John Bunyan and Baptist Churchmanship by Mark Dever

[Reformed Covenanter]

In this lecture, Mark Dever explains John Bunyan's view of why credo baptists and paedo baptists could be members of the same church, and argues why such a view is wrong. While I disagree with Mr. Dever's arguments, it was interesting to hear exactly where consistent Baptist sacramentology and radical Congregationalist ecclesiology (democracy in the church) leads:

SermonAudio.com - John Bunyan: Puritan Baptist

I recommend that people on both sides of the baptism debate listen to this lecture, and soberly think about where the logic of their position is leading them.

He did make one point about Presbyterians arguing that Baptists are trying to over-purify the church which I thought was valid, as he points out that we only admit professors to the Lord's Table. Yet, it could be argued that we do this because someone has to understand what they are doing in actively partaking of the Lord's Supper, and so they are not admitted on any presumption of regeneration.

 

[danmpem]

It's late right now, but I'm going to listen to that.

 

[Blueridge Believer]

I listened to this message some time ago a couple of times. As for me, I think Bunyan had the right attitude and spirit about this matter. Twelve years in prison could teach a man a lot about love, mercy, forgiveness and thankfulness unto God which is evident by the writings of Bunyan especially "the Pilgrims Progress". While I am a baptist with a little "b", I am not about to argue and break fellowship with a brother in Christ over a secondary issue that has no bearing on salvation whatsoever. I know some of the brethren from both sides of this issue make disagree but I think Bunyan had it right. God bless you all.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I listened to this message some time ago a couple of times. As for me, I think Bunyan had the right attitude and spirit about this matter. Twelve years in prison could teach a man a lot about love, mercy, forgiveness and thankfulness unto God which is evident by the writings of Bunyan especially "the Pilgrims Progress". While I am a baptist with a little "b", I am not about to argue and break fellowship with a brother in Christ over a secondary issue that has no bearing on salvation whatsoever. I know some of the brethren from both sides of this issue make disagree but I think Bunyan had it right. God bless you all.

I take a Presbyterian version of Bunyan's view; in that, I think Baptists should be members in Presbyterian churches, and I believe that the WCF 26:2 necessitates this.

 

[Blueridge Believer]

This is worth the time to read:

Differences in Judgment about Water Baptism, No Bar to Communion

DIFFERENCES IN JUDGMENT ABOUT WATER BAPTISM, NO BAR TO COMMUNION:
OR,
TO COMMUNICATE WITH SAINTS, AS SAINTS, PROVED LAWFUL.
IN ANSWER TO A BOOK WRITTEN BY THE BAPTISTS, AND PUBLISHED BY MR. T. Paul AND MR. W. KIFFIN, ENTITLED, 'SOME SERIOUS REFLECTIONS ON THAT PART OF MR BUNYAN'S CONFESSION OF FAITH, TOUCHING CHURCH COMMUNION WITH UNBAPTIZED BELIEVERS.'
WHEREIN THEIR OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS ARE ANSWERED, AND THE DOCTRINE OF COMMUNION STILL ASSERTED AND VINDICATED. HERE IS ALSO MR. HENRY JESSE'S JUDGMENT IN THE CASE, FULLY DECLARING THE DOCTRINE I HAVE ASSERTED.
BY JOHN BUNYAN.
'Should not the multitude of words be answered? and should a man full of talk be justified? should thy lies make men hold their peace? and when thou mockest, shall no man make thee an answer [unashamed?]'—Job 11:2, 3
London: Printed for John Wilkins, and are to be sold at his shop in Exchange Alley, next door to the Exchange Coffee House, over against the Royal Exchange, 1673.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Courteous Reader,

