether or not baptism is of paramount importance to the body.

So, Dr. Dever, putting the issue of the importance of baptism aside as I am confident having read Piper on the issue that this is not the issue; what degree of division is acceptable within the body given that both take the issue seriously, but define the perameters of what baptism looks like (timing and mode, etc.)?

Piper is not, I am sure, devaluing the importance of baptism. I think he would lament that perception by those reading these responses! Piper is asking a hard question that takes much more thought than the responses to his position. What are the acceptable variances within the local expression of the Church regarding one's biblically studied and informed defintion of baptism?

Mr. Phillips,

With respect, I'm persuaded that Mr. Dever's reference to "relative unanimity" refers to "baptism preceeding the Lord's Table" which has of course been the relatively unanimous position of every Christian denomination throughout all time. The difference is of course, as Mr. Snowden has indicated, the definition of the term "baptism".

Dear Ben,

I see that you are right (about the "relative unanimity" issue). Thank you for the correction.

I have been studying Dagg's Treatise on Church Order lately. On page 73 (at the bottom of this link - http://www.founders.org/library/dagg_vol2/ch1.html - in the free electronic version - chapter 1, section 5) of John L. Dagg's Treatise of Church Order (http://www.founders.org/library/dagg_vol2/all.html), he states "none but baptized persons can be admitted to membership." One of Piper's points in his disagreement with Wayne Grudem is that those who are excluded from church membership because they have not been scripturally baptized are treated as though they have been excommunicated from the church. Dagg addresses this concern as it relates to communion, in his chapter on that topic (http://www.founders.org/library/dagg_vol2/ch5.html). Although he is speaking about the inclusion or exclusion from the Lord's Table of one who believes in infant baptism, application can be made beyond that to speak to the issue of church membership for anyone not scripturally baptized (including those not claiming to be baptized at all). (Also, he speaks to the supposed inconsistency of denying communion to paedobaptists while opening the pulpit to them in section 4 of chapter 10, http://www.founders.org/library/dagg_vol2/ch10.html.) The bottom line is whether we are treating these ordinances according to the will of the Lord revealed in His Word. Dagg's interaction with this argument is below:

Argument 7.--To exclude a Pedobaptist brother from communion, is substantially to inflict on him the punishment of excommunication, the punishment inflicted on atrocious offenders. Such is not the proper treatment of a fellow disciple, whose error of judgment the Lord graciously pardons.

When an advocate of open communion excludes from the Lord's table an amiable neighbor, who does not give evidence of conversion, the exclusion is not regarded as a punishment. Neither ought our exclusion of the unbaptized; much less is it right to speak of it as the punishment inflicted on atrocious offenders. The churches have no scale of penalties adjusted to different grades of crime. When they excommunicate, they withdraw their fellowship, and this may be done for wrongs of very different magnitude. There is no necessity to class the error of pedobaptism with the most atrocious of these wrongs. The church which excludes a Pedobaptist from the Lord's table, does not design to inflict a punishment on him, but merely to do its own duty, as a body to which the Lord has intrusted one of his ordinances. The simple aim is, to regulate the observance according to the will of the Lord.

Hey, Mark - how about a 9Marks Leadership Interview with Grudem and Piper on this topic?

This disagreement has a lot of pertinence to me. I was baptised as an infant but am now a member (in a full sense!) of a baptist church. I am a member of that church because I love that church and the passion that the leaders and other members have for God. I have since married a baptist from a baptist family. And yet I do not believe that it would be right for me to be baptised, as I see it, again.

There aren't issues of family pride or offense at stake. My older sister when I was a teen, decided (having also been baptised as an infant) that she wasn't a paedobaptist and was re-baptised. In that she had the full support of my parents and the rest of our family. It is simply that as far as I can see the Bible does not make the exact purpose of Baptism particularly clear. In fact, it is remarkably silent. That does not been that I believe its purpose is arbitrary, or unimportant, but on the one hand I see a huge sense of holy mystery in it, and I also find the objections I have heard to the paedobaptist arguments to be along the lines of:

1) "Paedobaptism is wrong because it is based on huge inferences about relatively few ambiguous passages".
2) "Credobaptism is right because... " [huge inferences about relatively few ambiguous passages].

I am very willing to be convinced. I feel that in many ways externally things would be easier if I was just baptised again, that it would end the mental struggles. I have pleaded with God that if He does mean that I should be baptised now that He would make it clear through the Scriptures and in my mind. But that isn't what has happened so far.

