To say that a paedobaptist isn't
baptized is to say water isn't wet. If they weren't baptized then we would call them Non-baptist and they would rightfully be outside the visible church. I grew up a pentecostal, and in the denomination i was in, one had to
be baptized as a part of one's salvation experience. Apparently they never read Galatians. If you weren't baptized, spoke in tongues and repented of sins, you weren't saved. I remember when I was baptized, it was in 88, and the book 88 reason why Christ is coming back in 88 just came out. I heard people talking about this book
and I knew that if I wasn't baptized i wasn't going at the Lords return. So i was baptized. It was sin. I was adding to what Christ finished work on the cross accomplished. I was relying on
it and Christ to make heaven. Yet I was part of the now "visible" church. Since then I've repented of this, but I haven't been rebaptized. Why? because I was already baptized. My son is one year old, and i treat him as part of the visible church. My unsaved friends consider him part of the church, and are always (jokenly)ask if he can quot scriptures yet, or was his first word Calvin (and no it was not.). I also raise him as part of the visible church, knowing God is faithful, and in His timing my son will come into a personal relationship with Him. If i have him baptized then it's saying publicly he's part of the visible church. Or if I have him dedicated it's saying he's part of the visible church. If he's baptized as a baby, and latter on makes a personal confession of faith in Jesus, hes saved. If in God's providence he's saved and is counted righteous in Christ, then who are we to say he can't be a member of a local church? Are we higher then God? Paul in I Cor 1.17 Said, "For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel..." Paul did baptize people as scripture clearly points out, whether individuals as in acts 19, or whole household as in I Cor 1.16. baptizem is important but not enough to withhold fellowship from other believers. Even in the begining of the church when Jesus tells the disciples in Mathew 28 go and baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The disciple baptized in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38,19:5). So even here
there was room to interpret Christ command of baptizem different. If on takes a strict interpretation of how to be baptized then the Apostle got it wrong, and also
what was Paul talking about in
I Cor 15 baptizem for the dead? When we get to heaven and theres a credo, and paedo section I must admit I'll be surprised.

Jason, in the Bible, Peter exhorts sinners who have not yet done so to "repent and be baptized." (Acts 2:38) The order that he gives us is first, repentance, and then, baptism. In that light, we Baptists believe that it is disobedient to the Scriptures to baptize infants or children (or adults) who have not yet repented of sin.

I'm glad this discussion is taking place... it's been a long time coming. I ultimately left the SBC and SBTS because this particular issue caused me to think real hard about what I believed and why I believed it. I applaud Piper's attempt at unity, but I don't see how he can reconcile the two issues.

In regards to your post, I have a few comments.
1)You said "Baptism defines whom we recognise to be members of the visible church, just as Spirit baptism creates the members of the invisible church. (1 Corinthians 12:13). People from both sides of the debate have agreed this."

I don't agree with this. I don't think the Bible really differentiates between the visible and invisible church. Is it a reality? Possibly... most definately if we're talking about God's perspective, but this is not how the Bible teaches the church to think about the church. We shouldn't separate Spirit and water baptism. Those who are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are to be recognized as part of the church - this is the example of Paul in his letters. I think a lot of problems have come from trying to make a visible/invisible distinction when there shouldn't be one.

2)You said "In order to be a church together, do we not at least need to be able to agree what a church is? Is it (1) a covenanted community of believers. Or is it (2) a community that includes believers and their children?"

I have two issues with this. First, I believe the answer is 1, but you're assumption is that children, and even infants, are not believers. Unfortunately, the western church has diverted from the beliefs of the Reformers and only regards a mature profession of faith as genuine. While the Bible does have examples of mature professions of faith (which is only natural given the context of the NT), but it also gives a number of examples of infant and child faith. God has promised that he will be the God of our children as well - yet we require unbiblical proofs before we allow them to be a part of the church. Certainly mature professions are necessary as they grow older, but this not the initiation into the church - its not even the biblical norm. The church is beautiful because it is made up of young and old, rich and poor, black and white, strong and weak.
Also, even in the baptist scenario, there are many, many "non-christians" in the "visible" church. Yet these are given the benefit of the doubt, while our children are taught to doubt their membership in the church... no wonder we're having a difficult time impacting society.

3)You said, "Second, if baptism defines church membership it is going to be far easier for a predominantly paedobaptistic congregation to admit a credobaptist to membership (they believe him to be baptised). A credobaptistic congregation is going to have a greater weight on their conscience to admit to church membership one that they understand not to havec been baptised."

