My credobaptistic Bible church has made its first stride towards accepting infant baptism!

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by gwine
But doesn't attending services a both churches (regardless of what you call them) take time? If your church has 150 members then how much time do you have to spend with an individual family? Let's say you wanted to maintain close contact with 3 families in your church every week or two. Then I am wondering how you juggle all the other responsibilities in life (mowing lawns, grocery shopping, cleaning the house, cooking, your job), not to mention sleeping, and have time to fellowship with another church.

At our church we had difficulty getting 4 couples together 4 times a year for what we called Diner's Club, so I am more than curious how you do it. Not condemning, just curious.

Very good question!

I go to the PCA men's Bible study on Friday mornings at 6:30am. But we generally don't have anybody over to our house at that time on Fridays, so I don't think there is a problem there.

Usually when we have MBC families over to our home, it is on a Thursday, Friday, or Saturday evening. Rarely (if ever) has it been on a Sunday evening. Thus, I don't think the PCA Bible study on Sunday evening is a problem, either.

So, we still have Thursday, Friday, and Saturday evenings open for having people over to our house, just as always.

 

[biblelighthouse]

. . . and, for what it's worth, my pastor at MBC has told me in the past that my family has been really good at fellowshipping with others in the MBC body . . . having them over to our home, and things like that.


In fact, just three days ago, I went out to lunch with two MBC friends of mine.

I definitely think keeping close ties in the local church body is important!


In time, I hope to invite multiple families to our home simultaneously . . . one couple from MBC, and one couple from the PCA church. They are very like-minded in many ways, they worship in the same town, and yet they don't know one another. I want these two excellent groups of Christians to get to know each other!

 

[gwine]

Wow.

As an introvert I cannot imagine such gatherings so often.

 

[Puritanhead]

Originally posted by Draught Horse
Ryan and I agree on nothing except Politics (broadly speaking). Nevertheless, almost everything he posts is funny!

This is probably why no one takes me seriously when I try to be serious.

 

[pastorway]

I admit that I am really shocked at how the posts by Lawrence have been responded to - I see no accusations or judgments, just sound warnings about the dangers of what is going on. I agree with all that he has posted.

I really think his posts were over-reacted to and several accusations were hurled back at him that are unfounded.

I am really beginning to despise internet conversations...........perhaps we should use videophons or webcams so that we can convey tone, expressions, and GENUINE CONCERN when we post.

Phillip

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by pastorway
I admit that I am really shocked at how the posts by Lawrence have been responded to - I see no accusations or judgments, just sound warnings about the dangers of what is going on. I agree with all that he has posted.

I really think his posts were over-reacted to and several accusations were hurled back at him that are unfounded.

I am really beginning to despise internet conversations...........perhaps we should use videophons or webcams so that we can convey tone, expressions, and GENUINE CONCERN when we post.

Phillip

Phillip,
I agree. Dialoging has a level of ambiguosity; may times it can be misread. This is where the smileys come in handy.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
I agree. Dialoging has a level of ambiguosity; may times it can be misread. This is where the smileys come in handy.

Good point . . . In that case, I need to catch up . . . :bigsmile:

 

[Herald]

Why the division?

WCF and Baptist practice aside...why is this topic so devisive? It seems that the credo/paedo debate elevates baptism to a stature it does not deserve. I am not pulling a "Rodney King" (Can we all just get along?) here. Is it possible for Calvinistic credo's and Calvinistic paedo's to celebrate our mutual unity? There is much that we do agree on. Doctrinal distinctives are a way of life within the church. Both sides have crafted ad hominem to an artform. When do we agree to disagree?

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis
WCF and Baptist practice aside...why is this topic so devisive? It seems that the credo/paedo debate elevates baptism to a stature it does not deserve. I am not pulling a "Rodney King" (Can we all just get along?) here. Is it possible for Calvinistic credo's and Calvinistic paedo's to celebrate our mutual unity? There is much that we do agree on. Doctrinal distinctives are a way of life within the church. Both sides have crafted ad hominem to an artform. When do we agree to disagree?

That's why my church (McKinney Bible Church) has offered the right hand of fellowship to Christians who do not share their baptismal views. Paedobaptists like me are welcome at MBC.

And then there is the Free Presbyterian Church. It welcomes both Paedos and Credos.

And as far as I know, even most Presbyterian churches welcome baptists parishoners (though not baptist elders, thankfully). The local PCA church in my area has baptist parishoners in good standing.

In general, I think the only groups who really make such a big deal (as far as parishoners are concerned) are credobaptist churches. But I could be wrong.