When my wife and I sought to become members of our church the elders rightly made clear their views about baptism. And I spoke to them because I wanted to be honest to them about my position, that I wanted to be a member of their Church, but didn't feel able to sincerely and with integrity be able to be part of their Church. I am very grateful that they decided that I could be a member. They said that ultimately they would like me to be baptised according to their view of baptism but that they wanted me to be a member inspite/until that happened.

My struggles with your arguments, Mark, are the following. In part 1, your appeal is to an argument that I AGREE with, and yet you are using it to argue that I am being disobedient. I believe that Jesus did command me to be baptised, but I believe I have been. And so the crux of your argument isn't an appeal to what baptism is, but simply that I am disobedient. This is an argument that I have seen used increasingly recently, and I do find it slightly offensive I'm afraid. As its focus isn't to convince me what baptism is, nor how what I have already received is not baptism, I cannot see how it's purpose can be anything other than negative.

My struggle with part 2 is that it seems to imply a view of the Church that is purely one of the individual receiving from the Church and therefore the individual one-sidedly wanting to be a member of the Church, with very little expression of desire from the Church that the individual become part of them. I am grateful that my church placed their desire for me to be a contributing, fully-relating member of their local church above my view of baptism having to conform to theirs. But that is not the only expression of this two-sided desire that I would find admirable. I find it strange that few full credo-baptist-membership arguments, including the one which you have presented begin with an expression that the Church WANTS me as a member... but would insist that I be baptised if that is to happen. In that case, I feel I would have to decline, however, I would find their desire for my fellowship inspite of my inability to accept refreshing.

[Sorry, it's a bit long and seems to have been truncated...]
When my wife and I sought to become members of our church the elders rightly made clear their views about baptism. And I spoke to them because I wanted to be honest to them about my position, that I wanted to be a member of their Church, but didn't feel able to sincerely and with integrity be able to be part of their Church. I am very grateful that they decided that I could be a member. They said that ultimately they would like me to be baptised according to their view of baptism but that they wanted me to be a member inspite/until that happened.

My struggles with your arguments, Mark, are the following. In part 1, your appeal is to an argument that I AGREE with, and yet you are using it to argue that I am being disobedient. I believe that Jesus did command me to be baptised, but I believe I have been. And so the crux of your argument isn't an appeal to what baptism is, but simply that I am disobedient. This is an argument that I have seen used increasingly recently, and I do find it slightly offensive I'm afraid. As its focus isn't to convince me what baptism is, nor how what I have already received is not baptism, I cannot see how it's purpose can be anything other than negative.

My struggle with part 2 is that it seems to imply a view of the Church that is purely one of the individual receiving from the Church and therefore the individual one-sidedly wanting to be a member of the Church, with very little expression of desire from the Church that the individual become part of them. I am grateful that my church placed their desire for me to be a contributing, fully-relating member of their local church above my view of baptism having to conform to theirs. I am grateful for John Piper's support of such a view. But that is not the only expression of this two-sided desire that I would find admirable. I find it strange that few full credo-baptist-membership arguments, including the one which you have presented begin with an expression that the Church WANTS me as a member, but would insist that I be baptised if that is to happen. In that case, I feel I would have to decline, however, I would find their desire for my fellowship inspite of my inability to accept refreshing.

Sorry, for the repetition, turned out not to have been truncated after all. If there's a webmaster listening, obviously feel free to delete this and the previous post!

Mark:

A student alerted me to this post.

I think that to call all paedobaptists as unrepentent is too strong.

Would we say that someone who refuses to accept unconditional election is unrepentent? Some may be but are not others misinformed (for whatever reason). Are they really rebels for rejecting unconditional election?

Apply the same thing to baptism. Is Ligon Duncan really a rebel? I hope not.
If you really think that he is, then having him into your pulpit is really inconsistent. Your view (al this is a mtter of sin) should drive you to a J. R. Graves approach to pulpit affiliation, IMO.

Respectfully submitted,

Jeff Straub

I'm wondering if anyone has read the most recent Desiring God's blog on, "Are pedobaptists unrepentant?" What about the argument from 1John 3:8. If pedobaptists are unrepentant for holding to their pedobaptist views then would not somebody have to conclude from 1 John 3:8 that they would have to be from the devil.

Wouldn't it be wrong for any church then which holds to credobaptism to invite a guest preacher to their pulpit if they are in fact in "unrepentant sin." To me it seems that a church could not hold the view that pedobaptists are in unrepentant sin and invite pedobaptists to guest preach. It would seem that you would have to hold the position of John Piper, which would be (for one that holds to credobaptism) that pedobaptists are just wrong.

I hope this doesn't seem too off topic, but this issue is of some personal relevance to me. While I'm glad that this topic can be discussed in a way that shows both passion for the issue and love and respect for the brothers on the other side of the controversy, I'd have to say I'd personally side with Dr Piper, and think there are a number of inconsistencies in Dr Dever's position which have already been abundantly well articulated by others.