While this isn't the predominate reason, or even the most biblical one, I think this is one of many reason why the baptist postition is wrong... it's sectarian.

I hope my comments are not taken as aggressive or mean-spirited, they're certainly not. I grew up in the SBC and my closest friends and family still are members - I love the church dearly. I really am glad we're having this discussion.

Blessings,
Brian

Chris, In Acts 2:38 you refer to the order of Repent and then be baptize. I agre that this is the order and is the most common
order in which baptism happens.
But the problem with saying Acts
says repentance comes before baptism is in the same verse. "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins." If order of words matter, (and in most cases I believe they do), then forgiveness of sins only comes after one is baptized. which the bible at other places clearly attribute forgiveness only by confession
not baptism.

IN HIM:
jason johansen

"I don't agree with this. I don't think the Bible really differentiates between the visible and invisible church."

This is the best thing that has said in this entire discussion.

Jeremy

I do see the conundrum of those Baptist churches who hold to only allowing as members those are baptized by immersion.

Those who hold to baptism by immersion as believers only see that as actual baptism. I would agree that NT baptism is water baptism of believers by immersion.

Pedobaptists would accept sprinkling and/or pouring of infants and immersion/sprinkling/pouring of believers. Pedobaptists would not accept someone into membership that was not baptized.

The question I have put forth in Mark Dever's post which I will repeat again is this: should the requirements of church membership deviate much from what it means to be in the kingdom of God? I have not heard an answer to that question yet. Should local church membership be stricter than kingdom membership? In other words, if a person trusts Jesus for their salvation and trusts in Him alone to do a good work in him and gives evidence of that trust, but has a wrong view of baptism, then do we reject that person for local church membership?

So, it appears for some, that in addition to trust in Christ, that water baptism now defines, it is that must have caveat, who is to be a member in the local church? If water baptism does not define when a person comes into the kingdom, how can it be the last caveat that defines when a person becomes a member of a local church?

I think if churches want to do that, then that is their choice. But I think they should be willing to admit outright that they are making the requirements of local church membership stricter than kingdom membership. And as long as they weigh and carefully consider that decision, then so be it.

As I think Mark 8:22 communicates, people come into the kingdom that see people that look like trees. While churches are not expecting perfect 20/20 vision for church membership, it appears they are expecting no blurred vision at all for local church membership.

Carlo,

You said, "The question I have put forth in Mark Dever's post which I will repeat again is this: should the requirements of church membership deviate much from what it means to be in the kingdom of God?"

This is really the crux of the issue and, from what I understand, the primary driving force behind Piper's move the change the policy. He still regards paedobaptism as wrong but is not willing to have "local church membership be stricter than kingdom membership." He, as I, see local church membership as deriving its membership roster from the Spirit of God. God decides who is in the Church and who is in the church.

Jeremy

Carlo,

You wrote: "The question I have put forth in Mark Dever's post which I will repeat again is this: should the requirements of church membership deviate much from what it means to be in the kingdom of God?"

That's a great question. The reason why the answer is "yes" is for the sake of conscience. Let me take some other examples: Will a church submit to the authority of a bishop or not? There are soe Christians who think that episcopal church government is required by the bible. There are others who think that it is forbidden, and to submit to the authority of an extracongregational bishop is to abdicate congregational responsibility in a way that the New Testamnet forbids.
I can recognise that my Anglican brethren are Christians, even those who think that episcopicy is mandated by Scripture. I cannot join their church because of my conscience. They cannot join my church because of their conscience. We are not denying that they have been made members of the universal church.
Having churches where we agree on more than just the gospel actually allows us to focus on the gospel, rather than battling with constant disagreements as to where divinely ordained authority lies.

Mike, you should put that comment on the main blog in my opinion as it is the crux of the matter, as far as I can see.

Mike,

Thanks for your clarity and candor. I think it is important for church leaders to be candid about saying they will make local church membership stricter than kingdom membership and you made that clear.

I think your point about conscience is important. And this is where denominations come in, if a congregant is sitting in a pedobaptist church and he is a strong credobaptist and as I mentioned in another post, he is going to be one of those "roll their eyes, 'oh pu-leaze" persons sitting in a pew everything time a pedobaptist baptizes an infant, then that is not a good place for that person to be.

