My credobaptistic Bible church has made its first stride towards accepting infant baptism!
- Thread starter biblelighthouse
- Start date
- Status
Ryan, I agree. But if a credo church leadership does not know their own position well, they have no one but themselves to blame if their church goes paedo. I can't speak for Joe's church. Apparently his pastor is open to discussing it. In my humble opinion it is weak credo church leadership that cannot defend their position biblically. Most of the credo churches that I know will not budge on this issue, inasmuch as they consider it to be biblically correct.
Larry Hughes
Puritan Board Sophomore
Hey Joseph,
That is wonderful to hear, just saw your post. For the record our church is a reformed PCA church and they do have baptistic members, though of course the same cannot hold eldership or leader positions. The church is one of the strongest I've seen bearing witness to the Gospel in much outreach evangelism and via the baptism of believers children. It blows the false perception of a reformed church that has weak evangelism completely out of the water. The strength lies in the well balanced dual witness of the Gospel to the children and outreach to the lost, I've never seen anything like it.
The service for the baptism of believers children is a powerful Gospel, it brought tears to my eyes. Just listening to it refreshed my soul and gave me strength. They don't push anyone not ready or convinced that are members, yet gently and openly bear witness of the Gospel found within baptism and infant baptism. I've found it, much to the chagrin of my former harsher efforts, the best way to offer it to people. That way your not forcing it upon them but simply offering them the information to think about.
The Lord blessed my wife with an opportunity just the other day to share the Gospel over the subject of infant baptism per our own children with a Roman Catholic friend who had their children baptized within the RCC (explaning the difference and the Gospel therein as opposed to Rome's view). She did so gently though.
That is good to hear Joseph!
Grace and peace,
Larry
That is wonderful to hear, just saw your post. For the record our church is a reformed PCA church and they do have baptistic members, though of course the same cannot hold eldership or leader positions. The church is one of the strongest I've seen bearing witness to the Gospel in much outreach evangelism and via the baptism of believers children. It blows the false perception of a reformed church that has weak evangelism completely out of the water. The strength lies in the well balanced dual witness of the Gospel to the children and outreach to the lost, I've never seen anything like it.
The service for the baptism of believers children is a powerful Gospel, it brought tears to my eyes. Just listening to it refreshed my soul and gave me strength. They don't push anyone not ready or convinced that are members, yet gently and openly bear witness of the Gospel found within baptism and infant baptism. I've found it, much to the chagrin of my former harsher efforts, the best way to offer it to people. That way your not forcing it upon them but simply offering them the information to think about.
The Lord blessed my wife with an opportunity just the other day to share the Gospel over the subject of infant baptism per our own children with a Roman Catholic friend who had their children baptized within the RCC (explaning the difference and the Gospel therein as opposed to Rome's view). She did so gently though.
That is good to hear Joseph!
Grace and peace,
Larry
Puritanhead
Puritan Board Professor
Well I'm not one to demean someone's church... but if that particular church doesn't even have membership organization than church polity is something not taken seriously either. I hope in the chaotic ecclesiology and doctrinal malaise they can get through their do-it-yourself, buffet theology, but odds are they will fall apart.
Bill and Ryan,
I would respectfully posit that the real source of the problem is not individual members, but rather the lack of clarity on the subject by the church itself. It really does not matter - in the final instance - how many people are paedo or credo, or what the "understanding" of the church is, or what is the "way we have always done it." What matters is taking a clear stand - it is called being creedal or confessional on the point in question. Not taking a stand invites this type of issue.
The credos at a church (or for that matter the paedos) have no inherent right to have deference to their position unless it is confessed as such. Confessions are a boundary for discipline, among other things. This is one practical instance in which the need for Confessions is shown.
Far better to be crystal clear on what you believe (confessing it) and to be charitable in its application and exclusion (as I would posit) than to pretend that something is not important, be shocked when someone takes you up on that pretension, and then be offended when your underlying position is lost. That is called duplicity, and it applies to both paedos and credos alike.
Fred -
I agree. The point of my rejoinder to Ryan has all to do with the fact that churches need to know what they believe. I concur that if a credo/paedo church is challenged on its baptismal position, it ought to know where it stands or it risks looking foolish and dishonoring the Lord. Baptist churches (by their very nature) are fiercely independent. But that does not mean we are not creedal. Each church should seek out what it believes on this issue. It is not trivial. But it also is not an offensive doctrine. The church should not use it as a battering ram in order to bludgeon members into submission. May I bullet point my position for the sake of brevity?
