Can a Reformed Church hold on to both Believers Baptism and Infant Baptism?

[SolaGratia]

Christ Reformed Church | Our Position on Christian Baptism

Excerpt from the above website:

Christ Reformed Church recognizes that good men have differed and continue to differ on this emotive subject. Yet should God's people separate from one another over baptism? Can they not hold their view strongly while allowing conscientious brethren to hold a differing view? We believe they can and should. Thus Christ Reformed Church, under Christ the Great King and Head of the Church, realizing that bitter controversy raging around the mode and proper subjects of the ordinance of Christian Baptism has divided the Body of Christ when that Body should have united in Christian love and Holy Ghost power to stem the onslaughts and hell-inspired assaults of modernism, hereby affirms that each member of the church shall have liberty to decide for himself which course to adopt on these controverted issues, each member giving due honour in love to the views held by differing brethren, but none espousing the error of baptismal regeneration."
We do not undervalue baptism, but we do not want needless division either. We would not wish to be so exclusively Reformed that we could find no place for a C. H. Spurgeon just because he strongly adhered to believer's baptism. Nor would we wish to be so Baptistic that we would exclude a Robert Murray M'Cheyne just because he strongly held to baptism for the children of believers.

What you guys think?

 

[Tim]

I think they would say it is much worse for the paedos and credos to be divided, rather than to give up the pursuit of the purest of doctrine. This is an independent church. The Free Presbyterian Church (Northern Ireland) also holds to this practice, although they state their confession to be Westminster.

However, this being said, does it really make much difference with regard to allowing people to become members and to participate in fellowship? Any good Presbyterian or Baptist church should allow the opposite to have full membership (for that is on the basis of being a believer and nothing else). Unless there is a strict Presbyterian church that would discipline a credo person because they are 'unrepentent' of their 'error', then this should not to prove to be a big deal in practice. The main issue here, then is the teaching position. I guess they don't want someone to feel that their view of baptism is frowned upon.

But what do you do when you preach a sermon that includes some mention of baptism? What does the pastor teach about the covenant and who is included in it?

The other problem that I see is that holding to both credo and paedo has doctrinal implications beyond baptism itself: it extends to ecclesiology and covenant theology to name two.

I agree with the reason for keeping things open; I just see problems with holding to and teaching a consistent theology.

 

[OPC'n]

I agree with Tim. I think we should treat each other with grace, patience and love but I don't see how a church can be both. How is the pastor to teach on baptism and preform baptism? Eventually, you will offend someone's conscious....and surely it should offend the pastor's conscious to not ever preach about baptism just to maintain peace or preach both views at the same time....doesn't make sense. Trying to unit for the sake of peace isn't always good. One should unit on the basis of faith/doctrine.....I need my fences!

 

[JonathanHunt]

I can think of many circumstances (small communities for example) where one church with charity on the baptism issue could be stronger than two trying to survive seperately. That said, am I alone here in believing that the other 'side' is, in the matter of baptism not only wrong but sinful in failing to do what God has commanded?

We've had these discussions before. In all conscience I couldn't join a church that permitted paedo-baptism - or I would be a hypocrite.

If you've recently come on to the PB, this doesn't imply that I do not love and respect all paedo brethren. I would equally expect them to be unwilling to join my church for the same reasons I wouldn't join theirs.

 

[OPC'n]

I can think of many circumstances (small communities for example) where one church with charity on the baptism issue could be stronger than two trying to survive seperately. That said, am I alone here in believing that the other 'side' is, in the matter of baptism not only wrong but sinful in failing to do what God has commanded?

We've had these discussions before. In all conscience I couldn't join a church that permitted paedo-baptism - or I would be a hypocrite.

If you've recently come on to the PB, this doesn't imply that I do not love and respect all paedo brethren. I would equally expect them to be unwilling to join my church for the same reasons I wouldn't join theirs.

No, you are not alone. I too agree "that the other 'side' is, in the matter of baptism not only wrong but sinful in failing to do what God has commanded" I think we should see it as sinful if we really believe in our position. We have a credo family coming to our church right now and we accept them in love and grace, but we do not change our teachings or practices for them.