My Question is this: I myself was converted to Christ from a non-Christian background at the age of 17. Now, I was baptised as an Anglican, as an adult(or, at any rate, not a baby) by sprinkling. I personally think it is Biblical only to babptise those making a credible personal confession of faith in Jesus. The crux of the question, I suppose, is this: Does Dr Dever (or, since I could hardly reasonably enjoin him to answer me personally, do most baptists) view my baptism as valid? I ask because Dr Grudem's Systematic Theology (an alteration for the new edition of which is where this whole thing started) devotes a couple of pages to demonstrating that "The practise of baptism in the New Testament was carried out in one way: the person being baptised was immersed..."(Grudem p967) Grudem pursues this point so far that when discussing the mode of baptism, he completely omits any mention of the command that baptism be Trinitarian in form. He also gives no indication of how important he views the mode used as being, apart from perhaps when he says that death and ressurection with Christ are "symbolised only by immersion, not at all by sprinkling or pouring"(p969).

Would Dr Dever be prepared to admit me to membership and the Lord's table at CHBC, or would I have to be immersed?

Granting that I was baptised as an adult, would Dr Dever endorse the apparent (though I am willing to admit, probably altogether unintentional) implication that it is more important that one should be baptised by immersion than it is that one should be baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

Supposing R.C. Sproul had, in God's providence, been converted as an adult from a background like mine, where he had not been baptised as an infant, and so was baptised as an adult, but was by conviction a Paedobaptist. Would he be eligible for Membership at CHBC, endorsing the same incorrect understanding of Baptism, simply on the grounds that it so happened he was converted from an unchurched background? In the aforementioned situation, would Dr Sproul be any less unrepentant than you suppose him to be now? It seems to me that he would only be obeying the command to be baptised by accident, so to speak, and if things had been arranged slightly differently he would not do so. To use your repentant/unrepentant model, is mere accidental obedience, where one would disobey if the circumstances were such that one could, really true Biblical repentance? Surely not!

In this case, isn't it true that if you say you would admit Dr Sproul to membership if he was a paedobaptist who happened to have been baptised as an adult, then you have made an outward ceremony of greater importance than heartfelt repentance, and if you say that you would not admit Dr Sproul, even if he was baptised as an adult, simply because he was a Paedobaptist (and, therefore, only accidentally obedient, not truly repentant) then you have made the dividing line between the visible Church and the World, not baptism itself, but rather a view on the appropriate subject of baptism, when the actual dividing line is between those who profess to trust Christ and those who do not?

Thanks, and I hope that my remarkably clunky sentences arn't a barrier to communication.

In Him

Ed

Guys and Gals,

Acts 2 teaches order very clearly:

1. Salvation

2. Baptism

3. Then they were added to the church(Visible) Membership

4. Lord's Supper

The question we seem to be missing is this: Since the Padeobaptist according to Scripture are unbaptized then how did any of them truly ever get placed into a visible church to begin with ? The Lord's Supper is a local church ordinance. Also it should be noted that we have been commanded to serve Bread and Wine and not Welches grape juice. We have not been commanded to be baptized in the Jordan and we have not been commanded to sit on the floor to observe the Supper but we have been commanded to take Bread and Wine( Read John Broadus on Christian Baptism about this statement in Jeter's book). Our new church plant( Waiting to be voted into the GBC in November and SBC )is closed communion(Meaning we only serve the Supper to members in good standing). We have 65 in attendance and I have taught on this regularly and gave the Church time to see this in Scripture. It's not an issue anymore.Notice how the Abstract of Principles , 1689, 1644, NHC, Broadus Catechism, Boyce Catechism, and Charleston Catechism all say wine. Here is a question: Who has given us authority to change the wine to grape juice ? I can't find anyone ! The BFM 2000 now says " Fruit of the Vine". Notice the change in the Lord's Day definition from the Abstract of Principles. All these issues need to relooked at by Southern Baptist. Good post Mark !

I would recommend to all reading John Bunyan's thoughts on this subject.

DIFFERENCES IN JUDGMENT ABOUT WATER BAPTISM, NO BAR TO COMMUNION: OR,
TO COMMUNICATE WITH SAINTS, AS SAINTS, PROVED LAWFUL.

http://www.johnbunyan.org/bunyan.html

Brethren, where ever your maturity and knowledge of the faith has brought you, let us remember to fervently love one another, as Christ has loved patiently, forgivingly, and faithfully each of us - in our continuing imperfection of ignorance. Throwing rocks at wolves is one thing, but hitting the sheep brings the attention of the shepherd, quenching and grieving his Spirit among us.