1. Each church should know what it believes regarding baptism.
2. Each church should know why it holds to its baptismal position.
3. Each church should incorporate its baptismal position into its doctrinal statement.
4. Church officers need to be in agreement with this doctrine (baptism) as well as the rest of the church's doctrinal positions.
5. Members should know their churches position and have access to the biblical support from church leadership.
6. Considering the recent developments on this issue (i.e. John Piper), churches should take up the challenge to determine their position on previous baptism by candidates for membership.
7. There is no room for fence sitting. A position must be determined. We ignore the issue to our peril.
8. For those within our fellowship who disagree with the official church position, they should be admonished to heed scripture on the matter. They should not be castigated or maligned. They are brothers and sisters in Christ.
9. Churches of different positions (namely credo vs. paedo) should seek unity in areas of weight, such as the gospel. Our differences are unavoidable, but so are our areas of agreement (which are many).
10. Maintain an open enough mind that we are willing to search the scriptures when challenged.
[Edited on 10-2-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
FYI: McKinney Bible Church pretty much fits everything you've written above, with the exception of #3. And my pastor is glad that a strict credobaptistic stance is not outlined in an official "MBC creed". If it were that way, then it would be a lot tougher to make paedobaptistic allowances as the elders have done in this case. And I myself am very glad and thankful that the elders *have* been able to move the church in an ever-more-Biblical direction! Who knows what more the Lord will accomplish at MBC in another year or two? Praise Him!
Puritanhead
Puritan Board Professor
Puritanhead
Puritan Board Professor
To all that take interest,
I acquiesce with Bill Brown's point that "Churches of different positions (namely credo vs. paedo) should seek unity in areas of weight, such as the gospel. Our differences are unavoidable, but so are our areas of agreement (which are many)." Though, I don't know why rejoinders have to be so overly personalized at me, as if I disagree with "the fact that churches need to know what they believe." It's a point well made however. But, we often find ourselves arguing from presumption or misreading emphasis.
I believe there are respectable advocates of paedo-baptism. While I will probably always be a stubborn credo-baptist, unless God wills that I change into a regular credo-baptist.
I have been eye-balling several Prebyterian-dominated seminaries as a future forum for my education"¦ A Presbyterian pastor friend of mine, Ben House wrote:
That I esteem Presbyterians for their scholarship ought to be illustrative of fact that I am not some prejudiced partisan. I think everyone needs be light-hearted on these doctrinal disputes, and at the same time be willing to draw their line in the sand. I can be tongue-in-cheek and joke on something. I won't get bent out of shape at a paedo-baptist saying, "Now they're closer to being real Christians" as I heard earlier. Us Reformed theologians can reflect on the doctrines that unify us and need not get embittered over this. It doesn't bother me to agree to disagree on the matter, and put something on the shelf, though I will not make a doctrinal compromise in the interest of reconciliation. In my humble opinion Churches that straddle the fence on baptism do so to their peril, and Mr. Brown has made some astute statements.
This could have just as easily have been generally addressed. Duplicity is not a peculiar trait to adherents of either baptismal view"”that much is to be acknowledged. I just see similar circumstances to these playing themselves out at other churches. More often than not, it starts with a nominally credo-baptist church where a few people posit the idea that baptism doesn't matter... let us embrace unity and let us be tolerant! is the cry! Nonetheless, it's more often the paedo-baptists that long for the Hegelian dialectical game to devour credo-baptist churches one by one. The middle-of-the-road position logically leads to a paedo-baptist synthesis. Paedo-baptists may think they have found our Achilles´ Heel, but thankfully there are plenty of stubborn credo-baptists out there like myself. On the Puritanboard, on occasion, I have seen some unnamed doctrinaire WCF adherents rejoice at credo-baptist churches embracing this sort of wish-washy pragmatism and making paedobaptism drifts or accepting standards of personal "conscience." Of course, they themselves do not want to be in that church. Even some Presbyterian personal friends of mine have tried to pull me into the mindset that baptism doesn't really matter, and I should consider the Free Presbyterian position. However, I have come to see more clearly where credo-baptism's future lies by taking the middle of the road way in any congregation, and I think it should be eschewed now. This is not a question of how non-prejudicial or accepting I am of "infant baptism" advocates, or my being interested in "unity" or "tolerance" as some of my friends would make it out to be.
