I was reared a Baptist (independent) and am now an EFCA pastor. Because of the unique history our denomination has coming out of Scandinavian state-church Lutheranism, we accept both kinds of baptism and do not require it for membership. I do see the weaknesses in this position, but it is who we are and where we are at this point.

Some thoughts... perhaps it would be better for us not to think of baptism simply in terms of obedience, since that puts us immediately onto the church discipline track.

We only require a profession of faith for church membership, though as one who subscribes to believer's baptism, I see baptism AS one's profession of faith (among many other things that it depicts).

We pastors should be able to show our people from Scripture what baptism is meant to depict and demonstrate, and how all these things are wrapped up in the complex reality of conversion, including what God does and how we respond. This includes cleansing, regeneration, union with Christ, public identification with Christ, the "baptism" of the Spirit, and union/identification with the church.

Reducing it to a simple act of obedience serves to flatten the beautiful picture of baptism, and because we are so careful to say that it does contribute to our salvation, many people are left with the notion that it is just a "hoop" through which they must jump. It, like church membership itself, is not a mere formality. It is a marvelous expression of the gospel, with personal/individual as well as corporate blessings.

This article seems to be written in lieu of the discussion between Piper and Grudem. It seems like to me that there are problems with both sides of the discussion. And I think there is a major hurdle that Baptists and other denominations that confess believer only baptism have to face. First it is not the traditional way to understand baptism. So many of the saints and great theologians of the past were never really baptized and got the whole baptism question wrong. Second many denominations still baptize infants. What do you do with these people? Baptism is too important to accept Padeobaptists as church members. But is communion not so important that they can take communion in our churches without being baptized? And is baptism really important enough to restrict who we worship and fellowship with? It seems the reformers had it kind of right. While I reject some of the persecution that occured I can't see how Baptists can worship and fellowship with infant baptizers. Sure we can call presbyterians and anglicans Christians but how can we do more than that. Even calling them Christians could be seen as pushing it. Any which way Baptists go besides breaking off fellowship with padeoBaptits seems to me to be regelating baptism to a lowere position than how it is discussed in the Biblical text.

I do not see Piper's or Grudem's positions being really tenable.

BH- CARL Peterson

Bruce,

I think your point about flattening baptism to a matter of obedience is helpful. But doesn't your argument make it even more imperative that believers' baptism be taught and practiced exclusively, and required for church membership? It seems that a necessary implication of your argument is that to accept other understandings of baptism as valid is to minimize or confuse our theology of conversion.

Am I misunderstanding you?

Aaron,

You describe Bunyan as "trad[ing] on the emotional weight of these themes and prioritiz[ing] them above other apparently contradictory ones: [viz.] obedience and truth".

That is not entirely fair or accurate.

To argue, as Bunyan did, that excommunication is a very serious thing (items 4, 8, & 9, as you enumerate them above) is not simply to trade in sentimental argument. ("Removing someone from their plate", as some seventeenth century Baptists were wont to call it, is equivalent to treating someone as a pagan or to "handing them over to Satan".)

Rather it is to warn that one is dealing with something serious that is not to be taken lightly.

We may disagree with Bunyan, but I should think that we at least ought to do him the justice of rightly regarding his arguments as arguments, which need to be met with solidly Scriptural logic and not so lightly dismissed.

Like Timothy I read prejudice there in those comments. And so why was Booth's contention that this would lead to an undermining of the Baptist existence not merely pragmatic? Can't have that, we are legitimate after all, we'll take the position that preserves the ground we have gained.

That being said, thanks for so nicely summing up the history for us all. Wasn't there some movement in England in the 1800s similar with this too?

Both credobaptists and paedobaptists agree that baptism is required for church membership. The problem for credobaptists is that they don't believe that a person baptised as an infant has actually been baptised. (Hence there is normally no problem with a credobaptist joining a paedobaptist church.)

If a credobaptist church requires rebaptism of a person baptized as an infant I would encourage the paedobaptist to go with the flow. Why divide unnecessarily over the timing of baptism? Would the credobaptist church requires both rebaptism and mental assent that credobaptism is the correct doctrine though? If so, the bar of church membership has become something other than a credible profession of faith.

I do, though, have a bigger problem than that raised in these articles. What to do when a church accepts both credobaptists and paedobaptists as members yet doesn't make either form of baptism a requirement for membership?

PS How would Capitol Hill respond to a paedobaptist asking for rebaptism by pouring or sprinkling? If a credobaptist baulks at this, ask whether you use wine or grape juice in communion and then consider which of these issues is most clearly answered by the scriptures!

In Christ,

James.

Responding to Ben (Wright?)...

I think you are hearing me rightly. Ironically, it because the EFCA was born out of a reaction to sacramentalism and nominalism that they came to the policy of not requiring baptism for church membership. The rationale is that we do not require for inclusion in the local body of Christ that which is not required for membership in the universal/invisible body of Christ. Whether you grant that distinction, correlation, and logic is another topic of discussion.