Be intreated to believe me, I had not set pen to paper about this controversy, had we been let alone at quiet in our Christian communion. But being assaulted for more than sixteen years, wherein the brethren of the baptized way, as they had their opportunity, have sought to break us in pieces, merely because we are not, in their way, all baptized first: I could not, I durst not, forbear to do a little, if it might be, to settle the brethren, and to arm them against the attempts, which also of late they begin to revive upon us. That I deny the ordinance of baptism, or that I have placed one piece of an argument against it, though they feign it, is quite without colour of truth. All I say is, That the church of Christ hath not warrant to keep out of their communion the Christian that is discovered to be a visible saint by the word, the Christian that walketh according to his light with God. I will not make reflections upon those unhandsome brands that my brethren have laid upon me for this, as that I am a machivilian, a man devilish, proud, insolent, presumptuous, and the like, neither will I say as they, The Lord rebuke thee; Words fitter to be spoken to the devil than a brother. But reader, read and compare; lay aside prejudice and judge. What Mr. Kiffin hath done in the matter I forgive, and love him never the worse, but must stand by my principles because they are peaceable, godly, profitable, and such as tend to the edification of my brother, and as I believe will be justified in the day of judgment.

I have also here presented thee with the opinion of Mr. Henry Jesse, in the case, which providentially I met with as I was coming to London to put my papers to the press; and that it was his judgment is asserted to me, known many years since to some of the Baptists, to whom it was sent, but never yet answered; and will yet be attested if need shall require. Farewell.

Thine in all Christian service, according to my light and power,

JOHN BUNYAN.

 

[mshingler]

I believe Piper had some diaglogue with Wayne Grudem about something like this last year. Apparently, Grudem had reversed his previous position that credos and paedos should be able to worship together in the same church. Piper was in favor of allowing paedos to be members of his church.

 

[timmopussycat]

Martyn Lloyd-Jones was at least sympathetic to Bunyan's view, too.

Incidentally it is because Bunyan took this view that I chose him for my avatar.

 

[Pilgrim]

From the Baptist point of view especially Bunyan was wrong, and in my opinion he was wrong in general. Baptism has always been seen as preceding church membership and coming to the Lord's Supper by paedo and credo alike, but Bunyan disagreed, arguing that a profession of faith was all that was required. Bunyan's charity toward all was laudable, but I don't find the argumentation convincing. If the PB is any indication, increasingly, some baptists today, especially Calvinistic ones, agree with Bunyan, largely because they want to avoid the "odious consequences" of close communion, etc. described by Dabney here .

Those who drafted the 1689 London Baptist Confession were strongly opposed to Bunyan's views.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

From the Baptist point of view especially Bunyan was wrong, and in my opinion he was wrong in general. Baptism has always been seen as preceding church membership and coming to the Lord's Supper by paedo and credo alike, but Bunyan disagreed, arguing that a profession of faith was all that was required. Bunyan's charity toward all was laudable, but I don't find the argumentation convincing. If the PB is any indication, increasingly, some baptists today, especially Calvinistic ones, agree with Bunyan, largely because they want to avoid the "odious consequences" of close communion, etc. described by Dabney here .

Those who drafted the 1689 London Baptist Confession were strongly opposed to Bunyan's views.

In my humble opinion the views of the men who opposed John Bunyan seem to be the logical conclusin of a consistently Baptistic view of the sacraments.

 

[Pilgrim]

From the Baptist point of view especially Bunyan was wrong, and in my opinion he was wrong in general. Baptism has always been seen as preceding church membership and coming to the Lord's Supper by paedo and credo alike, but Bunyan disagreed, arguing that a profession of faith was all that was required. Bunyan's charity toward all was laudable, but I don't find the argumentation convincing. If the PB is any indication, increasingly, some baptists today, especially Calvinistic ones, agree with Bunyan, largely because they want to avoid the "odious consequences" of close communion, etc. described by Dabney here .

Those who drafted the 1689 London Baptist Confession were strongly opposed to Bunyan's views.

In my humble opinion the views of the men who opposed John Bunyan seem to be the logical conclusin of a consistently Baptistic view of the sacraments.

I think that's right. Remember, from our point of view Baptists joining Presbyterian churches have been validly baptized, although it may have been performed "irregularly" as some have put it. However, Presbyterians, Anglicans, etc. joining Baptist churches without being immersed do not have valid baptisms from the Baptist point of view. That is unless the Baptist is going to argue that immersion is not of the essence of baptism, which I believe contradicts every Baptist confession that has ever been drafted that addressed the issue.

