Dual Practice Baptism

[Kpsingletary]

Good Evening!

I wanted to get the forum's thoughts on a church having dual practice baptism.

Context: friends of mine (ordained reformed baptist pastors) are planting a Reformed church out of a SBC church. They plan on practicing open membership (accepting a paedo-baptist into full membership, and not requiring them to be re-baptized) from the start, so long as you subscribe to a classic Reformed confession (much like the requirements to join the Puritan Board). They have a vision/desire to move to dual practice baptism where they would have an ordained Presbyterian minister as an elder to perform infant baptisms for those church members who held to that conviction. To be clear, the ministers are 1689 subscribers, but desire unity in the Reformed camp rather than dividing over baptism with the desired end state of practicing both credo- and paedo-baptism.

I am wondering if this is destined to fail, or can a Presbyterian join and help this church plant? My family and I would love to help the church plant, but want to exercise wisdom and discernment over this decision since we would be one of the Presbyterian families.

Thank you in advance!

 

[itsreed]

Well, the CREC’s attempt at the same has seen less than salutatory results. Key problem is the differences in what a baptism means for RB v. Presbyterian. Hence, it’s not just 2 different practices, but 2 opposing doctrines in view.

It seems to me that such is NOT conducive to healthy spiritual discipleship, for those under either conviction.


BTW, your signature says you’re in SK. You aware of the Korean brother coming to plant a PCA church in country?

 

[Kpsingletary]

Well, the CREC’s attempt at the same has seen less than salutatory results. Key problem is the differences in what a baptism means for RB v. Presbyterian. Hence, it’s not just 2 different practices, but 2 opposing doctrines in view.

It seems to me that such is NOT conducive to healthy spiritual discipleship, for those under either conviction.


BTW, your signature says you’re in SK. You aware of the Korean brother coming to plant a PCA church in country?

Fair point, and I agree in principle. In discussion with them, they would view the children of believers as members of the covenant community, yet they still see baptism upon a profession of faith. It almost seems like the church would view the children of believers just as a Presbyterian would, however they would withhold baptism because, well they are baptists.

Yes, I have no desire to join the CREC. I don't have as low a view of the CREC/DW as many on this forum, but not willing to jump into those circles.

As of now, the church has no vector on joining a denomination right off the bat. I have suggested the Evangel Presbytery, but the planters are more focused on planting the church than finding a denominational home (which is understandable). I have not heard much about the Evangel Presbytery (either positive or negative), and wonder if they would be a better version of the CREC.

I have not heard anything about the PCA church plant in SK. That is exciting news. Any info you have on that would be great! We have a wonderful church here, and the pastor is a calvinistic/reformed baptist, but an English speaking PCA church would be a blessing!

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

I know of a church in NM that functions this way. I can’t speak to how it feels on the inside but they have been around for a good while! They are in a part of the state where there are few solid options though, so it seems borne out of necessity.

I will say, I have a hard time seeing how it would work well. It seems to me a wiser course would be to allow open membership out of charity, but keep the elders unified in what they teach and practice. Otherwise just become paedobaptist— many PCA churches allow parents to delay baptism until profession of faith if they so choose anyway (I know based on their theology they shouldn’t, but that is another matter).

I’m in a denomination that allows both practices, but even then I don’t know any churches that practice both. All seem to have recognized the need for unity among the elders of a local church body.

 

[Theoretical]

The Free Presbyterians do have this sort of a dual system, and the church that Martyn Lloyd Jones grew up in has a dual-system confession (the Welsh Calvinistic Methodistic Confession https://www.apuritansmind.com/creed...text=There is one God and,for his actions (a).)

The real problem as I see it is that it takes one of the two highest secondary marks of the church and forces it by implication to be a tertiary doctrine.

Another difference of opinion which can subsist in the midst of Christian fellowship is the difference of opinion about the mode of efficacy of the sacraments. That difference is indeed serious, and to deny its seriousness is a far greater error than to take the wrong side in the controversy itself. It is often said that the divided condition of Christendom is an evil, and so it is. But the evil consists in the existence of the errors which cause the divisions and not at all in the recognition of those errors when once theyexist. It was a great calamity when at the "Marburg Conference" between Luther and the representatives of the Swiss Reformation, Luther wrote on the table with regard to the Lord's Supper, "This is my body," and said to Zwingli and Oecolampadius, "You have another spirit." That difference of opinion led to the breach between the Lutheran and the Reformed branches of the Church, and caused Protestantism to lose much of the ground that might otherwise have been gained. It was a great calamity indeed. But the calamity was due to the fact that Luther (as we believe) was wrong about the Lord's Supper; and it would have been a far greater calamity if being wrong about the Supper he had represented the whole question as a trifling affair. Luther was wrong about the Supper, but not nearly so wrong as he would have been if, being wrong, he had said to his opponents: "Brethren, this matter is a trifle; and it makes really very little difference what a man thinks about the table of the Lord." Such indifferentism would have been far more deadly than all the divisions between the branches of the Church. A Luther who would have compromised with regard to the Lord's Supper never would have said at the Diet of Worms, "Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise, God help me, Amen." Indifferentism about doctrine makes no heroes of the faith. Christianity and Liberalism, by J. Gresham Machen