Two issues that seem to me to be subtle, yet significant, in respect to these arguments are the following:
1. It is the "local" nature of a church that dictates the reasoning behind closed communion-whether an elder, deacon, or congregationally governed church. Closed communion has traditionally not referred to communion taken by a Christian brother who is not completely aligned theologically, but to the fact that he is a member of another congregation/church-even if of the SAME denomination. It isn't the denominational difference that would stop the taking of communion, but the fact that he is from another local body. The NT model is communion being observed by the members of the individual church/fellowship. A visiting preacher is no threat to the autonomy of the membership of a local group, or its theology. Clearly, no message that conflicted with the doctrinal position would be expected or knowingly allowed. Many great preachers do not agree with every doctrinal issue. It is the local group of believers that make the determination about what is included in their doctrinal positions. To limit the partaking of the Lord's Supper to the members of the local congregation/membership only, is to err on the side of safety in just who is "qualified" to receive the ordinance. It is the very old argument of the church as local, versus the church as universal.
2. It is because of the idea of church succcession that this localized perspective develops and exists. One "true" church plants another. One group of church members starts another church by sending out from that church the seed to start another church. The idea of a church starting without the operation of a "parent" church is one that limits the accountability of the new group of believers. A sanctity of the "local" group is the idea. A group of believers wants to spread the Gospel by establishing a church of like-minded believers. This new group is accountable to another group of Christians, and, once established, this new group is the one who dictates who should participate with them in communion. There is an argument that this has existed from Christ to today. These are subtle nuances, but ever so important. Communion is about the local group's faithfulness to the message of Christ versus communion being about the personal obedience to the ordinance and its meanings. Otherwise, why wouldn't I partake of the Lord's Supper completely alone without the supervision of other believers/members at all?

Dr. Dever,

I have enjoyed reading your thoughts on the Baptism/Church Membership debate. I have not yet made up my mind as to what I think about the issue. I do however see the same (seeming) inconsistency that others have previously pointed out that you would allow in the pulpit at Capitol Hill those to whom you would also refuse communion. I think we would all like to see a response to these comments in another post (but we understand you are on vacation). I have strong convictions regarding the sacrament of baptism and its importance and necessity in the church. However, at this point I am more inclined to agree with Dr. Piper. At least, (respectfully, sir) I think his view is more consistent than yours. I look forward to hearing from you more on this subject in the future. God bless.

Sorry, I just saw the "about comments" section.

Christopher Gates
Trinity Baptist Church, Shreveport, LA

There's no doubt in my mind that John Piper has been the greatest role model for me and so many of the young people in this this country. (Young being 25 and Under)

However I have to agree with Wayne Grudem and Mark Dever in regards to Baptism being a requirement for membership because this is an issue regarding the attitude of the heart that is or is not willing to obey the local church that is practicing biblical standards. By no means is this "policing" people or putting up more burden on the people. That's like saying it’s a burden for not let wife beaters join the church because they are convinced that beating their wife is ok.

Perhaps beating someone and baptism(which is not a requirement for salvation) may seem totally irrelevant to one another, but the attitude sure is the same, which is the unwillingness to give up your ways to benefit the whole church. A person's attitude should be inclined to conforming to what is right and if their hearts are not willing to be submersed under water, as Jesus was, I think the church is going to have to suffer a lot more later down the road when this particular person will be unwilling to do other things because their attitude is for the church to conform to them rather then them conforming to the church. Which is like saying that God should change in order to have fellowship with us instead of us having fellowship according to his ways. For even Jesus was baptized and made it a command.

Also making an argument for allowing Ligon Duncun or R.C. Sproul being allowed to join a Baptist Church because they are brothers in Christ is a very poor argument. I love them both and their understanding of the gospel far surpasses mine (Which is why they belong in pulpits everywhere). However if they want to join a Baptist Church, yet they are unable to join because they disagree on values with that local church, I see it very immature that they would even think that the church should negotiate on what they stand for just for those individuals. But knowing R.C. Sproul and Ligon Duncon, they are not the kinds of people that would make such demands. They are happy in their Presbyterian churches. They would not join a Baptist Church and demand changes.

