*UPDATE John Piper, BBC, allows paedo-baptized as members!

[johnrsorrell]

I'm sure this topic has been discussed, but being the huge John Piper fan that I am, I've been reading/listening to the ammendment that BBC made to their church constitution in allowing those baptized as children into their membership.

Here is the link from Desiring God:
http://desiringgod.org/library/topics/baptism/bbcmpls_baptism_membership.html

This has caused a "fire" within their church, but being that BBC is solid and trusts the pastor/elder leadership they have maintained their dignity.

Again, I'm sure this has been covered already. Thanks!

Title edited by admin for update..........

[Edited on 1-6-2006 by Scott Bushey]

 

[AdamM]

I applaud Piper's courage.

The practice of many baptist churches of forbidding paedos from becoming simply members has always rubbed me the wrong way and as an elder in a PCA church, one of the many things that I am thankful for is that we admit baptist's to full membership without requiring them to change their beliefs.

 

[Bladestunner316]

 

[Saiph]

Adam, that is good to hear. Christians should not generally divide over different views of the sacraments. But what if the baptist member held to transubstantiation ? (Of course only a paedo would even consider that)

 

[SolaScriptura]

Without wanting to bust anyone´s bubble or incur the wrath of those Presbyterians on this site who are so eager to catch a break that they are just happy to see their position not rejected outright"¦

I totally and emphatically disagree with what Piper and his church have done.
The reason is that his new position does damage to both covenantal paedobaptism as well as credobaptism. Practically speaking, his position undermines Eph 4:5 by making a "œtwo-tiered" baptism scheme: your infant baptism is sufficient to allow you to be a member"¦ but if you want to become a leader then you´ve got to submit to this other baptism, namely, believer´s baptism by immersion.
Bethlehem kept the language that one must be baptized to be a member. Thus, by granting that infant baptism has fulfilled this requirement they have implied that it is a legitimate baptism - or else why would it be allowed to meet the baptismal requirement of membership? Yet they withhold certain positions from those who have not submitted to believer´s baptism by immersion. This means that though they grant the legitimacy of infant baptism, it is nonetheless an inferior "“ second class "“ baptism, while believer´s baptism by immersion is the superior "“ first class "“ baptism. He makes two types of baptism. I think this is unacceptable.

I think it would have been better if Piper would have gone the route of John Bunyan and simply removed the requirement of baptism for membership. (Heck, most evangelical churches already operate in this manner!)

Anyway, these are just my

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by SolaScriptura
Without wanting to bust anyone´s bubble or incur the wrath of those Presbyterians on this site who are so eager to catch a break that they are just happy to see their position not rejected outright"¦

I totally and emphatically disagree with what Piper and his church have done.
The reason is that his new position does damage to both covenantal paedobaptism as well as credobaptism. Practically speaking, his position undermines Eph 4:5 by making a "œtwo-tiered" baptism scheme: your infant baptism is sufficient to allow you to be a member"¦ but if you want to become a leader then you´ve got to submit to this other baptism, namely, believer´s baptism by immersion.
Bethlehem kept the language that one must be baptized to be a member. Thus, by granting that infant baptism has fulfilled this requirement they have implied that it is a legitimate baptism - or else why would it be allowed to meet the baptismal requirement of membership? Yet they withhold certain positions from those who have not submitted to believer´s baptism by immersion. This means that though they grant the legitimacy of infant baptism, it is nonetheless an inferior "“ second class "“ baptism, while believer´s baptism by immersion is the superior "“ first class "“ baptism. He makes two types of baptism. I think this is unacceptable.

I think it would have been better if Piper would have gone the route of John Bunyan and simply removed the requirement of baptism for membership. (Heck, most evangelical churches already operate in this manner!)

Anyway, these are just my

Ben,

I have not seen, so help me here: if a person is baptized as infant, and then is accepted into membership, and then changes his position on baptism (i.e. becomes a credo) will he be required to be "rebaptized" ?