What do church leaders who require baptism by immersion of believers for local church membership do in situations when you have a situation where there are no good local teaching churches around even a reformed PCA church, and the only church around is a baptist church. And what if believers' baptism is not an issue for conscience for that believer. So, this pedobaptist cares about the unity of that church so s/he is not going to proselytize others in the church. He wants to be active in that church and really support it.

The reason why is that I know others in similar situations. Believers like myself who believe that baptism by immersion for believers is clearly taught in Scripture like justification by faith, but could not find local good teaching baptistic type churches near my area, so they are actively involved in a reformed PCA church?

I think churches miss out on important spiritual gifts by not allowing the unbaptized to join the local church. My local church has baptists like myself, dispensationalists, etc. etc. etc. I mean, you can't be a church deacon or elder, but you can actively support, even lead small groups etc.

It's funny. You could clone say a John MacArthur or John Piper to a church right next to mine, and I wouldn't leave my church still. (If you asked me two years ago, I would have laughed in your face if you have said I would have joined a PCA church) because I have found I can serve there well and they are so passionate on other important biblical areas it just outweighs my disagreement with them on baptism.

I don't know, especially when there aren't many options for the prospective member to finding a church, I think churches that hold to a more stricter membership of local church membership than kingdom membership are missing out on some key spiritual gifts. Isn't there a place for such pedobaptists in a baptist church that want to serve?

Mike,

It doesn't seem to me that your "for the sake of conscience" argument holds up too well upon inspection. Someone who believed that a bishopric was the biblical ideal could nevertheless desire to submit to the authority of the elders of a church that practices and teaches congregationalism for a time. His pursuit of membership implies that the difference in views on church government are not so significant as to preclude him from committing to that body on the basis of a violated conscience.

So how can you say with respect to such a person that "They cannot join my church because of THEIR conscience"?

The debated issue is the exclusion of believers from church membership who want to join a particular church in full knowledge that there is a doctrinal disagreement, but who nevertheless are willing to submit to the leadership and practices of the church.

How can you exlude, a disciplinary act to be sure, and then say "their conscience made me do it"?

Jeremy,

You wrote: "This is really the crux of the issue and, from what I understand, the primary driving force behind Piper's move the change the policy. He still regards paedobaptism as wrong but is not willing to have "local church membership be stricter than kingdom membership." He, as I, see local church membership as deriving its membership roster from the Spirit of God. God decides who is in the Church and who is in the church."

I believe that is the reason or driving force for Piper's move.

I mean, let me reiterate, those that hold to local church membership for only immersed believers are in a difficult position that in one sense pedobaptists are not in. Pedobaptists accept believer's baptism as valid, we that hold to believer's baptism cannot accept any other baptism except believer's baptism as baptism. Therefore, those churches that allow those who are not baptized into local church membership are in a tenous situation because what they are essentially doing is allowing folks to join the local church membership without observing a very important observance (even though pedobaptist believes that this baptism was observed).

So, I do agree with Mike that it is going to be far easier for pedobaptist to admit a credobaptist.

But, pedobaptist churches are not without their own complications. Pedobaptists believe that children of Christian parents should be baptized because they believe that children are considered part of the covenant. But in my own pedobaptist church I go to I have made my own inquiry as to whether I'll be forced to baptized my own children in infancy - since that would obviously be a problem for me and preclude me from joining such a local church - that would be conscience issue for me. My church said that they would not force me to do that. So, in one sense the pedobaptist is bending backwards and not disciplining a family for not baptizing their infant babies, because the pedobaptist church says that it is a matter of conscience for the believer.

Of course the credobaptist could come back and say to the pedobaptist, "well, thanks I think that is very nice of you not to require your congregants to baptize their infants, but if I may respectfully say, that I don't think the Bible gives anyone the authority to baptize an infant anyway?"

I asked my pastor a hypothetical if he would be precluded from marrying a credobaptist to a pedobaptist. He said he would not be precluded and depending who is what, the husband or wife, one spouse would have to submit to the other's authority on that issue with children. I have heard of examples where women submitted to their husbands' credobaptism with their children when even holding to a pedobaptism to their graves.

I think it says a lot when a person can support their leadership or spouse and maintain the unity in that functional subordination more so than every single person is supposedly lock and step to everything that a person or church believes.

Lastly, I think Jeremy's point of local church membership deriving its roster from the Spirit of God is an excellent one.

If pedobaptist churches do not require children of credobaptist churches to be baptized and that family remains in good standing for unity's sake, then would not a credobaptist church admit a pedopbaptist for the same reaons above.