It's the same thing as us Southern Baptist and our Alcoholic policy. You can't join a leadership role in our churches if you consume alcohol for a load of reasons. But if a person is unable to understand that, we don't just say, "Well we tried, let's just let him serve in his own standards even though there's a good chance that him carrying a bottle of beer that will cause weaker members in our church to stumble especially since his actions contradict all the other leaders in our church"

So likewise, as we wouldn't expect other churches to change their values just so that we can join, I think we are requesting the same for those that enter into a Baptist church. This is why there are divisions in the church so that if this is an issue for you, there are other churches where you may have fellowship (Although we will miss you dearly and would have tried serving you in every manner to convince you of our ways). This is not an excommunication but it’s a way of saying that God is priority above all things. For us to negotiate in our conscious of what we believed to be a command of God for the sake of man, I think that puts the church in a dangerous position.

I'm a little confused about this whole topic, of Baptizem. One reason is because I grew up in a pentecostal church were baptizem was a prerequisite for salvation and that only ministered in the name of Jesus, not F,S&HS. Since then God in his providence has lead me to a right view of baptizem and it's relation to salvation. The linch-pin in my 180 was I Corinthians 1:17 "For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel." I know it's commanded in the scriptures to baptize, but if those of you who believe in the doctrines of Grace know that it's God who calls one to salvation; why does it matter when? The way I see it, if I have my son baptized, it is God who decides if he's elect or knot. If he is then the baptizem takes effect in one sense. That is, when he professes Christ as Lord, he can say he was baptized into the visible church. If he's knot then it doesn't have any effect on him. But either way as part of the believing visible church I'm going to raise my child as being in the
church.

I'm a little confused about this whole topic, of Baptizem. One reason is because I grew up in a pentecostal church were baptizem was a prerequisite for salvation and that only ministered in the name of Jesus, not F,S&HS. Since then God in his providence has lead me to a right view of baptizem and it's relation to salvation. The linch-pin in my 180 was I Corinthians 1:17 "For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel." I know it's commanded in the scriptures to baptize, but if those of you who believe in the doctrines of Grace know that it's God who calls one to salvation; why does it matter when? The way I see it, if I have my son baptized, it is God who decides if he's elect or knot. If he is then the baptizem takes effect in one sense. That is, when he professes Christ as Lord, he can say he was baptized into the visible church. If he's knot then it doesn't have any effect on him. But either way as part of the believing visible church I'm going to raise my child as being in the
church.

I'm a little confused about this whole topic, of Baptizem. One reason is because I grew up in a pentecostal church were baptizem was a prerequisite for salvation and that only ministered in the name of Jesus, not F,S&HS. Since then God in his providence has lead me to a right view of baptizem and it's relation to salvation. The linch-pin in my 180 was I Corinthians 1:17 "For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel." I know it's commanded in the scriptures to baptize, but if those of you who believe in the doctrines of Grace know that it's God who calls one to salvation; why does it matter when? The way I see it, if I have my son baptized, it is God who decides if he's elect or knot. If he is then the baptizem takes effect in one sense. That is, when he professes Christ as Lord, he can say he was baptized into the visible church. If he's knot then it doesn't have any effect on him. But either way as part of the believing visible church I'm going to raise my child as being in the
church.

I'm a little confused about this whole topic, of Baptizem. One reason is because I grew up in a pentecostal church were baptizem was a prerequisite for salvation and that only ministered in the name of Jesus, not F,S&HS. Since then God in his providence has lead me to a right view of baptizem and it's relation to salvation. The linch-pin in my 180 was I Corinthians 1:17 "For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel." I know it's commanded in the scriptures to baptize, but if those of you who believe in the doctrines of Grace know that it's God who calls one to salvation; why does it matter when? The way I see it, if I have my son baptized, it is God who decides if he's elect or knot. If he is then the baptizem takes effect in one sense. That is, when he professes Christ as Lord, he can say he was baptized into the visible church. If he's knot then it doesn't have any effect on him. But either way as part of the believing visible church I'm going to raise my child as being in the
church.

I'm a little confused about this whole topic, of Baptizem. One reason is because I grew up in a pentecostal church were baptizem was a prerequisite for salvation and that only ministered in the name of Jesus, not F,S&HS. Since then God in his providence has lead me to a right view of baptizem and it's relation to salvation. The linch-pin in my 180 was I Corinthians 1:17 "For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel." I know it's commanded in the scriptures to baptize, but if those of you who believe in the doctrines of Grace know that it's God who calls one to salvation; why does it matter when? The way I see it, if I have my son baptized, it is God who decides if he's elect or knot. If he is then the baptizem takes effect in one sense. That is, when he professes Christ as Lord, he can say he was baptized into the visible church. If he's knot then it doesn't have any effect on him. But either way as part of the believing visible church I'm going to raise my child as being in the
church.

