I think that the line you speak of can still clearly be drawn, but for me the real question is, what happens when the number of paedobaptists in your church outnumbers the credobaptists? If they are allowed democratic privileges as members, then once they get majority, they can change the church constitution. Limiting who is and is not a member of a church guards against who makes the decisions in the local organization more than it describes who is beloved of Christ.

Isn't it a matter of correct doctrine? And that correct doctrine as being the foundation for healthy assemblies of believers? If so, then anything that promulgates bad doctrine should not be considered as valid for "membership". Hence, paedo-baptism becomes a non-issue when viewed in its correct setting as "bad doctrine" and "credo-baptism" (Believer's Baptism") is taught and practiced.

Scott,

I'm not sure it is as clear as you would make it out. Would you exclude those who hold to the bad doctrine of Arminianism? Or Calvinism? What about doctrines related to the Sabbath? Not every "bad doctrine" is ground for exclusion as you would suppose. There are underlining presuppositions about baptism that are in play in your post.

My point is that Baptists have overemphasized this doctrine to the point where it has now become some type of litmus test of doctrinal fidelity and eligibility for membership and participation at the Lord's Table. That, when applied to secondary doctrines such as mode/timing of baptism (not whether or not someone has been baptized at all) is the core of sectarianism. Hence the reason that the book I have that briefly (in a couple of pages per article) describes every US denominations is over 400 pages long! With all due respect it is a wonder to me that the US church can be characterized as charitable and gracious when we are so so divided.

Peace to you,

Jeremy

Not directly related to the question posed in the post, but a perspective I haven't seen in the discussion thus far:

One thing I think that "open membership" does is rely more upon individual conviction on issues like baptism rather than upon truth. In other words, it becomes less important whether you are actually right or wrong and more important that you are sincere in your belief. It also places the individual conscience above that of the church's corporate conscience, making it preferable to violate the church's corporate convictions (as outlined in their statement of faith) rather than those of the individual seeking membership. This may at first appear to be generous, but this principle applied more generally undermines even the concept of "corporate conviction" as expressed in any sort of statement of faith. What do we even mean when we say, "*We* believe..."?

Jeremy,
I do appreciate the 'litmus' test portrayal. Put that way, you have a very good point. But then, rarely are the other doctrines used as litmus tests. Only baptism seems to hold that distinction and as such I feel it can continue to be characterized as such.

If we were to use all doctrines as litmus tests I dare say you would find an organization calling itself a church that would be able to continue doing so. But they do it anyway. But "what's wrong with the current church system" is a whole other topic.

OK, so, we have talked about the theological reasons for excluding paedobpatists from the Lord's Table and membership. We have had historical reflections. And we have looked at now some negative effects.

However, maybe I am missing something and I am a little naive but I would still like to see some biblical warrant for such an exclusion. If it is simply a matter of prudence born of a biblically informed wisdom then I may buy it. But I want to know what it is in the Bible that is doing the informing.

And while I understand the concerns about a majority of persons taking a particular position on baptism and then voting to change the constitution, etc of the congregation. Is that not possible with any position/doctrine in a church that is congregational?

Scott,

I agree. But every group of sectarian believers believes that their important issue "hold[s] the distinction" and is reason for separation. That is the nature of sectarianism. I'm not sure that the "what's wrong with the current church system" really is a whole other topic. After all, "what is wrong" is wrong because of how we've handled these types of issues in the past. The key is to identify which of these divisive issues are really grounds for divisions. Just because something is divisive doesn't mean we can, or should, divide over it.

This is important: The one repeated ground for divisions in the NT is when someone is regarded as unregenerate. Don't ignore this. Matt Redmond's repeatedly unanswered question gets to this point. Don't miss this. In the NT, if someone is excluded it is because the church believes them to be an unbeliever. This is why, rightly in my mind, some have posed the question as to why someone can be regarded as a believer and yet remained excluded from membership or the Table. This idea is completely and utterly foreign to the NT.

I've refrained from sharing anything personal about myself thus far but a good example may be helpful here. I was baptized as a believer via pouring. From what I've seen here so far and what I've experience personally is that people are willing to accept that I am a Christian but either 1) unwilling to accept me into membership or 2) unwilling to allow me to participate at the Table.

I'd just charge people to be consistent regarding the NT's teaching on exclusion from the Table and fellowship. Either allow me to join and participate or regard me as an unbeliever.

Piper has, wisely, outlined how someone can disagree about something as important as baptism and still share membership and fellowship at the Table. This looks more Spirit-driven to me than the alternative views that I've seen presented here.

Peace to you,

Jeremy

Jeremy,
You said: "This is important: The one repeated ground for divisions in the NT is when someone is regarded as unregenerate."

This is exactly why I think it is important. It is the only outward presentation a believer is commanded to make. If we can't expect a potential member to do this one simple thing (or provide some kind of proof he has done so as a believer) then why build a "church" membership base on it? Modes of baptism not withstanding, the "whens and whys" have to be carefully observed. If someone refuses believer's baptism, then what are we to conclude? We are to conclude they are unregenerate and hence SHOULD be excluded from the Lord's table and "church" membership.