The reason I ask, is because I see absolutely no problem with saying, your baptism is sufficient for membership, but your view of baptism is insufficient to allow you to be an elder.

But I am not sure now what the case is. Do you have a cite for what the policy is?

 

[AdamM]

The reason I ask, is because I see absolutely no problem with saying, your baptism is sufficient for membership, but your view of baptism is insufficient to allow you to be an elder.

Fred, I agree.

I don't see how Piper's policy is a whole lot different then that reflected in the BCO.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by AdamM

The reason I ask, is because I see absolutely no problem with saying, your baptism is sufficient for membership, but your view of baptism is insufficient to allow you to be an elder.

Fred, I agree.

I don't see how Piper's policy is a whole lot different then that reflected in the BCO.

Exactly, unless it were in fact the case that Piper's church would require a rebaptism to move from elder to member. If that were the case, I would be with Ben on this.

I honestly am not sure, even after perusing the 85 page document online.

 

[Bladestunner316]

At Kent OPC Puddlegums church that I visited and will try to visit allows credo membership allows credos to serve but not to teach against the doctrine of the church. PG can asnwer it better than me.

Blade

 

[Puddleglum]

Okay, guess I'd better explain now.

First off, here's the report of the GA when the question of can credos be members came up - http://www.opc.org/GA/refuse_bapt.html . It was decided that it's a matter for each session to decide.

At Emmanuel, the session has decided that credos can be members. Obviously, a credo can't be an officer (because of the vows officers have to take to uphold the WCF). But credos can still teach Sunday School, at the skilled nursing facility where we have a service every couple weeks. There is the recognition that you're under the authority of that church, so you can't go teaching the kids in your Sunday School class that they really shouldn't have been baptized.

In some ways it's parallel to Piper's church, in some ways it's a little different. The elders at Emmanuel recognize my baptism - as a teenager, on profession of faith - as valid. The elders at BCC don't think that the sprinkling of a baby is really baptism (from my understanding). But they're both saying that you don't have to be correct (from their viewpoint) about everything to be a member, though you do have to agree with their statement of faith / confession to be an elder - and that I think is good.

[Edited on 10-29-2005 by Puddleglum]

 

[Bladestunner316]

 

[Larry Hughes]

Ben,

I think I understand what you are saying. You are looking on its effect on the individuals conscience. If a Christian baptized in infancy and always knows or later affirms their faith, this sign they had taken should be a faith building sign. The baptism pointing to the election of the Father, reconciliation of the Son and regeneration of the Holy Spirit regardless of the timing of the receiver - this pointing to is designed to strengthen one's faith in trials and struggles. It recommunicates the Father's will of love toward them by its providential application, Christ's atonement and not my works, and the fact that I believe is too the work of God the Holy Spirit. All these designed to strengthen by significance and seal of the baptism. Now, if a person is in a church that allows membership into its church that is Credo there will always be by necessity of that view of baptism a kind of explicit or even just implicit condescension toward that baptism (infant) as some how lessor as if the sign of God could be, but none-the-less the two views really are irreconciable. Thus, this individual will always find themselves to be "second class" based upon this. It may only occur in the occassional joking but by definition of how it is "accepted" it is still only condescendingly accepted no matter how "nice" we make the condescending language. For the credo view, in that church, will always be the "greater view". This is of necessity since the "credo" view is more restictive by its very definition. This is not necessarily true, though due to our sinful nature it often is, the other way around since the infant view is not restrictive in its essence.

But in Piper's defense he is trying to reconcile what he sees in history by so many obviously called saints. This is not the first time he has gone here, it is an ongoing theme in some of his writings I've read over time. One can tell it is hard for him to reconcile these as teachers and preachers yet not "rightly baptized" a key Christian doctrine. It is a tough issue for him. Luther maintained that the witness of baptism to the Gospel could not be sustained by so restricting it to adults only, for in children we see the true helpless need of man - dead in sins and tresspasses, not just a little dead but stone cold.