While it can be done, I think the structure is unstable overall because the sacraments/ordinances are really that essential. You either have to really downplay them, with the effect that something else will fill the vacuum that shouldn't be at this level or one practice is dominant and the provision is really just for a few outliers in special circumstances, such as the family that's 3 hours away from any Reformed church and has to settle for regular attendance at a Baptist or Lutheran church even though they can't join.

The place where I think this structure would be most helpful is if the church was intentionally planting a flag in an unreached or massively de-churched area and the idea is that the church would eventually grow large enough to plant a (paedo) credo congregation from itself. This is completely leaving aside any questions of polity or higher courts like Presbyteries.

 

[Ye_Olde_Heidelberger]

There was an article that came out recently on Mere Orthodoxy making the Case For Baptist Anglicans. Needless to say, this caused an absolute firestorm on Twitter. The author is of the mind that if you squint hard enough at your own confessional standards, you can make room for a "dual practice" view of baptism. Pushback to the article pointed out that you simply cannot maintain church unity if half of the congregation views the other half as invalidly baptized. In my mind, then, having "dual practice" baptism as a policy would lead to a whole host of theological and pastoral problems. Remember, the WCF states that it is "a great sin to condemn or neglect" baptism (WCF 28.5) and the Belgic adds that we "detest the error" of those who "condemn the baptism of the infants of believers" (Belgic Art. 34). On the other hand, the 1689 LBCF teaches that "Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance" (LBCF 20.2) and that "Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance" (LBCF 20.4). These two views cannot be held together in a congregation without causing significant damage to unity between its members, even if that disunity goes unspoken.

I am more than happy to have organic union with Reformed Baptists in the cause of the gospel, but lets stick to our own convictions and confessional standards.

 

[Phil D.]

A few small denominations seem to be doing it with some degree of success. While some smaller P&R denoms would see a failure to present one's child for baptism as a matter of church discipline, the PCA allows membership for credos while maintaining peado-only officers, and at least some Baptist churches have a largely reciprocal policy. In my personal experience in both situations, having a dual membership may create some awkwardity, but it has never proven a truly divisive matter. I do recall that with respect to baptism John Piper once told his elder board that he wanted to make "the door to membership in the church as wide as the door to membership in the Kingdom," but was soundly rebuffed...

 

[dsanch1120]

I think situations like these aren’t a “both existing simultaneously” but one gives way to the other. I heard a Lutheran pastor once mention that almost all instances of denominational unity between Lutherans and reformed ends up leaning more reformed. Likewise a denomination that chooses to allow presbyteries or sessions to have female officers if they choose is effectively an egalitarian denomination. It’s not exactly the same with baptism, but a church that allows for baptized infants holding membership or even allows infants to be baptized in the church at least sees some validity in the infant’s baptism which deviates from traditional baptist viewpoints.

 

[TheInquirer]

Yes on membership, no on dual practice - not sure how you could ever teach with integrity on the meaning of baptism to your congregation. And if you can't teach on it, how can you practice it?

I should ask, is the Presbyterian minister a part of the pastorate or would they send paedobaptist members to another church to be baptized?

 

[Kpsingletary]

Yes on membership, no on dual practice - not sure how you could ever teach with integrity on the meaning of baptism to your congregation. And if you can't teach on it, how can you practice it?

I should ask, is the Presbyterian minister a part of the pastorate or would they send paedobaptist members to another church to be baptized?

The plan would be to have the Presbyterian minister in the pastorate.

 

[Northern Crofter]

The plan would be to have the Presbyterian minister in the pastorate.

So the essence of the plan seems to be that there is a Presbyterian minister who, along with the session, will not discipline any member who withholds baptism until their child makes a profession of faith. That seems charitable but does not solve this problem:

...not sure how you could ever teach with integrity on the meaning of baptism to your congregation.