 

[JonathanHunt]

I just want to add that I have the greatest respect for Pastors Robert Truelove and Brian Dempsey, both of who post on the PB. I don't want to be seen as pronouncing 'against' the thought-through and careful position of their church. I am just saying 'not for me'!

 

[sgtdabney]

This is very interesting. We have a credo-baptist family coming to our church and they really want to join but they will not baptize their children. The father came before the session and when we explained the position of our church, he said we were being arrogant. Thankfully, all of the members of the session are pretty mature (this young man is 21) so we just stifled a smile and explained to him that according to the WCF and BCO, we cannot allow a credobaptist to join. Now of course, we have good fellowship with the family otherwise. They get elder visitations and are treated just like any of our members, and are still attending.

I don't see how, practically speaking, you can really make the mixed congregation work unless you avoid the topic altogether in sermons and sunday School. I do see exclusive credo-baptism as an error, and I would not join a Reformed Baptist Church (though I would attend if there was no faithful Presbyterian Church in town, and that is what I do when I visit my parents). And though I am a committed paedobaptist, I DO understand the arguments for the credo position since I used to be one myself, and I think debate and dialogue needs to be respectful between these two positions (like the White Shishko debate). But the question does strike at the vitals of religion, and I don't see how the two can coexist in the same congregation without undermining baptism. Granted, those are my personal observations.

 

[Tim]

This is very interesting. We have a credo-baptist family coming to our church and they really want to join but they will not baptize their children. The father came before the session and when we explained the position of our church, he said we were being arrogant. Thankfully, all of the members of the session are pretty mature (this young man is 21) so we just stifled a smile and explained to him that according to the WCF and BCO, we cannot allow a credobaptist to join. Now of course, we have good fellowship with the family otherwise. They get elder visitations and are treated just like any of our members, and are still attending.

Is this true? I was unaware of this. Please explain. On what basis are they prohibited from joining your local church?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I wrote this when Piper and Grudem started discussing their views of Church membership.

I hope I am not being disrespectful to Dr. Piper but I do believe he is responding to this issue emotionally instead of intellectually in light of the differences in our theologies. I mean no disrespect to that great man of God. I am prone to the same problems also. And I also desire for our Union in Christ to be more solidified in each other. But our views between Presbyterian and Baptist Covenant membership are very opposed to each other. The Presbyterian's promote an unregenerate membership because of earthly familial relationships while the Covenantal Baptist see the membership based upon New Covenant Principles which are based upon the reception of those who confess Christ and His atoning work on their behalf.

That is no small place of difference in my opinion.

Your brother in Christ,
Randy

I use to hold to Pipers view. I had great admiration for he Free Presbyterian Church Worldwide. They hold this view. But as of the last few years my convictions have sharpened a bit. I hold a view that a local congregation is not the whole body of Christ. Unity in both places is very important but our Unity and Union are two different issues in my opinion.

Union seems to have more of a connection to something more than unity. When a union is entered into an attachment is achieved whereby others are put together as one. . Unity has to do with two walking side by side. We all have Union with Christ as a body but as a body has parts we are to walk in unity as members.

In our separate confessional standards we have a Union with each other in our individual Churches. 1689ers and WCFers so to speak have unions in their confessions. It is conviciton and confession that binds them. At this point there are a few issues that one goup must call the other out. One is congregationalism and the other is baptism. I do know of Presbyterians and Baptists who accuse the other of sin if one does not line up with the convictions of the other. The Baptist is accused of the sin of anabaptism by some Presbyterian's along with the sin of not applying the seal of the covenant upon their children. These are not light issues as Piper does not address them. Some Baptist's accuse Presbyterian's of poor hermeneutics in their understanding of Covenant Theology and sinning by not following Christ's command that disciples must be baptized as repentant converts of Christ. Disciples can not be infants or church members because one must first exhibit cognizant confessional capabilities. Therefore the Presbyterian is knowingly admitting an unregenerate unforgiven Church membership that is not acknowledged in Jeremiah 31 or the New Covenant.