I'm so glad I saw through the eiegesis of credo-baptism and abandoned it for paedo-baptism long ago. As with most credo baptists, Dever and Piper and Storms and others base their case on assertion and tradition, not on Scripture, a disappointment for me since I usually find Desiring God to be very helpful in exegeting Scripture, but not when it comes to credobaptism. It's somewhat of an exaggeration to say I'm a full-fledged paedo-baptist since as with most theological issues I'm not fully persuaded by either position as to it squaring fully with God's Word, but sadly Mark & John are so blind they don't even see their own blindness, as with the Pharisees, as with so many others today who blindly follow the eisegetical credobaptist traditions, like Luther and his failure to convert the Jews seeming never to stop to think God has a reason and a timing for the disunity of most of the Church concerning what baptism is. Luther got so mad he asked the state to start killing Jews for resisting his preaching. I wonder if those who are adding this new diabolical shibboleth of agreement on baptism before allowing participation in the Eucharist or preaching (reserving the matter of membership as a different matter as Grudem wisely did) will become as carnal in their anger as Luther did. By the comparison to the great Luther I hope to show I mean no disrespect, but the Reformers were no more infallible than the Pope (even though Protestants are inclined to treat them so, the main reason I'm not a Protestant), and today's preachers no more than they. Luke 13 would seem to be what's called for, Jesus saying to this group clearly being sifted by satan before the 2008 "Together" conference, "REPENT OR YOU WILL LIKEWISE PERISH!" May everyone on this list join me in putting face to the floor and begging God for mercy such as bringing us all the conviction for sin we so greatly need and lack.

Seems that if Paul can explain how one can eat meat and another can't, on the basis of the individual's faith, then how can one be so certain one form or timing of baptism is right and others not, if the faith of those conferring/receiving enables them to so do? Jesus' command was to baptise. So, we baptise. At that Supper, He also took bread and wine (not grape juice--wrong time of year for unfermented juice anyway) and commanded us to "do this". And so we do. Can anyone assert, beyond question, which of the twelve present at that Passover meal had been baptised, and in what manner, BEFORE that Supper? So one, having the faith to do, holds that, in baptising his infant son, he is being faithful to Jesus' command to "baptise". Another holds that baptism ought be withheld until that son can articulate his reasons for desiring baptism to some designated group of men. Is this difference a matter of salvation? I should hope not. And, if elect, is not one ALREADY a part of the church? Does making some black marks with a short pencil on a yellow index card change THIS? And whence comes the concept of "policing" the Table, as though we have control over some coveted scarce goodie to be meted out with care? Is it not the LORD"S Table? Surely, and warning to "examine yourselves" (n.b.: it does NOT say examine everyone else in the room) and not to take "unworthily" are necessary. But it is never for YOU to determine whether I am unworthy to participate...EXCEPT when I am found, after careful examination and the testimony of two or more witnesses it is established that I am participating in serious sin and refuse to leave it..note, not that I yet struggle with it, but hold to it as acceptable...as did that man in Corinth. And in THAT case, I am put out of the church, all refuse to have any dealings with me whatever, so that I am NOT even present in the room when the Table is celebrated.
I simply do NOT understand why so many work so vigourously to work out who can NOT participate in what...when such things are given for ALL who follow after our Lord. How can my participation in the Table "wrongly" (by, e.g., having been baptised by sprinkling at the age of four weeks and subsequently displaying all the usual indications of following hard after Jesus) affect YOU? And who are YOU to determine on what basis I can participate? Brothers, why are we so intent on building fences and obstacles against those whose hearts fully seek the Lord...thoug perhaps not conforming in some details with what WE might hold to be "right"? When Jesus said "as often as YOU do this, YOU do it in remembrace of Me", to whom was He speaking? If only those twelve present (including, by the way, Judas), then we none of us ought to ever partake, as none were present then. If all those whom the Father has given Him, then how can we do other than admit all who understand that the Father has given us to Jesus as part of His bride?

where in the bible does it say a
believer can't partake of the Lords supper if he's not baptized according to the baptist? Also in I Corinthians Paul mentions in 1:17 that he didn't come to baptize but to preach the Gospel...anyways love covers a multitude of sin, I love my brothers John and Mark, so lets extend a little grace...

Friends, I am grieved over the discussion. The issue is linked by some to church discipline. The fact is that we Baptists usually don't discipline gross immorality in our churches. Let's make sure we are disciplining the appropriate people--are solid believers who disagree with us over the issue of baptism really the candidates for discipline? Then too the last time I read I Corinthians 11 I saw nothing in that passage about policing the table or fencing it from unbelievers or the unbaptized. Rather, what I read is that Christians were taking the Lord's supper in an unworthy way by not loving, accepting and sharing with one another.