So would the plan also, in essence, include that the minister refrains from preaching/teaching on baptism, or would he instead be bound, if speaking on the issue, to always present both views/practices/theologies?

 

[Polanus1561]

Youth ministry is messy enough as it is. To have some youths baptized and realizing others are not baptized and vice versa… all the best.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Of course it *can* be made to "work"... even atheism, which is unnatural to the heart of man, can be made to "work" when it is propped up by the power of the State.

What that means - in terms of making a "dual practice" church work (dual belief, really) - is that the leadership is going to have to keep strong convictions about baptism in check, either by downplaying the significance of baptism (appealing to passages such as 1 Cor 1:17) or by balancing them with other considerations. In either way, in terms of functional ecclesiology, baptism is of necessity going to be regarded as a tertiary doctrine (a matter of personal opinion).

The answer to whether or not you ought to be involved really comes down to (1) how strongly you hold your baptismal views, and (2) how comfortably you can exist in an ecclesial context that does not want strong convictions on the subject to be part of the church culture?

 

[DanSSwing]

Good Evening!

I wanted to get the forum's thoughts on a church having dual practice baptism.

Context: friends of mine (ordained reformed baptist pastors) are planting a Reformed church out of a SBC church. They plan on practicing open membership (accepting a paedo-baptist into full membership, and not requiring them to be re-baptized) from the start, so long as you subscribe to a classic Reformed confession (much like the requirements to join the Puritan Board). They have a vision/desire to move to dual practice baptism where they would have an ordained Presbyterian minister as an elder to perform infant baptisms for those church members who held to that conviction. To be clear, the ministers are 1689 subscribers, but desire unity in the Reformed camp rather than dividing over baptism with the desired end state of practicing both credo- and paedo-baptism.

I am wondering if this is destined to fail, or can a Presbyterian join and help this church plant? My family and I would love to help the church plant, but want to exercise wisdom and discernment over this decision since we would be one of the Presbyterian families.

Thank you in advance!

Ideally the elders would be on general agreement about baptism and the nature of the covenant, but it depends on the situation. It would be generally preferable to have one dual practice baptism Reformed church in the area than for there only to be an apostate Presbyterian church and an Arminian Baptist church.

I'm much more in favor of dual-practice at this time in history when what unites us is so much more important than that which divides us.

 

[Kpsingletary]

So the essence of the plan seems to be that there is a Presbyterian minister who, along with the session, will not discipline any member who withholds baptism until their child makes a profession of faith. That seems charitable but does not solve this problem:

So would the plan also, in essence, include that the minister refrains from preaching/teaching on baptism, or would he instead be bound, if speaking on the issue, to always present both views/practices/theologies?

Andrew,

Yes, I can see the distinctives would be different, to say the least, in the matter of what unites a church. As Ben points out below, I think in this case baptism would necessarily become a tertiary doctrine.

The second part of your response is something that I don't have an answer to yet. I think one would begin to rule over the other, and if the Presbyterian would be allowed to teach freely, that is a good question. I think at the least, there would have to be a 'here is my position, but if you want the other, talk to the baptist minister' qualification if teaching on the doctrine.

I think that I'm coming to the conclusion with the help of this thread that it can be done, but both sides will have to downplay their doctrinal stances on the issue. Not only that, but it seems that in the end one side will be weighted more dominant to the possible detriment of the other.

I also think that the unity of the session can be done (charity, understanding, working out issues) with this structure. However, I think the bigger issue might be the congregation being divided and not showing charity. The church plant is in the deep south, so the SBC/baptists are the dominant group, so it has the potential to be extremely divisive even if the desire is to be unifying.

Kyle

 

[TheInquirer]

I think they need to be two congregations that work together whenever possible or, since they are planting out of SBC, be fully baptist to start. If enough Presbyterians join and it gets large enough, they could help those individuals start a church and support them to whatever extent it works out. I think you can have gospel partnership this way without compromising convictions.

Baptism is done in the presence of the church congregation to celebrate and witness. Dual practice is asking those in attendance to compromise their convictions by participating in my opinion.

 

[Joshua]

Nah...

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

As has been noted above, if both the paedo and credo pastors were deeply fervent in their beliefs – each holding them to be important to believe and understand – the situation would become dueling practice and belief, despite their friendship and agreement in other areas.

For it to "work" each would have to minimize a significant doctrinal matter at the heart of their respective faiths, and that would bring a weakness in the overall teaching, especially as it regards covenant. Only if it were agreed one would be the dominant view, and the other acceptable but not to be openly promoted, could it work.