There are major differences that do not promote a Union but would in fact be a place where division would be caused by doctrinal differences. At the same time I do believe we can walk in Unity. For we have much more in Common with the beliefs we hold in common. For instance the Person and Work of Christ, the Five Sola's, most of our views on Covenant Theology. These are things we can walk in Unity concerning our faith and Practice. And our Union is truly with the Son of God.

I have been a PCA member. I joined with a promise not to cause any fuss over the issue of Baptism. And I didn't. I could never hold a position of authority in that Church because of my beliefs and my non adherance to the WCF. So another question for me to Piper would be.... Why in tarnations would you limit someone like R. C. Sproul, Pipa, Ryken, or any other good Presbyterian in a Baptist Church membership or would you limit them? Would they be able to live out their convictons in good conscience in a 1689 confessional Church, or in your Reformed Baptist Church? If you are truly a Covenantal Baptist you couldn't. But if they dwelt amongst themselves they would not be limited in such a way. I would not let them perform their gifts of Elder in a Baptist Church or we would be in a compromised position to hold to our doctrine in my opinion. But at the same time I do hold them as Elders in the Church of Christ in their distinct Presbyterian Union. And I dearly respect them as Elders. And I would expect to hear the Word of God proclaimed by them in a goodly way.

The differences are to great in my estimation for such a mixed union.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/john-bunyan-baptist-churchmanship-mark-dever-31238/#post383949

 

[reformedminister]

I believe the Presbyterian Church of Wales also holds to this position (allowing both). I have come across a few independent Reformed churches, who hold to the WCF but also have a footnote concerning this issue. My former denomination is United Methodist, and although they are not reformed, they also hold to this position. On the negative side, I remember one time being the new pastor of a UMC church, and not knowing that the leadership of the church itself did not believe in paedobaptism nor sprinkling. During an adult baptism, which was by pouring, one of the parishioners rose up and cried out "the tradition of men." In this case we had a church, supposedly holding to two positions, but leaning towards one and being downright disrespectful towards the opposite position.

 

[raekwon]

This is very interesting. We have a credo-baptist family coming to our church and they really want to join but they will not baptize their children. The father came before the session and when we explained the position of our church, he said we were being arrogant. Thankfully, all of the members of the session are pretty mature (this young man is 21) so we just stifled a smile and explained to him that according to the WCF and BCO, we cannot allow a credobaptist to join. Now of course, we have good fellowship with the family otherwise. They get elder visitations and are treated just like any of our members, and are still attending.

This is very odd to me. Our church (also PCA) allows credobaptists to join, but not to hold office. Same in every other PCA church I've come into contact with. I thought that this was a denomination-wide thing. (To be very frank, if it's not, then it should be, in my opinion.)

Maybe the BCO is vague enough on this issue to allow individual sessions or presbyteries to decide on this issue, but I wasn't thinking so. Can any other PCA elders weigh in?

Also
1) I'm surprised that no one has quipped that paedobaptists DO hold to baptism upon confession of faith (provided baptism hasn't already taken place).
2) There's a rather large church called "Northland" (I think) that somehow holds to both. They will baptize your kids if you want, but they won't necessarily encourage you to. I don't get how they maintain that.

 

[Knoxienne]

I agree with Tim. I think we should treat each other with grace, patience and love but I don't see how a church can be both. How is the pastor to teach on baptism and preform baptism? Eventually, you will offend someone's conscious....and surely it should offend the pastor's conscious to not ever preach about baptism just to maintain peace or preach both views at the same time....doesn't make sense. Trying to unit for the sake of peace isn't always good. One should unit on the basis of faith/doctrine.....I need my fences!

I agree - each church should maintain its confessions without compromising them for people who think differently about the issue. People should know if they join a particular church (let's say there's no church with their view within a 100 mile radius) what the particular confession of that church says so there's no misunderstanding.

 

[christiana]

I agree - each church should maintain its confessions without compromising them for people who think differently about the issue. People should know if they join a particular church (let's say there's no church with their view within a 100 mile radius) what the particular confession of that church says so there's no misunderstanding.