Scott,

You said, " If someone refuses believer's baptism, then what are we to conclude? We are to conclude they are unregenerate and hence SHOULD be excluded from the Lord's table and "church" membership."

At least you're consistent. Thank you for that honesty. At least someone is willing.

Jeremy

Jeremy,

You wrote: "In the NT, if someone is excluded it is because the church believes them to be an unbeliever."

I think that this statement is far from certain. "I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." (1 Cor 5:5) Paul seems to be doing quite the contrary to speculating negatively about the eternal destiny of this person coming under the exclusion of church discipline.

In Matthew 18, the person coming under discpline is repeatedly referred to as a brother, and there is always the hope of restoration, as expressed in Galatians 6.

I'll grant to you, in the case of 1 John 2:18-24 we are presented with a group excluded and diagnosed as being unregenerate. But you go too far to suggest that such is the only disciplinary scenario presented in the NT.

Bart,

You're right. I'll clarify by saying that *continual* exclusion is regarded this way. 1 Cor. 5:5 presupposes that the person is either 1) unregenerate or 2) will come to repentance and be readmitted back into the church. This reemphazes my point in the other thread. If the person never comes to "repentance" and is baptized as a believer by immersion then it would seem to me that the baptist must regard him as unregenerate.

Jeremy

Jeremy,

Thanks for the clarification. Yet I do not see this assumption presented in the context. I certainly see the hope (and even the confidence) expressed that the disciplinary action of the congregation will work good in the spirit of the believer. Yet nowhere is the assurance given that repentance will occur soon or even pre-mortem. Indeed, rather explicitly in the text, the hoped-for assurance is for salvation at the Second Coming.

Many die unrepentant about something-or-other. I'm probably one of the least Calvinistic folks posting around here (tally me at around 3.284), but even I believe that God's grace is greater than our temporal perseverance in sin and even is greater than our disciplinary exclusion from a congregation, so long as we are regenerate.

The proper standard for church discipline, both biblically and historically, IMHO, is that we keep in membership those who give good evidence that they are regenerate, not that we exclude those who give good evidence that they are not.

Bart,

There are, as you know, other factors in considering whether one is regenerate or not. What about love, charity, forgiveness, justice, mercy, etc. Didn't Jesus rebuke the Pharisees for their strict observance to the and failure to observe these things?

If you've been baptized as a believer by immersion but fail to demonstrate any of these more critical things then you've neglected the "weightier" matters. It is unfortunate that believer's baptism by immersion is the de facto test, not the previously mentioned items.

Jeremy

Jeremy,

I, among others, am endeavoring to encourage Baptists to give attention to these other things as well. Perhaps one might resolve the dilemma you propose not by dropping baptism like all the rest, but by taking up all the rest like baptism.

Of course, one's baptism is tangible and binary, and will therefore always be somewhat more definitive than conclusions about whether someone is or is not loving (enough).

Jermey,
You said: "If you've been baptized as a believer by immersion but fail to demonstrate any of these more critical things then you've neglected the "weightier" matters."

This would in fact show such person to be a liar. Unfortunately, this makes our "church" membership rolls full of liars.

You also said: "It is unfortunate that believer's baptism by immersion is the de facto test, not the previously mentioned items."

It shouldn't be THE test. It should the PROFESSION of salvation and Lordship of Jesus Christ. By that profession should "church" membership then determined.

Pastors continually have to make choices as to what doctrinal issues will bar people from membership. I know of a church that will not allow any non-calvinists into membership. They make the same argument that Matt Schmucker is making here. They are asking what is seperating us from the world? Should we allow a vision of a God that subservient to the whim and will of man into our membership and potentially bring division and even constiutional change?

While we easily slide this issue off to the side as a "secondary" issue, the issue is not the doctrine itself, but the reality that there will be division over it and marginalization of doctrine within the body.

We cannot escape these realities, but more importantly, with regad to baptism, the "open membership" is no proclaiming that Baptism is somehow a negotiable issue. What is being negotiated is the validity and acceptability of differences over the timing and mode of baptism, not baptism itself.

In chapter 28 of Mathew Jesus says to baptize in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But then if one reads the book of Acts the disciples baptized in the name of Jesus. If one would keep reading, lets say till I Corinthians 1:17 Paul
mentions he was sent not to baptize but to preach the gospel. Although it's clear that Paul did believe in baptizing people,(which is mentioned in both Acts and I Corinthians), this doesn't seem to be a huge doctrinal issue. Jesus said F,S,HS, the disciples did it in Jesus name, and Paul didn't equate it with being on the same level of importance as salvation. So even in the beginning of the church we see different ways of baptism being applied. if we applied the same scrutiny to the disciples as we do to others today, then Peter was wrong/sinning in the book of acts to baptize the 3000 in the name of Jesus when he was told to do it in the name of F,S,HS. But if Peter wasn't wrong\sinning then maybe theres a little bit more freedom in how one administers the gift of baptism today also.

I like what Luke said, "what is being negotiated isn't...baptism. what is, is it's usage and validity based on timing."-some what paraphrased.