You know honestly, if I could think of any reason why CHBC should remain strict in its membership it is this: to keep its ties and influence in the SBC. If CHBC did change its constitution and allowed unbaptized believers' in to infancy, then that would go against the SBC and sever the affiliation. Now, that would be a weighing balance CHBC might want to continue to influence the SBC driving it more to sound theology and they can't do that if they are no long affiliated with SBC and they can't be affiliated with SBC if they accept pedobaptists into membership. I don't know if that reason has been raised I don't think. That might be a valid reason but I would then say what are the priorities of the local church? To serve its community or its affiliations with the noble intent to impact SBC?

These are all very tough questions and points and probably only through extensive prayer for months upon months upon months can a thorough decision be made it would seem.

Dear Mike,

others have already made some good responses to your post. I'll only add a few subsidiary comments.

1. I don't know many Anglican evangelicals who hold that episcopacy is biblically mandated. That has rarely been the position of evangelicals in the Church of England. Most see it as optional but beneficial and agreeable to, but not required by, scripture.

2. It's tricky to join the Church of England because it doesn't have a formal membership!

3. The Bible's distinction between the visible and invisible church is generally a distinction between those who are church members now and those who are members of Christ's church throughout all time.

4. Consequently, there is no recognition in the Bible of a Christian who is a member of the universal church and yet is not also simultaneously a member of a particular local church.

5. There is a difference between someone coming and asking to be a church member and someone being appointed a church officer. For the former, a credible profession of faith is all that is needed. For the latter, agreement with church distinctives should be necessary. The church member would be expected to live peacefully within whatever church they join.

6. Paedobaptist churches also distinguish between believers and the children of believers. The latter are not church members as such, nor admitted to communion, until they have made a profession of faith. Given that most credobaptist churches will dedicate infants the difference with a paedobaptist church is then one of when the child gets wet!

In Christ,

James.

PS Still waiting for an answer to my question of what would happen if a paedobaptist submitted to rebaptism in order to join CHBC even though he believed paedobpatism was correct?

James,

For the record, many paedobaptists do not distinguish between believers and the children of unbelievers. Perhaps many paedobaptists who are following this discussion might make a distinction, but I feel this is a grievous and unbiblical error on their part. I think a lot of these baptism/membership/Lord's Supper questions would be answered if we all had a correct view of what the Bible taught about children. Unfortunately, both the Presbyterians and Baptists have too much tradition and Western influence to get past and it makes it hard.

Thanks for the responses.

I shall blog in the main blog as to whether there can be restrictions within the local church tighter than those in the global church.

Let me reply to a couple of your comments, James.
I can well understand why there might be a distinction between members and leaders as to church distinctives in a presbyterian or episcopal system where the congregation has no authority. This is not the case in a congregational system, where the congregation has the authority to overturn the decisions of the elders (they obviously shouldn't do this unless they believe the elders are being sinful or very unwise.)

Could a paedobaptist submit to 'baptism' in order to gain membership? No, for a couple of reasons. 1) it is not baptism just because someone gets wet, but because they are being baptised in conscious obedience to the Lord's command on profession of repentance and faith. 2) it would be unwise to encourage someone to act against their conscience in this way.

Steve, you are right that my point about conscience didn't clearly show why people shouldn't be allowed to join if it didn't trouble their own particular conscience. But I think that it did show that having churches where people could join without their consciences being troubled is a good thing.

Furthermore, the same principle applies if you allow someone into the congregation whose presence is going to trouble the consciences of those who are already members.

Mike,

You wrote:

"Steve, you are right that my point about conscience didn't clearly show why people shouldn't be allowed to join if it didn't trouble their own particular conscience. But I think that it did show that having churches where people could join without their consciences being troubled is a good thing.

Furthermore, the same principle applies if you allow someone into the congregation whose presence is going to trouble the consciences of those who are already members."

My response: I can understand why elders must be concerned and watchful over the consciences of the flock they are commissioned to watch over. Having people in a congregation that would have serious conscious issues over the practice of a local church is a problem. I can also understand why elders need to protect the conscious of their flock from others.

I think the thing we have to remember though, is that the church is God's church. You know for legality and tax reason's churches have to come up with a name. You have CHBC church, Bethlehem Baptist Church, Grace Community Church. And for brevity's sake, a lot of times, we'll say, Dever's church or Piper's church or MacArthur's church. But the thing we have to remember is that the church is God's church, it is Christ's church. It is not "our" church.