Well stated! Whatever was decided by that church should be upheld without compromise. If the trumpet blows an uncertain sound............

Luther believed in supporting what he believed in totally:
"I am not permitted to let my love be so merciful as to tolerate and endure false doctrine. When faith and doctrine are concerned and endangered, neither love nor patience are in order....when these are concerned, neither toleration nor mercy are in order, but only anger, dispute, and destruction - to be sure, only with the Word of God as our weapon." - Martin Luther

 

[Knoxienne]

This is very odd to me. Our church (also PCA) allows credobaptists to join, but not to hold office. Same in every other PCA church I've come into contact with. I thought that this was a denomination-wide thing. (To be very frank, if it's not, then it should be, in my opinion.)

The OPC holds to the same standards. Officers have to hold to the confession, but regular members can be either P or C. And that sounds good (personally I have bigger fish to fry than modes of baptism) but those standards alone don't prevent a lot of the problems I've seen in different churches. There can be a lot of dissention. It's sad, but it happens.

 

[Herald]

Back to the OP, to have a church that administers both credo-only and paedo baptism is problematic. If it's the only church in town, I suppose an individual believer may not have a choice of where to attend, but that doesn't mean the church should adopt both sides of the baptism issue. If baptism is given such wide latitude, what of other doctrines and practices of the church?

 

[Reluctantly Reforming]

This is very odd to me. Our church (also PCA) allows credobaptists to join, but not to hold office. Same in every other PCA church I've come into contact with. I thought that this was a denomination-wide thing. (To be very frank, if it's not, then it should be, in my opinion.)

Maybe the BCO is vague enough on this issue to allow individual sessions or presbyteries to decide on this issue, but I wasn't thinking so. Can any other PCA elders weigh in?

Also
1) I'm surprised that no one has quipped that paedobaptists DO hold to baptism upon confession of faith (provided baptism hasn't already taken place).

We also allow credos to join, but not to hold office. BCO does not require full subscription to the Standards for members.

And yes, paedobaptists practice believer's baptism when the believer hasn't yet been baptized!

 

[Knoxienne]

Back to the OP, to have a church that administers both credo-only and paedo baptism is problematic. If it's the only church in town, I suppose an individual believer may not have a choice of where to attend, but that doesn't mean the church should adopt both sides of the baptism issue. If baptism is given such wide latitude, what of other doctrines and practices of the church?

Very true. We have our specific confessions for a reason.

 

[Scott1]

Realizing this is not your direct point here, but that it might be helpful in understanding this more fully- those who believe in infant baptism, as among other things a sign of entrance into the covenant community, also believe in and practice believer's baptism.

So, for example, in a PCA church, on a given Lord's Day, you might see baptism of an infant, a child in the fifth grade, and an adult.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Ultimately, the decision as to whether or not to admit a professor's-only-baptism adherent to membership is a session's decision, although I find it a rare thing that a Presbyterian church would deny membership. But it would not be contrary to the government for them to take an exclusivist position.

My principal concern is that anyone who wishes to join be clear as to their willingness to submit to the teaching of the church, to listen with an open mind to ALL this church's teaching. Don't tell me you want to join, you are a Baptist, and I may as well be talking to a post when that subject comes up. Or that you'll just stay away from church on those "sensitive" Sundays, or that your children need to be protected from the pernicious influence of IB-practice on those days.

The same would hold true going the other way. Those are matters of submission that need to be thought through long before the day of.

 

[Knoxienne]

Ultimately, the decision as to whether or not to admit a professor's-only-baptism adherent to membership is a session's decision, although I find it a rare thing that a Presbyterian church would deny membership. But it would not be contrary to the government for them to take an exclusivist position.

My principal concern is that anyone who wishes to join be clear as to their willingness to submit to the teaching of the church, to listen with an open mind to ALL this church's teaching. Don't tell me you want to join, you are a Baptist, and I may as well be talking to a post when that subject comes up. Or that you'll just stay away from church on those "sensitive" Sundays, or that your children need to be protected from the pernicious influence of IB-practice on those days.

The same would hold true going the other way. Those are matters of submission that need to be thought through long before the day of.