 

[Blueridge Believer]

At our church a Presbyterian in good standing in his chruch could and would be invited to partake of the Lord's supper but not join the assembly untill he was baptized by immersion. I guess that's as close to Bunyan as we would get. However, I, like Bunyan fear that this doctrine becomes and idol for some.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

At our church a Presbyterian in good standing in his chruch could and would be invited to partake of the Lord's supper but not join the assembly untill he was baptized by immersion. I guess that's as close to Bunyan as we would get. However, I, like Bunyan fear that this doctrine becomes and idol for some.

In my denomination the issue of whether or not Baptists should be members is a sore point; I say that if we allow them to partake of the Lord's Supper, then they should be recognised as church members.

 

[mshingler]

From the Baptist point of view especially Bunyan was wrong, and in my opinion he was wrong in general. Baptism has always been seen as preceding church membership and coming to the Lord's Supper by paedo and credo alike, but Bunyan disagreed, arguing that a profession of faith was all that was required. Bunyan's charity toward all was laudable, but I don't find the argumentation convincing. If the PB is any indication, increasingly, some baptists today, especially Calvinistic ones, agree with Bunyan, largely because they want to avoid the "odious consequences" of close communion, etc. described by Dabney here .

Those who drafted the 1689 London Baptist Confession were strongly opposed to Bunyan's views.

In my humble opinion the views of the men who opposed John Bunyan seem to be the logical conclusin of a consistently Baptistic view of the sacraments.

I think that's right. Remember, from our point of view Baptists joining Presbyterians have been validly baptized, although it may have been performed "irregularly" as some view it. However, Presbyterians, Anglicans, etc. joining Baptist churches without being immersed do not have valid baptisms from the Baptist point of view. That is unless the Baptist is going to argue that immersion is not of the essence of baptism, which I believe contradicts every Baptist confession that has ever been drafted that addressed the issue.

Actually, I believe the issue is not immersion so much as profession of faith. Immersion, itself, is not the heart of the Baptist view of baptism, though it is involved. The more central issue is who is a proper subject of baptism.

 

[Blueridge Believer]

At our church a Presbyterian in good standing in his chruch could and would be invited to partake of the Lord's supper but not join the assembly untill he was baptized by immersion. I guess that's as close to Bunyan as we would get. However, I, like Bunyan fear that this doctrine becomes and idol for some.

In my denomination the issue of whether or not Baptists should be members is a sore point; I say that if we allow them to partake of the Lord's Supper, then they should be recognised as church members.

To my baptist shame my Presbyterian brethren seem to show much more grace in this matter. I have often partook of the sacrement at an ARP church close by. Some of my baptist brethren won't let anyone who is not baptized by immersion partake and some if they are not part of "thier" group. Shamefull behaviour in my opinion.

 

[Pilgrim]

At our church a Presbyterian in good standing in his chruch could and would be invited to partake of the Lord's supper but not join the assembly untill he was baptized by immersion. I guess that's as close to Bunyan as we would get. However, I, like Bunyan fear that this doctrine becomes and idol for some.

In my denomination the issue of whether or not Baptists should be members is a sore point; I say that if we allow them to partake of the Lord's Supper, then they should be recognised as church members.

To my baptist shame my Presbyterian brethren seem to show much more grace in this matter. I have often partook of the sacrement at an ARP church close by. Some of my baptist brethren won't let anyone who is not baptized by immersion partake and some if they are not part of "thier" group. Shamefull behaviour in my opinion.

Those who exclude those who in their view do not have a valid baptism are only acting in accordance with their confession and historic Baptist practice, although the ones who won't commune those who weren't baptized in a church that is part of their group may have veered closer to Landmarkism. Maybe you are starting to see the light and will come over to the Presbyterian side!

In my opinion, a position that allows Presbyterians or anyone else to commune but bars them from church membership is inconsistent although it may be laudable for its charity. From a practical standpoint, I don't imagine too many convinced Presbyterians would join a Baptist church unless there were no sound Presbyterian or other paedo options in the area. The same goes for convinced Baptists joining a Presbyterian church.