L

[Edited on 10-29-2005 by Larry Hughes]

 

[Peter]

Piper and other ecumenicals forget that a violation of the 1st table of the law is as much sin as a violation of the 2nd. False conceptions of God and of His worship are sin like adultery, would you allow an unrepentant adulterer membership? If Piper believes paedo baptism is false it isnt a small error but is scandal and he should not admit paedos into membership.

[Edited on 10-29-2005 by Peter]

 

[Larry Hughes]

That is an interesting point.

 

[Steve Owen]

Originally posted by Peter
Piper and other ecumenicals forget that a violation of the 1st table of the law is as much sin as a violation of the 2nd. False conceptions of God and of His worship are sin like adultery, would you allow an unrepentant adulterer membership? If Piper believes paedo baptism is false it isnt a small error but is scandal and he should not admit paedos into membership.

This reminds me of nothing so much as the Exclusive Brethren. If we regard everyone who disagrees with us on any point as a sinner and separate from them on those grounds, we shall all be worshipping on our own!

Martin

 

[Scott Bushey]

This is the difference between Presbyterian Government (which is coercive) and Independent Church Government (which is suggestive).

Its his ecclesiology that needs conviction.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Peter
Piper and other ecumenicals forget that a violation of the 1st table of the law is as much sin as a violation of the 2nd. False conceptions of God and of His worship are sin like adultery, would you allow an unrepentant adulterer membership? If Piper believes paedo baptism is false it isnt a small error but is scandal and he should not admit paedos into membership.

[Edited on 10-29-2005 by Peter]

Peter,

Is there any false interpretation of doctrine that does not touch on the Ten Commandments? Is there any difference not worth dividing over?

 

[Romans922]

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=13384&page=1

We had conversations about this before.

 

[Larry Hughes]

Fred & Martin,

That makes much sense! Thanks for clearing my thinking up there.

Ldh

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Peter
Piper and other ecumenicals forget that a violation of the 1st table of the law is as much sin as a violation of the 2nd. False conceptions of God and of His worship are sin like adultery, would you allow an unrepentant adulterer membership? If Piper believes paedo baptism is false it isnt a small error but is scandal and he should not admit paedos into membership.

[Edited on 10-29-2005 by Peter]

Peter,

Is there any false interpretation of doctrine that does not touch on the Ten Commandments? Is there any difference not worth dividing over?

Let's not beat around the bush on this. If credobaptists are going to deny membership to those who were baptized as infants by their parents then let them just come out and say "They are not Christians."

I see no substantive difference, as others noted, between this and the Presbyterians who do not allow credobaptists teaching or eldership positions in their Church as a matter of prudence.

My parallel "irration" for a situation in another communion of believers are Lutherans who refuse to allow other believers to come to the table unless they subscribe to consubstatiation. I have expressed to many Lutherans my feelings that if you deny the table to another then you might as well be honest and tell them you consider them to be unbelievers.

It is up to Baptist congregations to come to their own conclusions but let's quit pretending like we all get along. If you don't think we're believers then have the spiritual backbone to say so. Don't say we're Christians and then deny us membership in a Church.

 

[Puddleglum]

Originally posted by SemperFideles
Let's not beat around the bush on this. If credobaptists are going to deny membership to those who were baptized as infants by their parents then let them just come out and say "They are not Christians."

I see no substantive difference, as others noted, between this and the Presbyterians who do not allow credobaptists teaching or eldership positions in their Church as a matter of prudence.

My parallel "irration" for a situation in another communion of believers are Lutherans who refuse to allow other believers to come to the table unless they subscribe to consubstatiation. I have expressed to many Lutherans my feelings that if you deny the table to another then you might as well be honest and tell them you consider them to be unbelievers.

It is up to Baptist congregations to come to their own conclusions but let's quit pretending like we all get along. If you don't think we're believers then have the spiritual backbone to say so. Don't say we're Christians and then deny us membership in a Church.