I agree.

 

[Marrow Man]

When I was pastoring in Mississippi, I knew a Baptist minister who was Reformed whose church practiced something very similar to this (he referred to it as the "Bunyan model"). When I told him that it sounded great (in that it promoted unity among brethren), his response was, "Presbyterians always say that!" In fact, he said, their position had effectively alienated them from other Reformed Baptist churches. In this one anecdotal case, at least, it might have promoted unity between Baptists and Presbyterians, but it created disunity among Baptists. Quite ironic, actually.

My wife and I actually briefly attended Christ Reformed Church a couple of years ago when we were in the Atlanta area. My understanding was that the church came out of a Reformed Baptist background, had embraced paedobaptism, and became Presbyterian. So, such a statement is actually a "progression" from the church's origins (I don't mean that to be insulting in the least, just to say it is a movement away from an exclusively credo position). The church was a member of a couple of different Presbyterian bodies for a while, but is now independent. I am curious to know if this is actually a "step back" from a paedo position. In other words, I would like either Robert or Brian to comment as to whether the church moved from exclusively credo, to paedo, to the position expoused in the OP.

 

[Poimen]

In answer to the original query: Yes they can; no they shouldn't.

With respect to a proper understanding of covenant theology and ecclesiology there is too much at stake to not properly administer Christian baptism.

Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 74

Q74: Are infants also to be baptized?

A74: Yes, for since they, as well as their parents, belong to the covenant and people of God, and through the blood of Christ both redemption from sin and the Holy Ghost, who works faith, are promised to them no less than to their parents, they are also by Baptism, as a sign of the covenant, to be ingrafted into the Christian Church, and distinguished from the children of unbelievers, as was done in the Old Testament by circumcision, in place of which in the New Testament Baptism is appointed.

 

[Edward]

What you guys think?

I think it is a bad idea. The leadership should teach what it believes is right, rather than what pleases the members in the pews.

 

[JM]

What you guys think?

I think it is a bad idea. The leadership should teach what it believes is right, rather than what pleases the members in the pews.

 

[Kevin]

two groups in a nearby cirty joined together into a church that allows both practices. On their own they could not afford a minister, however one group owned a building.

It seems to work ok, although in my opinion it has become a Ref. Bap. church.

 

[reh cha cha]

The only baptism that really counts is within the Holy Spirit. All of the other baptisms are human produced and performed, and no matter how serious the language, it is a human proclamation.

It is why I do not understand the traditional baptism by hard shell baptists that the only way to salvation is through immersion. We tell God that now we are right with him?

Just a thought. An atheist for 45 years.

 

[JBaldwin]

While it might be a good idea for a church to allow both paedo and credo baptistim, it is not a good idea to open membership to both. My own experience is with a church who practiced paedo baptism but allowed for those who believed in credo baptism to join. Eventually some of the credo baptists were allowed to teach and hold leadership positions in the church. With this confusion over doctrine, we gradually saw the content of Sunday school classes weaken as classes teaching doctrine were replaced with books on marriage, raising families, etc. in order to avoid conflict. This is not slam on credo Baptists, because I could easily see the same happening in the reverse.

In short, if you take the two views seriously, they are too different to try to blend them together in one church.

 

[kevin.carroll]

I believe in both. I mean, not everyone is a covenant child!

 

[Knoxienne]

While it might be a good idea for a church to allow both paedo and credo baptistim, it is not a good idea to open membership to both. My own experience is with a church who practiced paedo baptism but allowed for those who believed in credo baptism to join. Eventually some of the credo baptists were allowed to teach and hold leadership positions in the church. With this confusion over doctrine, we gradually saw the content of Sunday school classes weaken as classes teaching doctrine were replaced with books on marriage, raising families, etc. in order to avoid conflict. This is not slam on credo Baptists, because I could easily see the same happening in the reverse.

In short, if you take the two views seriously, they are too different to try to blend them together in one church.

I agree. We've experienced the same type of thing. We need to be separate. It doesn't mean we don't love one another or that we don't agree on the essentials of the faith. But we are different, and there need to be certain separations.