I find it benefitial to try and look at Christian controversies from Satan's point of view, and then try to take the opposite position. What do you learned men suppose Satan would want you to think about Baptism / Lord's Supper / Church Membership? Would he desire more or less generosity when a disagreement arose over such an issue? What kind of "unity" would Satan seek to promote? What kind of "unity" would Satan seek to thwart?
I don't presume to know the mind of Satan or the mind of the Lord on all these issues, but it would seem to me that Christ would be promoting generosity and Satan would promote grudging behavior.
The religious leaders of Jesus' day were warned about straining the gnat and swallowing the camel. Is that what this discussion has become? If it has, how can we implement a church polity that promotes generosity and yet avoids giving Satan victories in other areas?

Perhaps the wisdom of the Clinton Administration would help with this issue over baptism and communion. Simply: "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

How about this:
Why is the believer unwilling to be baptized? Paedobaptists? Please profess your new life to a congregation you intend to serve and labor with! If believer's baptism is mandated by Christ, and you now know this, then what is standing in your way? I rejoiced at my baptism! I thanked God afterwards, kneeling in the bathroom stall I was changing in. New Life! Symbolized!

The Ethiopian eunuch gladly embraced the muddy desert waters, as to proclaim. So we continue to use this mode to proclaim Christ.

I’m still giving much thought to the issue, but this is where I am so far…

It's somewhat astonishing that not a few persons quote 1Tim.3:15-17 in affirming the inspiration, authority, and relevance of the Scriptures, and yet hardly (if ever) consult the very Old Testament of which the passage speaks when it comes to discussing the issue of God’s view, commands, and requirements regarding the children born within the covenant community. Indeed, Reformed paedobaptists maintain that there is no need to look for a command to baptise children, because there is an ontological unity and continuity of the historical covenants. In my mind, the nature of inspired progressive revelation does not create a false dichotomy, isolation, and an evaluation of the New Testament above the Old. The present dichotomy seems to have blurred God’s revealed will for the infants of His people, one of which is that they receive the sign and seal of the covenant of grace, which bear themes such as redemption, purification, righteousness, and fellowship with God.

That the above themes can be evoked over children of insufficient age and intelligence to confess them is very provocative to some. Aren’t these the very truths which credobaptists say cannot be applied to children until they have reached the years of discretion and understanding and area able to me a reasoned and responsible consent to such truths? Did not God call the entire nation (adults and children) “my special possession out of all the nations…and you will be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exo.19:5-6)? Were these truths not to be taught to those who had already been admitted into the visible community and received its “sign and seal”? Weren’t these said Children taught to seek YHWH personally within the context of the wider covenant community? What has lead us to believe that adults under the old covenant were less concerned about applying the “sign and seal” if the covenant to their infants than we are today? Many paedo and credobaptists do their best to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the lord, pray with and for them, recognise their privilege in being born to Christian parents, etc…could it be that one of the main differences between the two groups is that one refuse to administer the sign of the covenant to their children because the NT is silent on the matter, and that the other administer the sign of because believes God hasn’t indicated that His command has been revoked?

One of the things which has caused me to lean toward affirming the validity of paedobaptism is the fact that the promise made to Abraham was pre-law. It’s my view that the “New Covenant” does not abrogate or supersede the Abrahamic promise; it confirms, reinforces, extends, and enlarges the blessings and benefits of the Abrahamic covenant of which circumcision was the sign – a sign which was to be administered to the infants of God’s people. The New Covenant is contrasted with the Sinaic Covenant not the Abrahamic promise (Jer.31:31-34; 2Cor.3:14; Heb.3-10; 8:6,13). There cold be something to the idea that the family unit was the first “institution” to be destroyed by sin and that through it God has been pleased to redeem the fallen world. The biblical notion of solidarity (not modern individualism) is reinforced.

Although I am a credo-baptist, I am a member of a God-honoring PCA church which pratices infant baptism. In my local community, there are baptist churches however they do not preach the gospel. I could not in good conscious join a church that preaches that God accepts all without ever mentioning repentance and that if you join the church and follow Christ, you will be healthy, wealthy, and have no troubles. However, I also believe that membership in a local church is commanded, so after much thought, I joined a PCA church that preaches the truth. In many areas of the country, I could have joined a Bible-believing baptist church, but that isn't an option in my small town at the moment. I would hope that if a paedo-baptist was in my position and had to choose between joining a paedo-baptist church that did not teach, preach, and live the gospel or joining a baptist church that did, the elders of that baptist church would extend grace and allow them the full fellowship as a member of the church that my PCA church family has given me.