[Edited on 9-30-2005 by biblelighthouse]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis
WCF and Baptist practice aside...why is this topic so devisive? It seems that the credo/paedo debate elevates baptism to a stature it does not deserve. I am not pulling a "Rodney King" (Can we all just get along?) here. Is it possible for Calvinistic credo's and Calvinistic paedo's to celebrate our mutual unity? There is much that we do agree on. Doctrinal distinctives are a way of life within the church. Both sides have crafted ad hominem to an artform. When do we agree to disagree?

Bill,
Stay out of this!

No really, we are a discussion list; that is what we do here. I agree, ad homs are not allowed.

Thanks for the exhortation and rebuke! :bigsmile:

 

[Herald]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by gwine
But doesn't attending services a both churches (regardless of what you call them) take time? If your church has 150 members then how much time do you have to spend with an individual family? Let's say you wanted to maintain close contact with 3 families in your church every week or two. Then I am wondering how you juggle all the other responsibilities in life (mowing lawns, grocery shopping, cleaning the house, cooking, your job), not to mention sleeping, and have time to fellowship with another church.

At our church we had difficulty getting 4 couples together 4 times a year for what we called Diner's Club, so I am more than curious how you do it. Not condemning, just curious.

Very good question!

I go to the PCA men's Bible study on Friday mornings at 6:30am. But we generally don't have anybody over to our house at that time on Fridays, so I don't think there is a problem there.

Usually when we have MBC families over to our home, it is on a Thursday, Friday, or Saturday evening. Rarely (if ever) has it been on a Sunday evening. Thus, I don't think the PCA Bible study on Sunday evening is a problem, either.

So, we still have Thursday, Friday, and Saturday evenings open for having people over to our house, just as always.

Joe - I appreciate the tone of your reply. As soon as I read it I found the "But" word leaving my lips. I have found that whenever "But" is uttered it tends to disolve unity among saints.

I don't expect a credo church to turn paedo or vice versa. That is not right thinking in my book. I also don't know if your church has a formal statement on membership being linked to credo. Apparently Bethlehem Baptist Church is debating this change to their doctrinal statement. Our church clearly states that membership requires believers baptism. So a question to ask is, "Does our unity mean that we need to drop our doctrinal distinctives?" Another question is, "Do we limit membership to saints that disagree with our formal position on baptism?" The hard-liner in me is ready with a quick answer. But I am willing to prayerfully consider the matter.

 

[Herald]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis
WCF and Baptist practice aside...why is this topic so devisive? It seems that the credo/paedo debate elevates baptism to a stature it does not deserve. I am not pulling a "Rodney King" (Can we all just get along?) here. Is it possible for Calvinistic credo's and Calvinistic paedo's to celebrate our mutual unity? There is much that we do agree on. Doctrinal distinctives are a way of life within the church. Both sides have crafted ad hominem to an artform. When do we agree to disagree?

Bill,
Stay out of this!

No really, we are a discussion list; that is what we do here. I agree, ad homs are not allowed.

Thanks for the exhortation and rebuke! :bigsmile:

Scott - tryin hard to "play nice." Work has had me busy the past few weeks so I have not been as active on the boards as I would like. Nice to hear from you.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis

Joe - I appreciate the tone of your reply. As soon as I read it I found the "But" word leaving my lips. I have found that whenever "But" is uttered it tends to disolve unity among saints.

I don't expect a credo church to turn paedo or vice versa. That is not right thinking in my book.

I don't expect it to happen overnight. But the first important stride has been made. And I am thankful to know that it has happened before, elsewhere. There is a certain church (of which we do not speak) that is in Moscow, Idaho. And regardless of what anyone thinks of the pastor (of whom we do not speak), the fact remains that his church was totally credobaptistic a few years ago (with a church doctrinal statement and all!), but is now predominantly paedobaptistic.

Strictly regarding baptism, I would like to see the same thing happen at my church.

Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis

I also don't know if your church has a formal statement on membership being linked to credo.

Nope. And I believe that made my church's recent shift much easier. They weren't tied down with an unbiblical view of baptism written in stone in the church's doctrinal statement, so it made it easier to shift in the direction of a more Biblical view.

Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis
Apparently Bethlehem Baptist Church is debating this change to their doctrinal statement. Our church clearly states that membership requires believers baptism. So a question to ask is, "Does our unity mean that we need to drop our doctrinal distinctives?" Another question is, "Do we limit membership to saints that disagree with our formal position on baptism?" The hard-liner in me is ready with a quick answer. But I am willing to prayerfully consider the matter.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by PastorSean
This is fun!

I agree.