Rich,

I do not know of ANY credos that would say that if you were sprinkled as a baby, then you aren't a Christian. (BTW, I grew up credo, have been a member at a credo church, and have friends who are credo - so I have a little bit of experience here).

I don't think that that has been implied in any of the posts here, either.

And, I don't even think that it makes sense from the credo perspective. It would make sense for the credo to say that you're wrong about baptism. It would make sense for him to say that your baptism isn't valid, and maybe even that you're sinning in not being baptised (or, re-baptised, depending on how you look at it!). But, unless he thinks that having a perfect understanding of baptism is necessary for salvation, or that being baptised is necessary for salvation - which I don't think any Christian, let alone a Reformed Baptist, would hold to - then it would not make sense to say that because you were sprinkled you're not a Christian.

So please don't accuse your Baptist brothers & sisters of that, unless you actually have someone say that to you - and then, please just take that up with that person, not with all of us.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by Puddleglum
Rich,

I do not know of ANY credos that would say that if you were sprinkled as a baby, then you aren't a Christian. (BTW, I grew up credo, have been a member at a credo church, and have friends who are credo - so I have a little bit of experience here).

I don't think that that has been implied in any of the posts here, either.

And, I don't even think that it makes sense from the credo perspective. It would make sense for the credo to say that you're wrong about baptism. It would make sense for him to say that your baptism isn't valid, and maybe even that you're sinning in not being baptised (or, re-baptised, depending on how you look at it!). But, unless he thinks that having a perfect understanding of baptism is necessary for salvation, or that being baptised is necessary for salvation - which I don't think any Christian, let alone a Reformed Baptist, would hold to - then it would not make sense to say that because you were sprinkled you're not a Christian.

So please don't accuse your Baptist brothers & sisters of that, unless you actually have someone say that to you - and then, please just take that up with that person, not with all of us.

I was not directing my statement as an indictment of credo-baptists and I think a fair reading of my post would make that clear. The word if was used as a qualifier intentionally. To the extent that I was brief and was misunderstood I will elaborate more carefully.

What I'm saying is that Churches cannot have it both ways - they cannot say on the one hand that "We consider you a brother in Christ" and then, on the other hand say "You are not welcome to join our Church because we don't consider you a true brother until you are baptized as an adult." I believe John Piper is merely being consistent on this point by acknowledging that they are Christians and do not understand the heart of the hubbub among some who would have a problem with it who claim to consider them Christians.

I also respect a Church's position to say that they do not consider a person to be a Christian until they are baptized as an adult. I find it fascinating that you don't know of "...any credo..." who would not consider a sprinkled adult to be a Christian. You must run in very small credo circles. I attended a credobaptist Church for a number of years that taught that immersion was instrumental to salvation. This is not at all uncommon in some credobaptist Churches, especially the non-denominatial Christian "denomination". The dissonance in some of those Churches is that they'll treat a person like a brother in Christ and even cooperate with other Churches that baptize infants until it comes time to allow a person to join that Church. Then it becomes clear that "much water" is necessary for salvation and bapto after all means to immerse. Many of these Churches, which are otherwise averse to any doctrinal statements (because they only want to "...speak where the Bible speaks...") are very insistent upon a precise baptismal formula.

I know and love many Baptists. In fact, I joined a Baptist Church this past Sunday in Okinawa because they believe in Christ. Due to a dearth of Christian congregations and my sense of love for the brethren there (many poor Japanese with a tremendous love for Christ), I wanted to worship with, love, and help build up what I felt to be a true Church.

Again, my point of the post is not a "poke in the eye" of credobaptists. I was trying to distill the issue of membership to its essence. Do we or do we not extend the right hand of fellowship to someone we say is a believer? If we do not then I think Churches ought to be honest with themselves and say they do not consider a person a believer. That includes credos who don't consider sprinkled folk truly baptized into Christ or Lutherans as my other example indicated.