While I'm not privy to all the circumstances here, I think for anyone to labor in secret to change the church's baptismal doctrine and not be confessional, fully open and honest about their doctrinal convictions is being duplicitous. I will leave it up to them to do self-examination. Churches are built on trust and open confession... not rail-splitting by packs of partisans covertly roaming around looking to foist their novel new doctrinal views on the congregation through behind-the-scenes scheming, sophistry and chicanery. Admittedly, some churches fight over stupid things and even split up over the color of the new carpet or whether or not they get an organ or piano. Churches that are straddling the fence on an issue are not always open. As Mr. Brown has rightly said, "There is no room for fence sitting. A position must be determined. We ignore the issue to our peril." In my humble opinion Continually fomenting a doctrinal divide by unabated duplicity and scheming is cause for church discipline, which should perhaps come only after an attempt at confrontation and an appeal for honest confession is made. Duplicity and scheming are probably commonplace in churches straddling the fence, whether anyone else wants to admit it or not.
Finally, it should go without saying that many laity on both sides get defiant and dogmatic in defense of their baptismal position and frankly haven't thought reflectively why they hold their particular position. I've seen it at my Christian colleges, from both credo- and paedo- baptists. I see it in those retorts by paedo-baptist laity who figure it a fatal concession to admit Jesus was ever baptized in the River Jordan"”so they deny it in a knee-jerk reaction. I've seen how the typical Arminian ("age of accountability") theological inferences utilized to defend credo-baptism caused many new Reformed converts to give up on credo-baptism in sort of a reactionary manner without much forethought. I think if some laity would take time for reflective study; make some effort at introspection about why they believe what they believe; and exercise some humility to admit they do not really know exactly why they believe what they believe (besides it being tradition) than they can go "search the Scriptures..." and also look to the wisdom of more learned theologians to gain clarity on important doctrinal matters.
Debate isn't necessarily bad. As Edmund Burke says, "He that struggles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper." Reading scholarly arguments for both positions and prayerfully considering your position can be very helpful.
I´ve never considered myself a theological worthy who cares to reinvent the wheel and will not attempt to offer the perennial credo-baptist argument on an online forum. There are plenty of good books on the subject. I never cared to beguile and out argue Arminians online either, though apologetics is worth studying. I think Pastor Way´s article on "keyboard theologians" is worth reflecting upon before we go back to henpecking. I think this thread is past its´ half-life.
I admit when I say Jesus is a credo-baptist that I am being tongue-in-cheek and it is not much of a substantive argument, but I am not going for substance and persuasion: I am aiming at humor.
:bigsmile:
In Him,
Ryan
P.S. Baptism is not a trivial, inconsequential doctrine.
[Edited on 10-2-2005 by Puritanhead]
[Edited on 10-3-2005 by Puritanhead]
I acquiesce with Bill Brown's point that "Churches of different positions (namely credo vs. paedo) should seek unity in areas of weight, such as the gospel. Our differences are unavoidable, but so are our areas of agreement (which are many)." Though, I don't know why rejoinders have to be so overly personalized at me, as if I disagree with "the fact that churches need to know what they believe." It's a point well made however. But, we often find ourselves arguing from presumption or misreading emphasis.
I believe there are respectable advocates of paedo-baptism. While I will probably always be a stubborn credo-baptist, unless God wills that I change into a regular credo-baptist.
I have been eye-balling several Prebyterian-dominated seminaries as a future forum for my education"¦ A Presbyterian pastor friend of mine, Ben House wrote:That I esteem Presbyterians for their scholarship ought to be illustrative of fact that I am not some prejudiced partisan. I think everyone needs be light-hearted on these doctrinal disputes, and at the same time be willing to draw their line in the sand. I can be tongue-in-cheek and joke on something. I won't get bent out of shape at a paedo-baptist saying, "Now they're closer to being real Christians" as I heard earlier. Us Reformed theologians can reflect on the doctrines that unify us and need not get embittered over this. It doesn't bother me to agree to disagree on the matter, and put something on the shelf, though I will not make a doctrinal compromise in the interest of reconciliation. In my humble opinion Churches that straddle the fence on baptism do so to their peril, and Mr. Brown has made some astute statements.