 

[Herald]

4. We have several credobaptist families who are members of our church--all that is required for membership is a credible profession of faith, of course--and although the men cannot hold office and we warn them regularly that to refuse the covenant sign for their children is a most grievous sin, the dialogue continues peacefully and they are important members of the church who bless and edify the whole congregation with their gifts.

Grievous sin? I suppose that is a PCA position. I am not sure we would say the same thing about a paedo family in our midst. The church leadership would certainly disagree with them. As with your church, we would not allow them to hold office. I am pleased to hear that they are "important members of the church who bless and edify the whole congregation with their gifts."

I do have a question for you. If they are perpetually commiting a "grievous sin" by rejecting paedo-baptism, would not that be a sin warranting church discipline? The word "grievous" is strong. If a person is engaged in willful sin (which is how I would interpret "grievous sin"), should not church discipline be administered? Just asking. Not accusing anyone of anything.

[Edited on 9-30-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]

 

[Puritanhead]

"Grevious sin!!!"
:bigsmile:

This credo-baptist says bah-humbug! Jesus never had an infant baptism! End of story!

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis

4. We have several credobaptist families who are members of our church--all that is required for membership is a credible profession of faith, of course--and although the men cannot hold office and we warn them regularly that to refuse the covenant sign for their children is a most grievous sin, the dialogue continues peacefully and they are important members of the church who bless and edify the whole congregation with their gifts.

Grievous sin? I suppose that is a PCA position. I am not sure we would say the same thing about a paedo family in our midst. The church leadership would certainly disagree with them. As with your church, we would not allow them to hold office. I am pleased to hear that they are "important members of the church who bless and edify the whole congregation with their gifts."

I do have a question for you. If they are perpetually commiting a "grievous sin" by rejecting paedo-baptism, would not that be a sin warranting church discipline? The word "grievous" is strong. If a person is engaged in willful sin (which is how I would interpret "grievous sin"), should not church discipline be administered? Just asking. Not accusing anyone of anything.

[Edited on 9-30-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]

Bill,

For the record: does your church allow believers who have never been immersed, and/or who have never been baptized as adults after a profession of faith to become members and take communion?

I ask because the vast majority of baptist churches (Phillip's church being one of the exceptions) refuse to allow that, being much less charitable than any PCA church. In fact, that was the whole impetus behind the John Piper announcement - there were sores of men who have preached in his pulpit who would have been prohibited from joining. That is the case still with Alistair Begg's church still. Sinclair Ferguson can preach, just not join. And a sweet 80+ year old widow who has been a Christian her whole life, the wife of an elder, and who has 3 generations of believers following her was required to be rebaptized, immersed at her old age, so that she could join the church.

You' don't want to play the charity game with baptism and membership. Baptists (in general) lose very badly at that.

 

[Herald]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis

4. We have several credobaptist families who are members of our church--all that is required for membership is a credible profession of faith, of course--and although the men cannot hold office and we warn them regularly that to refuse the covenant sign for their children is a most grievous sin, the dialogue continues peacefully and they are important members of the church who bless and edify the whole congregation with their gifts.

Grievous sin? I suppose that is a PCA position. I am not sure we would say the same thing about a paedo family in our midst. The church leadership would certainly disagree with them. As with your church, we would not allow them to hold office. I am pleased to hear that they are "important members of the church who bless and edify the whole congregation with their gifts."

I do have a question for you. If they are perpetually commiting a "grievous sin" by rejecting paedo-baptism, would not that be a sin warranting church discipline? The word "grievous" is strong. If a person is engaged in willful sin (which is how I would interpret "grievous sin"), should not church discipline be administered? Just asking. Not accusing anyone of anything.

[Edited on 9-30-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]

Bill,

For the record: does your church allow believers who have never been immersed, and/or who have never been baptized as adults after a profession of faith to become members and take communion?

I ask because the vast majority of baptist churches (Phillip's church being one of the exceptions) refuse to allow that, being much less charitable than any PCA church. In fact, that was the whole impetus behind the John Piper announcement - there were sores of men who have preached in his pulpit who would have been prohibited from joining. That is the case still with Alistair Begg's church still. Sinclair Ferguson can preach, just not join. And a sweet 80+ year old widow who has been a Christian her whole life, the wife of an elder, and who has 3 generations of believers following her was required to be rebaptized, immersed at her old age, so that she could join the church.

You' don't want to play the charity game with baptism and membership. Baptists (in general) lose very badly at that.

Fred -

I'm afraid you may be inferring an intent that I did not mean. The topic of baptism aside, I was concerned by the term "grievous sin." I do not doubt that some Baptist churches may feel the same way towards those who have not been baptized, or who are baptized in a manner not usually accepted by Baptists. I am not naive enough to think that all our doctrinal differences are trivial and should be whisked away without discussion. But there are some doctrinal rifts that have withstood centuries of debate. They are still alive and well. Baptism is one such doctrinal area.