Lest someone think I'm cutting it too fine, well we Puritans are precisionists after all.

 

[Mayflower]

Some of my baptist brethren won't let anyone who is not baptized by immersion partake and some if they are not part of "thier" group. Shamefull behaviour in my opinion.

Iam not agree that i would be a shamefull behaviour, and i don't think it a matter of not being a part of their group. In our church (baptist evangelical), we also allowed presbyterian to join with the supper, but personally iam not totally agree with that. The baptist wanted to hold to the order, as God has showed it in His Word, namely repentance, baptism, memeber of the church and the lord's supper, this is accordingly to the baptist view on the NT nature of the Church. If you viewed infant spinkeling as a valid baptism, than i understand that you would have a problem with this, but if you don't view infant sprinkeling as a valid baptism, than it means that the are not baptized at all, so why would you not follow the order as God shows us in His Word, only for the sake of unity ? Why would separted baptism and Lord supper from eachother, only for the sake of fellowship ? I love my presbyterian brethern alot, and i love their fellowship, but i would not let their view on infant-sprinkeling have an influance on the ordinances of the local church, to seperated baptism and Lord's supper.

 

[Wannabee]

Some pertinent quotes.

He [Spurgeon] said, "I am not an outrageous Protestant generally, and I rejoice to confess that I feel sure there are some of God's people even in the Romish Church" (see note 16). He chose a paedobaptist to be the first head of his pastor's college, and did not make that issue a barrier to who preached in his pulpit. His communion was open to all Christians, but he said he "would rather give up his pastorate than admit any man to the church who was not obedient to his Lord's command [of baptism]" (see note 17).
A Marvelous Ministry, p. 43.

His officers and Church had made him the happiest man on earth and when he had any cares or trouble, it was very seldom they came from the Church. Another of their peculiarities was that they were Baptists holding open communion and yet having none but persons who had been baptized in the membership of the Church. He was prepared to maintain this position against the attacks both of the Strict Communionist and the Open Membership man, both of whose principles he believed to be unscriptural. He would rather give up his pastorate than admit any man to the Church who was not obedient to his Lord’s command. And such a course would certainly promote the downfall of any Church that practiced it.
Found here

An article on Spurgeon's position that I thought was good and agree with is found here

Don Witney has a good article here

The principle of regenerate Church membership more than anything else, marks our distinctiveness in the world today. It is a matter of amazement to us to find ourselves noticed, not so much for insistence on the spirituality of the Church, as for scrupulous observance of an appointed form. The latter is but incidental to our position; the former is of its very essence. If we stand for believer’s baptism and no other, it is not simply because we think we have the better of our Paedo-baptist brethren in the matter of exegesis, but because both logic and experience teach its importance as a safeguard to the Church from intrusion of unregenerate life (The Baptist World Congress [London, 1905], pp.27ff).

 

[Blueridge Believer]

In my denomination the issue of whether or not Baptists should be members is a sore point; I say that if we allow them to partake of the Lord's Supper, then they should be recognised as church members.

To my baptist shame my Presbyterian brethren seem to show much more grace in this matter. I have often partook of the sacrement at an ARP church close by. Some of my baptist brethren won't let anyone who is not baptized by immersion partake and some if they are not part of "thier" group. Shamefull behaviour in my opinion.

Those who exclude those who in their view do not have a valid baptism are only acting in accordance with their confession and historic Baptist practice, although the ones who won't commune those who weren't baptized in a church that is part of their group may have veered closer to Landmarkism. Maybe you are starting to see the light and will come over to the Presbyterian side!

In my opinion, a position that allows Presbyterians or anyone else to commune but bars them from church membership is inconsistent although it may be laudable for its charity. From a practical standpoint, I don't imagine too many convinced Presbyterians would join a Baptist church unless there were no sound Presbyterian or other paedo options in the area. The same goes for convinced Baptists joining a Presbyterian church.

Lest someone think I'm cutting it too fine, well we Puritans are precisionists after all.