This could have just as easily have been generally addressed. Duplicity is not a peculiar trait to adherents of either baptismal view"”that much is to be acknowledged. I just see similar circumstances to these playing themselves out at other churches. More often than not, it starts with a nominally credo-baptist church where a few people posit the idea that baptism doesn't matter... let us embrace unity and let us be tolerant! is the cry! Nonetheless, it's more often the paedo-baptists that long for the Hegelian dialectical game to devour credo-baptist churches one by one. The middle-of-the-road position logically leads to a paedo-baptist synthesis. Paedo-baptists may think they have found our Achilles´ Heel, but thankfully there are plenty of stubborn credo-baptists out there like myself. On the Puritanboard, on occasion, I have seen some unnamed doctrinaire WCF adherents rejoice at credo-baptist churches embracing this sort of wish-washy pragmatism and making paedobaptism drifts or accepting standards of personal "conscience." Of course, they themselves do not want to be in that church. Even some Presbyterian personal friends of mine have tried to pull me into the mindset that baptism doesn't really matter, and I should consider the Free Presbyterian position. However, I have come to see more clearly where credo-baptism's future lies by taking the middle of the road way in any congregation, and I think it should be eschewed now. This is not a question of how non-prejudicial or accepting I am of "infant baptism" advocates, or my being interested in "unity" or "tolerance" as some of my friends would make it out to be.
While I'm not privy to all the circumstances here, I think for anyone to labor in secret to change the church's baptismal doctrine and not be confessional, fully open and honest about their doctrinal convictions is being duplicitous. I will leave it up to them to do self-examination. Churches are built on trust and open confession... not rail-splitting by packs of partisans covertly roaming around looking to foist their novel new doctrinal views on the congregation through behind-the-scenes scheming, sophistry and chicanery. Admittedly, some churches fight over stupid things and even split up over the color of the new carpet or whether or not they get an organ or piano. Churches that are straddling the fence on an issue are not always open. As Mr. Brown has rightly said, "There is no room for fence sitting. A position must be determined. We ignore the issue to our peril." In my humble opinion Continually fomenting a doctrinal divide by unabated duplicity and scheming is cause for church discipline, which should perhaps come only after an attempt at confrontation and an appeal for honest confession is made. Duplicity and scheming are probably commonplace in churches straddling the fence, whether anyone else wants to admit it or not.
Finally, it should go without saying that many laity on both sides get defiant and dogmatic in defense of their baptismal position and frankly haven't thought reflectively why they hold their particular position. I've seen it at my Christian colleges, from both credo- and paedo- baptists. I see it in those retorts by paedo-baptist laity who figure it a fatal concession to admit Jesus was ever baptized in the River Jordan"”so they deny it in a knee-jerk reaction. I've seen how the typical Arminian ("age of accountability") theological inferences utilized to defend credo-baptism caused many new Reformed converts to give up on credo-baptism in sort of a reactionary manner without much forethought. I think if some laity would take time for reflective study; make some effort at introspection about why they believe what they believe; and exercise some humility to admit they do not really know exactly why they believe what they believe (besides it being tradition) than they can go "search the Scriptures..." and also look to the wisdom of more learned theologians to gain clarity on important doctrinal matters.
Debate isn't necessarily bad. As Edmund Burke says, "He that struggles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper." Reading scholarly arguments for both positions and prayerfully considering your position can be very helpful.
I´ve never considered myself a theological worthy who cares to reinvent the wheel and will not attempt to offer the perennial credo-baptist argument on an online forum. There are plenty of good books on the subject. I never cared to beguile and out argue Arminians online either, though apologetics is worth studying. I think Pastor Way´s article on "keyboard theologians" is worth reflecting upon before we go back to henpecking. I think this thread is past its´ half-life.
I admit when I say Jesus is a credo-baptist that I am being tongue-in-cheek and it is not much of a substantive argument, but I am not going for substance and persuasion: I am aiming at humor.
:bigsmile:
In Him,
Ryan
P.S. Baptism is not a trivial, inconsequential doctrine.
[Edited on 10-2-2005 by Puritanhead]
[Edited on 10-3-2005 by Puritanhead]
Puritanhead
Puritan Board Professor
Okay Bill...
:bigsmile:
:bigsmile:
Good post Ryan. As a paedo, I respect credos who take a position, know what they believe and why they believe it. To waffle is to be carried about by every wind of doctrine. This is not to say that one can not change his mind, but for sure, we should be firmly planted. The creeds help us to do that.
Originally posted by joshua
Is this in response to this post of Ryan's:
If so, I agree. The shorter the post from Ryan. The better.
Just kidding, Ryan.
This post Joshua sets forth to prove his statement from another thread true:
Originally posted by joshua
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Joshua, were you on the debate team in high school?
Nope. Otherwise, I'd have a lot more posts here on this forum. But as you can see, I'm notorious for one-liners and meaningless banter.