Individual fellowships will continue to go back and forth on this issue. I am not sure any real ground is being gained (or lost) by either side. It just seems to be that artillery is lobbed by both sides and real people are caught in the crossfire. Fred, I am a Baptist. My conviction is credo (as though that is shock to anyone!). If a paedo brother or sister came to our church, I would welcome them in love. As it stands now, they would be required to be baptized in order to join our church. If they were never baptized they would have to be baptized in order to join. Yes, Piper's church is debating the former. When I first heard of Piper's leaning on the issue, it got my gander up. The good Baptist in me was ready to fluster and bark. But I have allowed my fuming to subside and have chosen to deliberately look at the issue from all sides.

For me the issue is not one of credo vs. paedo. For many of us on this board, our personal position has been staked out and is unlikely to change. I am more impacted on the ecclesiastical level. Should we admit a believer as a member if they were paedo-baptized? Should we confirm a member who has never been baptized? Should we recoginize the baptism of those who were originally baptized in a church with sharp theological differences that ours? Fred, my church requires baptism by immersion by all candidates for membership. Is that right? Up until recently it was not on the top of my list for consideration. I am willing to prayerfully look at the matter individually and with the fellow elders in my church. This consideration is not about credo vs. paedo (that position is firm), it is about baptism's effect on church membership.

One of my desires is to tone down the rhetoric. Not that anyone here has been less than civil or charitable. But I, like so many others, can get wrapped up with the desire to be heard instead of listening. It is a bad tendency of mine and I am trying to work on it. In the end, the truth...in love...is my desire.





[Edited on 10-1-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]

 

[fredtgreco]

Bill,

I appreciate your comments. I am a convinced paedobaptist and a Presbyterian, and perhaps you have gleaned that I think there is much common ground and common work to be done by Baptists and Presbyterians. I trust that my posts, as well as Phillip and Lawrence, can vouch for that.

My point was that there is nothing wrong with taking a firm stand and then applying pastoral wisdom. There is often hardly a case where the "perfect" solution can be crafted. There will often be a problem to be worked out. I happen to believe that denying baptism to covenant children is a grave sin. I also think it is a graver sin to make the doors of the church narrower than those of the Kingdom. If Jesus says, "This one is Mine" then he can join my church. He may never be able to be an officer, or teach; he may be subject to pastoral discipline (read: exhortation, admonishment); he will likely have to face being publicly told that he is wrong, and being unbiblical on that point. But I think he can join.

 

[Herald]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Bill,

I appreciate your comments. I am a convinced paedobaptist and a Presbyterian, and perhaps you have gleaned that I think there is much common ground and common work to be done by Baptists and Presbyterians. I trust that my posts, as well as Phillip and Lawrence, can vouch for that.

My point was that there is nothing wrong with taking a firm stand and then applying pastoral wisdom. There is often hardly a case where the "perfect" solution can be crafted. There will often be a problem to be worked out. I happen to believe that denying baptism to covenant children is a grave sin. I also think it is a graver sin to make the doors of the church narrower than those of the Kingdom. If Jesus says, "This one is Mine" then he can join my church. He may never be able to be an officer, or teach; he may be subject to pastoral discipline (read: exhortation, admonishment); he will likely have to face being publicly told that he is wrong, and being unbiblical on that point. But I think he can join.

Fred - I am thankful for your kind words. Our different positions on baptism are not a source of conflict for me. Unless I am misinterpreting your words, they are not a source of conflict for you either. We're both pretty comfortable in our baptismal skin! My prayer is that both sides will lavishly display the love of Christ to the saints, regardless of which side of the baptism issue we hold.

 

[Puritanhead]

Redneck Baptism

Before performing a baptism, the preacher approached the young father and said solemnly, "Baptism is a serious step. Are you prepared for it?"

"I think so," the man replied. "My wife has made appetizers and we have a caterer coming to provide plenty of cookies and cakes for all of our guests."

"I don't mean that," the preacher responded. "I mean, are you prepared spiritually?"

"Oh, sure," came the reply. "I've got a keg of beer and a case of whiskey."

 

[BlackCalvinist]

*this is one reason why this user likes the Free Church.... we take both credo and paedo and have the occassional theological discussion - 8 CDs in length*

I'm the minority at my church. I think only one more person at my church is still credo. Everyone else (including my pastor) is paedo. This thread is helpful, but for some odd reason or another, I don't have this issue high on my list of priorities to 'work out'.....