And that's where some of us baptists see the Presbyterian postion as inconsistant. If you is baptized, even if it is a child, how can you bar them from the table? Yes we can be hiar splitters sometimes can't we.

 

[Mayflower]

Some pertinent quotes.

He [Spurgeon] said, "I am not an outrageous Protestant generally, and I rejoice to confess that I feel sure there are some of God's people even in the Romish Church" (see note 16). He chose a paedobaptist to be the first head of his pastor's college, and did not make that issue a barrier to who preached in his pulpit. His communion was open to all Christians, but he said he "would rather give up his pastorate than admit any man to the church who was not obedient to his Lord's command [of baptism]" (see note 17).
A Marvelous Ministry, p. 43.

His officers and Church had made him the happiest man on earth and when he had any cares or trouble, it was very seldom they came from the Church. Another of their peculiarities was that they were Baptists holding open communion and yet having none but persons who had been baptized in the membership of the Church. He was prepared to maintain this position against the attacks both of the Strict Communionist and the Open Membership man, both of whose principles he believed to be unscriptural. He would rather give up his pastorate than admit any man to the Church who was not obedient to his Lord’s command. And such a course would certainly promote the downfall of any Church that practiced it.
Found here

An article on Spurgeon's position that I thought was good and agree with is found here

Don Witney has a good article here

The principle of regenerate Church membership more than anything else, marks our distinctiveness in the world today. It is a matter of amazement to us to find ourselves noticed, not so much for insistence on the spirituality of the Church, as for scrupulous observance of an appointed form. The latter is but incidental to our position; the former is of its very essence. If we stand for believer’s baptism and no other, it is not simply because we think we have the better of our Paedo-baptist brethren in the matter of exegesis, but because both logic and experience teach its importance as a safeguard to the Church from intrusion of unregenerate life (The Baptist World Congress [London, 1905], pp.27ff).

CHARLES SPURGEON on close communion:

" I have not one word of criticism to utter against my baptist brethern beyond Atlantic. On contrary, i believe that the baptist in America are the best baptist in the south. Moreover, if i were to come to America to live, i would join a close communion church and conform myself to the practices on the communion question." (Religious herald march, 3rd 1892)

" Have you made up your mind on communion question ? You are giong to a country where the majority of baptist are close communionist.
Really, if i had my ministry again, i should certainly commence with a close communion church. Iam led to believe that the American baptist are right, but i cannot alter the ussages of my church. which have been of so long standing" (The journal and messager)

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

To my baptist shame my Presbyterian brethren seem to show much more grace in this matter. I have often partook of the sacrement at an ARP church close by. Some of my baptist brethren won't let anyone who is not baptized by immersion partake and some if they are not part of "thier" group. Shamefull behaviour in my opinion.

Those who exclude those who in their view do not have a valid baptism are only acting in accordance with their confession and historic Baptist practice, although the ones who won't commune those who weren't baptized in a church that is part of their group may have veered closer to Landmarkism. Maybe you are starting to see the light and will come over to the Presbyterian side!

In my opinion, a position that allows Presbyterians or anyone else to commune but bars them from church membership is inconsistent although it may be laudable for its charity. From a practical standpoint, I don't imagine too many convinced Presbyterians would join a Baptist church unless there were no sound Presbyterian or other paedo options in the area. The same goes for convinced Baptists joining a Presbyterian church.

Lest someone think I'm cutting it too fine, well we Puritans are precisionists after all.

And that's where some of us baptists see the Presbyterian postion as inconsistant. If you is baptized, even if it is a child, how can you bar them from the table? Yes we can be hiar splitters sometimes can't we.

I suppose most Presbyterians would argue that the recipient in baptism is passive, while the partaker of the Lord's Supper must know what he is doing. The argument is that there are different rules for admittance to the two sacraments.

Moreover, all of us would de-bar a professed Christian if he was living in a scandalous sin like adultery, regardless of how he was baptized.

 

[Blueridge Believer]

Some pertinent quotes.