I don't think that Piper is argueing that baptism is not important but that there are situations when we should allow paedo-baptists to become members of baptist churches. Church membership is very important and to deny someone membership when they do not have an alterantive Biblical church is in my mind very serious. Part of Capital Hill Baptist Church's covenant states "We will, when we move from this place, as soon as possible, unite with some other church where we can carry out the spirit of this covenant and the principles of God's Word." What if when a member moves away, the only place they can find to unite with is a presbyterian church? Should we not extend the same grace and fellowship to our paedo-baptist brothers and sisters that we would hope to recieve and in my case have recieved? Would we deny someone pastoral oversight (usually only for members) because there is not a paedo-baptist Biblical church in the area and they (in good conscious) believe that have already fulfilled the command to be baptized?

I am one who is committed to believer's baptism. I believe that the issue is one of covenant membership. I am convinced that the chief distinction of the New Covenant over the Old, as seen in Jer. 31:31-34, is that the New Covenant cannot be broken. As Baptists, we cannot assure that all whom we baptize are believers. However, that is our intent. And when we baptize them, we are acknowledging that they are members of a covenant which cannot be broken. Would the Presbyterian say that when he baptizes an infant, that the infant is a member of a covenant which cannot be broken? Would that not require a bit of presumption?

That having been said, here is the rub: there is not a single Covenantal Calvinistic Baptist church within reasonable driving distance of my home. I have attended a fine PCA church which has a solid man in the pulpit, who is compasionate enough over my circumstances. I am a former RBC pastor who presently does not even have a secular job. This PCA pastor is so concerned for me that he wants to have lunch with me today. I cannot join a Presbyterian church. However, ther are many ways that even we Calvinistic Baptists have chosen to divide ourselves. My struggle is to determine what Romans 14 has to say to me and the church that I would join. I haven't figured it out yet. The "weaker brother" of Romans 14 is the man with the stricter convictions. That is me. The man with the stricter convictions may on occasion have a better understanding of the moral commandments than his "stronger brother." I conclude by saying that there is something about Romans 14 that we don't understand. And if I understood in better, I would not be so isolated and miserable in my spirit. In 1 Cor. 11:19 (you know the context), Paul wrote that divisions were necessary that the approved might be manifested. This does not mean that one man is to be approved while the other is not. Both men on differing sides of the arguement can be seen as approved by God by how they handle their differences. God grant that I be one of thsoe men, but I have not always been so in the past.

it's easy for Presbyterians to receive baptists into membership because Presbyterians practice adult baptism as well; therefore adult baptism would not be deemed "invalid." The problem is with Baptists deeming the believer's baptism as an infant non-Christian.

Presbyterians honestly believe they've been baptized. Baptists honestly believe they (Presby's) haven't. Baptists should have the right (as Mark evidences) to act on his conviction that Presbyterians have NOT been baptized by refusing membership and communion; likewise, Presbyterians have the right (as Ligon evidences) to receive and admit Baptists to membership and the Table.

I think the key that Mark is mission (or just not addressing?) is that it doesn't seem to be a matter of "unrepentant sin" because there is no prior "conviction" which would move the Presbyterian to repentance.

^ should read "missing"

I am a baptized believer, baptized in a Baptist church. I have a witness to this in the church I have been attending and giving to for almost 3 years now. However, I have a problem with the demand by any denomination that I be "branded" with their own label in order to be considered a member of the body of Christ because it is a real hindrance in witnessing.
Also, since there are "tares" in every church, why would anyone think that everyone who officially joins a church is actually saved?
So... you already have unbelievers (tares) receiving communion and are preventing true believers who have a testimony that they have been born again and have demonstrated a faithfulness to the church, but don't want to be labeled because it is a hindrance in witnessing. Yet I am excluded from the Lord's table. Not only me, but the pastor of the church I attend cannot participate when he attends other churches that know his testimony and walk. This is absurd.
If someone is a follower of Jesus Christ and lives to serve Him, is that not enough? We were baptized into Christ, not a denomination. Ephesians 4:4,5 says: "There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— one Lord, one faith, one baptism".
Closed communion divides the body of Christ.

I should mention that the night finally came when he announced a call for the Lord's table to be held in 2 weeks. I was the only one (besides the pastor's family) that showed up.

i get that baptism is a commandment...but there are lots of commandments, namely the greatest commandment that is not "required" for church membership. furthermore, if i can be "saved" and not be baptised, but not be a member of a church because I'm not baptised, does that not place church membership higher than salvation? that seems strange to me.

Here is one>

Should Baptists recognize Baptisms done by other denominations, which are close in form, but different in theology, such as Churches of Christ? For instance, if a Christian becomes a Baptist, after being Baptized in a Churches of Christ church (or some other immersion form), should a Baptist church require RE baptism for membership?!