 

[Puritanhead]

The reason I say the middle of the road won't work is that it will inevitably leads toward acceptance of one over the other. Credo-baptists going the middle road inevitably leads to full acceptance of paedo-baptism.

Paraphrasing old Lincoln:

A house divided against itself cannot stand.

I believe this church cannot endure, permanently half paedobaptist and credo-baptist.

I do not expect the church to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided.

It will become all one thing or all the other.

 

[LawrenceU]

Stop the presses!! Ryan quotes Lincoln in support of a held position!

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Puritanhead
Credo-baptists going the middle road inevitably leads to full acceptance of paedo-baptism.

Praise God . . . I hope you are right!!! Then there really IS hope for my church . . . It looks like God's promise to eventually bring all believers into the unity of Biblical faith CAN be trusted!



Here's to all credo churches who got a little extra dose of sanctification and went paedo . . .


(Well, Ryan . . . you can't say you didn't ask for it!)

 

[gwine]

Originally posted by OS_X
*this is one reason why this user likes the Free Church.... we take both credo and paedo and have the occassional theological discussion - 8 CDs in length*

I'm the minority at my church. I think only one more person at my church is still credo. Everyone else (including my pastor) is paedo. This thread is helpful, but for some odd reason or another, I don't have this issue high on my list of priorities to 'work out'.....

It would be correct for you to say that about the Free Church that you attend. We attended River Hills Community Church (EFCA) for 4 years and it was and still is credo only. The pastor there was not pleased that we switched to and joined the OPC (although in fairness there were other issues in the whole affair.)

 

[Puritanhead]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by Puritanhead
Credo-baptists going the middle road inevitably leads to full acceptance of paedo-baptism.

Praise God . . . I hope you are right!!! Then there really IS hope for my church . . . It looks like God's promise to eventually bring all believers into the unity of Biblical faith CAN be trusted!



Here's to all credo churches who got a little extra dose of sanctification and went paedo . . .


(Well, Ryan . . . you can't say you didn't ask for it!)

Why not just goto an already paedo-baptist church -- instead of instigating such change?

 

[Herald]

Originally posted by Puritanhead

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by Puritanhead
Credo-baptists going the middle road inevitably leads to full acceptance of paedo-baptism.

Praise God . . . I hope you are right!!! Then there really IS hope for my church . . . It looks like God's promise to eventually bring all believers into the unity of Biblical faith CAN be trusted!



Here's to all credo churches who got a little extra dose of sanctification and went paedo . . .


(Well, Ryan . . . you can't say you didn't ask for it!)

Why not just goto an already paedo-baptist church -- instead of instigating such change?

See? This was my earlier point. I have this vision of the credo-paedo positions. Both sides are a few hundred yards apart, bunkered down. There is barbed wire rolled out in front of their bunkers. Artillery is ready. Rifles are leaned over the trenches looking for the first sign of the enemy. I know...rather dramatic illustration, but it kind of makes my point. There is this apparent glee when a church goes paedo or when a credo church rebuffs the attempt. I suppose I am overly sensitive to the whole issue. I can only speak for myself, but the tone of the debate seems to highlight our differences in doctrine and diminish our unity in Christ.

[Edited on 10-1-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]

 

[Steve Owen]

Joseph,
You wrote:-

Praise God . . . I hope you are right!!! Then there really IS hope for my church . . . It looks like God's promise to eventually bring all believers into the unity of Biblical faith CAN be trusted!

If your church does not change, do you consider it to be without hope? Is it outside the Biblical faith?

Just wondering,

Martin

[Edited on 10-1-2005 by Martin Marprelate]

 

[Puritanhead]

I've been tongue-in-cheek for the most part in this debate, but I will put my serious hat on for a minute.

You know I have had fellowship with Presbyterians and congregational paedobaptists, and have enjoyed some substantive sovereign grace sermons in their churches as a visitor, and I know what to expect doctrinally as per the WCF. I haven't shyed from announcing my credo-baptist and congregational roots in after-the-service church activities. I count Presbyterians among my friends. I would certainly welcome any Christian at my church irrespective of their denominational roots.

However, something just strikes me as inherently wrong trying to undermine a church's baptismal doctrine and having a covert desire for it to go entirely paedo-baptist, and working behind the scenes or in stealth to see it accomplished. It's disingenious. Will the crypto-paedobaptists be as emboldened to speak their mind in their credo-baptist church amongst the congregation as they are to members of the Puritanboard. If being a credo-baptist is so far from the unity of the Biblical faith than perhaps one should find an exclusively paedo-baptist home.