He [Spurgeon] said, "I am not an outrageous Protestant generally, and I rejoice to confess that I feel sure there are some of God's people even in the Romish Church" (see note 16). He chose a paedobaptist to be the first head of his pastor's college, and did not make that issue a barrier to who preached in his pulpit. His communion was open to all Christians, but he said he "would rather give up his pastorate than admit any man to the church who was not obedient to his Lord's command [of baptism]" (see note 17).
A Marvelous Ministry, p. 43.

An article on Spurgeon's position that I thought was good and agree with is found here

Don Witney has a good article here

The principle of regenerate Church membership more than anything else, marks our distinctiveness in the world today. It is a matter of amazement to us to find ourselves noticed, not so much for insistence on the spirituality of the Church, as for scrupulous observance of an appointed form. The latter is but incidental to our position; the former is of its very essence. If we stand for believer’s baptism and no other, it is not simply because we think we have the better of our Paedo-baptist brethren in the matter of exegesis, but because both logic and experience teach its importance as a safeguard to the Church from intrusion of unregenerate life (The Baptist World Congress [London, 1905], pp.27ff).

CHARLES SPURGEON on close communion:

" I have not one word of criticism to utter against my baptist brethern beyond Atlantic. On contrary, i believe that the baptist in America are the best baptist in the south. Moreover, if i were to come to America to live, i would join a close communion church and conform myself to the practices on the communion question." (Religious herald march, 3rd 1892)

" Have you made up your mind on communion question ? You are giong to a country where the majority of baptist are close communionist.
Really, if i had my ministry again, i should certainly commence with a close communion church. Iam led to believe that the American baptist are right, but i cannot alter the ussages of my church. which have been of so long standing" (The journal and messager)

They probably would have barred him because of his cigars.

 

[Pilgrim]

To my baptist shame my Presbyterian brethren seem to show much more grace in this matter. I have often partook of the sacrement at an ARP church close by. Some of my baptist brethren won't let anyone who is not baptized by immersion partake and some if they are not part of "thier" group. Shamefull behaviour in my opinion.

Those who exclude those who in their view do not have a valid baptism are only acting in accordance with their confession and historic Baptist practice, although the ones who won't commune those who weren't baptized in a church that is part of their group may have veered closer to Landmarkism. Maybe you are starting to see the light and will come over to the Presbyterian side!

In my opinion, a position that allows Presbyterians or anyone else to commune but bars them from church membership is inconsistent although it may be laudable for its charity. From a practical standpoint, I don't imagine too many convinced Presbyterians would join a Baptist church unless there were no sound Presbyterian or other paedo options in the area. The same goes for convinced Baptists joining a Presbyterian church.

Lest someone think I'm cutting it too fine, well we Puritans are precisionists after all.

And that's where some of us baptists see the Presbyterian postion as inconsistant. If you is baptized, even if it is a child, how can you bar them from the table? Yes we can be hiar splitters sometimes can't we.

A good number of those who are paedocommunion advocates, like Doug Wilson, Randy Booth and Gregg Strawbridge, were Baptists at one time and agree with you. I think there are a good many posts here and elsewhere that explain why there is sometimes a tendency for Baptists to swing all the way over to paedocommunion when or shortly after they adopt paedobaptistic views. I think the explanation boils down to confusing the sign and the thing signified.

In addition to what Daniel posted, the primary argument against it is 1 Cor. 11, but there are other passages and considerations as well. I suppose the Baptist rejoinder is, if y'all are going to ignore "believe and be baptized" then why not ignore 1 Cor. 11 etc. too?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Some pertinent quotes.

An article on Spurgeon's position that I thought was good and agree with is found here

Don Witney has a good article here

CHARLES SPURGEON on close communion:

" I have not one word of criticism to utter against my baptist brethern beyond Atlantic. On contrary, i believe that the baptist in America are the best baptist in the south. Moreover, if i were to come to America to live, i would join a close communion church and conform myself to the practices on the communion question." (Religious herald march, 3rd 1892)

" Have you made up your mind on communion question ? You are giong to a country where the majority of baptist are close communionist.
Really, if i had my ministry again, i should certainly commence with a close communion church. Iam led to believe that the American baptist are right, but i cannot alter the ussages of my church. which have been of so long standing" (The journal and messager)

They probably would have barred him because of his cigars.