I think there are serious considerations that a church must weigh when it decides to restrict local church membership and also the Lord's Table (for those regular attenders that cannot join a church because of disagreements).

When I visited CHBC my last time, a wonderful family brought me back to a Metro Stop after Bible study because it was pouring down raining so I could go back to my hotel. The family was telling me they were from Maryland and they drove at least an hour to come to CHBC because there were no good teaching churches in their area. Now, I don't know how the DC area is, if there is a good teaching PCA church that a person can go to if they can't join CHBC. But as we all know, church is not about just going to church and hearing a sermon. It is about serving. Some people go to church for the wrong reasons. They may drive long distances to because they really like the pastor of that church and maybe he is a good teacher. I mean, I hear stories about people flocking to BBC where Piper preaches when in fact, they could probably find a good local church where they can serve (and just hear and watch Piper on a vodcast or podcast).

There are good reasons for travelling long distances like this family where there is no good teaching churches around. My point is, churches need to seriously consider and weigh their decisions when they tell a believer, they cannot join a church. Here is what you are essentially saying to a person: "we know you're a believer and we know that God will not reject you on the last day because He cannot reject His own righteousness that He has imputed to you. But we reject your application for membership to God's church." That in my view, is a very serious decision.

Similarly, with the Lord's Table. We have to remember something. It is the Lord's Table. It is not CHBC's Table, it is not XY Church's Table, it is Christ's Table, it is His Supper, not the church's supper. So, it is a very serious thing to say to a person: "you are a believer, but we reject you to participate in the Lord's Supper, we love you though, but you may not participate in the the Lord's Supper we are celebrating here."

Watching over conscience is a valid consideration. But do not underestimate the power of the Holy Spirit to work in believers to serve together in a local church with believers with very different and important theological differences.

Great discussion! I am a PCA ruling elder (and former TE) and...former Southern Baptist pastor. I have been on both sides of this equation.
Of course I believe that children of believers should be baptized, as well as new converts who have never been baptized. By the way, I have been immersed (twice) and my 5 children have been sprinkled upon.

I applaud Piper for daring to approach the subject. If my grown children ended up in MN at his church, I would hope that someone would not say to them, "Well, you have not been baptized!" You have to do it our way.

The real issue here is that my Baptist friends (and family members) believe that they have the corner on the market of interpreting what constitutes a baptism. Several times in the post and in the responses it is stated matter of factly that a paedobaptist is "un-baptized." That assumes that the Baptism definition is the correct one and the only valid interpretation. Asserting one's interpretation does not make it so. That would be like me saying, "Post-mil" is the way it is and anyone who does not believe in that view is in sin.
May that kind of reasoning be left behind (no pun intended).

Les,

Thanks for you contribution. You have moved from Baptist to Presbyterian, I have moved from Anglican to Baptist!

I'd like to challenge the way you are arguing though. We don't want to say that both credo-baptism and paedo-baptism are correct. We don't want to say that both a-mil and pre-mil are correct. We want to say that one position is right and the other is wrong. If we don't say that, we are saying that the bible is either self-contradictory or unclear. I think that such an approach to Scripture is far more dangerous than getting either of these issues wrong!

We should act with charity to those who disagree. We should work together for the gospel. (in a couple of hours I'll be at an evangeilstic talk put on by a group of churches: presbyterian, anglican, e-free and baptist - see www.lunchtimetalks.org) That charity doesn't need to mean that we can be members of the same local church. Better to work together for the gospel in gospel partnership of local churches, and yet have churches where we can practice the ordinances and membership according to our convictions as what we understand to be biblical.

Mike,

Thanks for your rapid reply. Perhaps I was not clear. I am not saying that the bible does not have one position on the matter of baptism or what the teaching is on Rev. 20. However, granting that is not the same as saying that what it does teach is crystal clear. Else, good and godly and learned men such as Calvin and Spurgeon could not have come to such differing positions on baptism.

I happen to believe the paedo position and the post mil position. But that does not mean that I believe it to be so clear as to make my view a requirement for membership in the local congregation.

But I agree that charity is essential, precisely because the issue of mode and timing is interpreted differently by fellow heirs in Christ. Oh, one of these days we may all have a good laugh about it in glory when we see who was right (well, I exaggerate).

I do not know how membership in British churches works but I do seem to see more cooperation and interaction for the common goal of the gospel there bewteen credos and paedos there than here in the US.

Good to see you are doing just that!

Blessings brother.