Personally, I would be more comfortable with our denomination (i.e., fellowship of congregations) being open include both paedobaptist congregations and credobaptist congregations, with each congregation being convinced of their particular position and consistent in their practice. I think that would be largely similar to the spirit and ethos of The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, Together for the Gospel, The Gospel Coalition, etc., though these are not denominations. Functionally, this is how the EFCA has operated, by and large, even if it is not spelled out in the by-laws.

So, you are right in hearing some tension in my position. I am a firm credobaptist, even moreso than when I was a Baptist (capital "B"), but I am delighted to be in partnership with paedobaptists, even within my denomination. It is a lot trickier at the congregational level. There are definitely some tensions in this position, but at this point, I'm okay to live with these rather than others. I am comfortable in having the freedom to persuade any paedobaptist EFCA brethren (of which there are few) of my credobaptist stance without it being a mandated position for fellowship.

We also practice open communion, but I don't have time to go into that.

As a fellow Free Church pastor, I simply wanted to thank Bruce for stating clearly and concisely both the logic and the tension of the EFCA's position.

Thanks Bruce. That's helpful. We can talk about this in person in a couple weeks if you prefer, but although your distinction between diversity within one congregation and diversity within a denomination makes sense, I wonder what implications it still might have at the denominational level. In other words, couldn't this tolerance of diversity have direct implications on cooperative missions and church planting efforts? And couldn't that have long-term implications for local churches?

Actually, the openness of our position on baptism is touted as an advantage for cooperative efforts. But this is a great example of why baptism is a unique issue: it is not merely an interpretation or doctrinal stance, it is a practice. Thus, while we might rejoice that credos and paedos can work together to plant a church on the mission field, it really only works if they have a somewhat subdued emphasis on baptism, because you have to decide if you're going to do one or the other when you do baptize. Thankfully, credos and paedos can and do agree that adult converts must be baptized... as believers.

Overall, I believe it has tended to minimize the theology and practice of baptism in our fellowship of churches, but within our structure and ethos, it really is the responsibility of the local church and its pastor(s) to make sure that doesn't happen in their flock.

So Booth says, "the New Testament presents Baptism as a necessary prerequisite to the Lord’s Supper."

Can someone tell me where?

Interestingly enough, if not somewhat timely, our local church has been addressing the issue of Protestant sacraments and we’re reforming some of our practices as a result. So, for me, this has become a topic of not just theological debate but practical import.

We are evidently assuming a more structured approach to baptism and communion. As an adult who is converted and a believer who also enjoys “official” church membership, I have yet to be baptized. And no doubt this sacrament is necessary and commanded. So it’s on the short list to be sure.

However, that said, and I’m only just starting to research this subject in any depth, I’ve had difficulty finding some of the biblical correlations some insist are axiomatic truths. For example, we’ve prohibited our younger children from communion on the basis of unity in Christ (salvation); not the rite of baptism. So, much like Matt’s query, I’ve yet to find exegetical, didactic support for this sequence of (a) baptism first (and in some circles, only pending some kind of probation cycle of conversion validation first?) then allowing for (b) shared communion.

Perhaps it’s in there and I keep missing it? No doubt, I still have much to learn regarding this space, but my hunch is some of what I’m grappling with is far more descriptive inference and, perhaps, even church traditions and pragmatic ideals then exegetical, prescriptive commands as truly found in scripture.

Hopefully I’ll continue learn from the kinds of interchange taking place in forums such as this.

I like the summary Aubrey Malphurs gives in 'a New Kind of Church' where he lists the 'essentials' that orthodox Christians hold in common, derived from the first 5 Church councils. He then lists the 'non-essentials' that orthodox Christians have had differing approaches to.

In essence, in common with Melanchthon "in essentials unity, in differences unity, and in all things, love"

Do you ever wonder what God must think of us, in the midst of a lost and dying world, spending time and energy debating who can or can't 'belong to us' on the basis of our doctrines?

Are you ever struck by the absurdity that Jesus is prepared to accept people that we reject?

What will be our defence for all the time and energy we have spent on this and all the hurt that has been caused through this superfluous debate?

This is a question regarding counseling. My daughter(23 - Master's College grad) met a girl at church who was very needy. My daughter befriended her and this girl (also 23) began telling her things about her parents that were, if true, very sinful. This girl began asking me for counsel and while I listened to her I told her she had to submit to her parents (she lives at home) and work on a relationship with them. We since found out that 90% of what she told us about her parents was untrue, they are godly people who believe that she is not saved. My duaghter confronted her friend, her friend was unrepentant and cut all of us off, not speaking to us. There are 2 complications - our daughter-in-law, who has an MABC degree from Master's, and our son who is taking the courses now, were asked by this girl to counsel her. In spite of the fact that she has cut us off and is not repentant, they are continuing to counsel her and it has caused a major rift in the family. When we tried to tell them to be cautious, that her own parents despair of her salvation, and that her lying has been an ongoing and serious problem, they tell us that they are better equipped to deal with her than my husband and I and her parents. We are now admonishing them to turn her over to other counselors who are not in the family. What is your advice? This is heartbreaking and is, as I say, causing a major rift. Thanks.