That is probable

 

[KMK]

Some seem to be implying the Bunyan was inconsistent, but he also, if I remember correctly, believed in 'open' communion.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Some seem to be implying the Bunyan was inconsistent, but he also, if I remember correctly, believed in 'open' communion.

Mark Dever does not like this practice; indeed the point of the lecture was to refute it. Furthermore, Pastor Dever accuses Bunyan of holding an essentially Quaker view of baptism. However, in case anyone gets the wrong impression, the Mr. Dever does speak very highly of Bunyan throughout the address and especially in his closing prayer. Moreover, I do admire his desire to be consistent with the Word of God as he understands it.

 

[KMK]

Some seem to be implying the Bunyan was inconsistent, but he also, if I remember correctly, believed in 'open' communion.

Mark Dever does not like this practice; indeed the point of the lecture was to refute it. Furthermore, Pastor Dever accuses Bunyan of holding an essentially Quaker view of baptism. However, in case anyone gets the wrong impression, the Mr. Dever does speak very highly of Bunyan throughout the address and especially in his closing prayer. Moreover, I do admire his desire to be consistent with the Word of God as he understands it.

I understand. Nehemiah Coxe, Bunyan's own protege, disagreed with him. But my point is Baptists who allow paedos membership are not inconsistent if they also practice open communion. Bunyan may have been wrong, but I don't see how someone could accuse him of being 'incosistent'.

 

[Pilgrim]

Some seem to be implying the Bunyan was inconsistent, but he also, if I remember correctly, believed in 'open' communion.

Mark Dever does not like this practice; indeed the point of the lecture was to refute it. Furthermore, Pastor Dever accuses Bunyan of holding an essentially Quaker view of baptism. However, in case anyone gets the wrong impression, the Mr. Dever does speak very highly of Bunyan throughout the address and especially in his closing prayer. Moreover, I do admire his desire to be consistent with the Word of God as he understands it.

I understand. Nehemiah Coxe, Bunyan's own protege, disagreed with him. But my point is Baptists who allow paedos membership are not inconsistent if they also practice open communion. Bunyan may have been wrong, but I don't see how someone could accuse him of being 'incosistent'.

My position is that both open communion and membership for paedos are inconsistent with baptistic (i.e. immersionist) views on the nature of the church and the ordinances. I agree that Bunyan is more consistent than those who would welcome paedos to the table but not to church membership. I think Dever is correct here and were I to be convinced that the Baptist position is right I would adopt his views, which are those of the historic Southern Baptists and Particular Baptists.

Others have pointed out that Bunyan had all of his children baptized in the Church of England and have attacked his Baptist credentials from that standpoint as well.

 

[DMcFadden]

Actually, I believe the issue is not immersion so much as profession of faith. Immersion, itself, is not the heart of the Baptist view of baptism, though it is involved. The more central issue is who is a proper subject of baptism.

Technically true. However, it is also true that the baptist confessions, drafted after immersion finally won out as the dominant baptist view, either assume or mandate immersion.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Some seem to be implying the Bunyan was inconsistent, but he also, if I remember correctly, believed in 'open' communion.

Mark Dever does not like this practice; indeed the point of the lecture was to refute it. Furthermore, Pastor Dever accuses Bunyan of holding an essentially Quaker view of baptism. However, in case anyone gets the wrong impression, the Mr. Dever does speak very highly of Bunyan throughout the address and especially in his closing prayer. Moreover, I do admire his desire to be consistent with the Word of God as he understands it.

I understand. Nehemiah Coxe, Bunyan's own protege, disagreed with him. But my point is Baptists who allow paedos membership are not inconsistent if they also practice open communion. Bunyan may have been wrong, but I don't see how someone could accuse him of being 'inconsistent'.

I do not think you could argue that his argument was internally inconsistent, but you could say that it is inconsistent with Baptistic sacramentology.

 

[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 of Scotland (Edit..(I mean Worldwide not Scotland). 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.