Puritanhead
Puritan Board Professor
I'll shut up now...
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
I get very upset anytime I see doctrinal error spread in a church. So no, I would not be happy at all to see a paedo church drift credo. (But honestly, how often have you really heard of that happening?)
I had not really thought about it before, but Ryan may have made a good point that the "middle-of-the-road position logically leads to a paedo-baptist synthesis. " --- I'm not sure if he is correct, but I certainly hope so! It is very encouraging to consider that God is keeping the paedo churches paedo, while gently and slowly moving more and more baptist churches to change to paedo. --- Perhaps this is a case of the Spirit moving us all towards true doctrinal unity & purity! (cf. Ephesians 4)
I know that you and Ryan both vehemently disagree with everything I said in the 2 paragraphs above. That is no surprise. But you asked how I feel on the subject, and I honestly gave my answer.
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
Towards whom are you hurling these epithets? Towards me???
Who says that my desire is "covert"? Who says that I'm just "working behind the scenes"? Who says I don't speak my mind in my credobaptist church, "amongst the congregation"?
For your information, my paedobaptismal stand is no secret at my church. I have openly conversed and emailed with a number of of the McKinney Bible Church parishoners. In fact, the elders were virtually the *first* I talked to about this.
My desire is not covert. I am speaking my mind openly in my church, among the congregation.
In fact, when I actually get my girls baptized in the near future, I plan to invite EVERYONE at my church to be there when they are baptized. I know most probably won't come, but I want them all to feel welcome.
They are my brothers & sisters and Christ, and I love them dearly. And I am certainly not working in "stealth" mode, as a paedobaptist in credobaptist clothing, or whatever. My stance is clear and open.
Baptism is important. But it is NOT worth division! I believe it is morally wrong to leave a church only because of baptismal differences.
In finaly analysis there are two issues at play...
1. Joe's specific situation with McKinney Bible Church.
2. The issue of credo/paedo and the division it has caused in the body of Christ.
I have taken the time to listen to McKinney Bible Church's sermons re: credo vs. paedo. They are available online at Joe's church. Based on what I have heard, Joe is going to be waiting a long time for the church to change its position (In my humble opinion). I have to believe Joe, that he has been above board in his communication with the elders of his church. So long as the elders are open to continued dialog, I am not sure Joe is doing anything improper. But I still have some concern about Joe wanting to see his church embrace paedo. I can only answer for myself. If I were in Joe's shoes, I would seek to align myself with a church with whom I share doctrinal unity. Joe, the only true criticism I have of your posts is your apparent glee that your church even has the slightest possibility of going paedo. Personaly I believe that glee would be better left unstated. It is preaching to the choir for other paedos and certainly inflames credos.
Of more interest to me is how we can identify and encourage the unity that does exist between us. In fact, I believe that is cause for a new thread. "The unity that exists between Presbyterians and Baptists." I think it is about time that we find unity in the essentials and stand shoulder to shoulder for the gospel. I am not impuning anyone for not doing so. I am just encouraging both camps to expand on that unity for the cause of Christ.
[Edited on 10-3-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]
1. Joe's specific situation with McKinney Bible Church.
2. The issue of credo/paedo and the division it has caused in the body of Christ.
I have taken the time to listen to McKinney Bible Church's sermons re: credo vs. paedo. They are available online at Joe's church. Based on what I have heard, Joe is going to be waiting a long time for the church to change its position (In my humble opinion). I have to believe Joe, that he has been above board in his communication with the elders of his church. So long as the elders are open to continued dialog, I am not sure Joe is doing anything improper. But I still have some concern about Joe wanting to see his church embrace paedo. I can only answer for myself. If I were in Joe's shoes, I would seek to align myself with a church with whom I share doctrinal unity. Joe, the only true criticism I have of your posts is your apparent glee that your church even has the slightest possibility of going paedo. Personaly I believe that glee would be better left unstated. It is preaching to the choir for other paedos and certainly inflames credos.
Of more interest to me is how we can identify and encourage the unity that does exist between us. In fact, I believe that is cause for a new thread. "The unity that exists between Presbyterians and Baptists." I think it is about time that we find unity in the essentials and stand shoulder to shoulder for the gospel. I am not impuning anyone for not doing so. I am just encouraging both camps to expand on that unity for the cause of Christ.
[Edited on 10-3-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]
Puritanhead
Puritan Board Professor
I have nothing else to say on the matter.
- Status