[Edited on 10-31-2005 by SemperFideles]

 

[Puddleglum]

Originally posted by SemperFideles

Originally posted by Puddleglum
Rich,

I do not know of ANY credos that would say that if you were sprinkled as a baby, then you aren't a Christian. (BTW, I grew up credo, have been a member at a credo church, and have friends who are credo - so I have a little bit of experience here).

I don't think that that has been implied in any of the posts here, either.

And, I don't even think that it makes sense from the credo perspective. It would make sense for the credo to say that you're wrong about baptism. It would make sense for him to say that your baptism isn't valid, and maybe even that you're sinning in not being baptised (or, re-baptised, depending on how you look at it!). But, unless he thinks that having a perfect understanding of baptism is necessary for salvation, or that being baptised is necessary for salvation - which I don't think any Christian, let alone a Reformed Baptist, would hold to - then it would not make sense to say that because you were sprinkled you're not a Christian.

So please don't accuse your Baptist brothers & sisters of that, unless you actually have someone say that to you - and then, please just take that up with that person, not with all of us.

I was not directing my statement as an indictment of credo-baptists and I think a fair reading of my post would make that clear. The word if was used as a qualifier intentionally. To the extent that I was brief and was misunderstood I will elaborate more carefully.

What I'm saying is that Churches cannot have it both ways - they cannot say on the one hand that "We consider you a brother in Christ" and then, on the other hand say "You are not welcome to join our Church because we don't consider you a true brother until you are baptized as an adult." I believe John Piper is merely being consistent on this point by acknowledging that they are Christians and do not understand the heart of the hubbub among some who would have a problem with it who claim to consider them Christians.

I also respect a Church's position to say that they do not consider a person to be a Christian until they are baptized as an adult. I find it fascinating that you don't know of "...any credo..." who would not consider a sprinkled adult to be a Christian. You must run in very small credo circles. I attended a credobaptist Church for a number of years that taught that immersion was instrumental to salvation. This is not at all uncommon in some credobaptist Churches, especially the non-denominatial Christian "denomination". The dissonance in some of those Churches is that they'll treat a person like a brother in Christ and even cooperate with other Churches that baptize infants until it comes time to allow a person to join that Church. Then it becomes clear that "much water" is necessary for salvation and bapto after all means to immerse. Many of these Churches, which are otherwise averse to any doctrinal statements (because they only want to "...speak where the Bible speaks...") are very insistent upon a precise baptismal formula.

I know and love many Baptists. In fact, I joined a Baptist Church this past Sunday in Okinawa because they believe in Christ. Due to a dearth of Christian congregations and my sense of love for the brethren there (many poor Japanese with a tremendous love for Christ), I wanted to worship with, love, and help build up what I felt to be a true Church.

Again, my point of the post is not a "poke in the eye" of credobaptists. I was trying to distill the issue of membership to its essence. Do we or do we not extend the right hand of fellowship to someone we say is a believer? If we do not then I think Churches ought to be honest with themselves and say they do not consider a person a believer. That includes credos who don't consider sprinkled folk truly baptized into Christ or Lutherans as my other example indicated.

[Edited on 10-31-2005 by SemperFideles]

Okay, sorry about that. Thanks for explaining.

Yeah, non-denoms tend to be a bit different . . . I guess I've been lucky / blessed in that all the ones I've known have backed off of their "you must be baptized to be saved" stance after I've pressed them on it.

So anyways, thanks for explaining your position - it makes more sense now.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by AdamM

The reason I ask, is because I see absolutely no problem with saying, your baptism is sufficient for membership, but your view of baptism is insufficient to allow you to be an elder.

Fred, I agree.

I don't see how Piper's policy is a whole lot different then that reflected in the BCO.

Exactly, unless it were in fact the case that Piper's church would require a rebaptism to move from elder to member. If that were the case, I would be with Ben on this.

I honestly am not sure, even after perusing the 85 page document online.

Fred, sorry it has taken me a while to get back to you on this... Yesterday I received an email from Tom Steller at BBC who affirmed that my reading is correct: to become an elder, one would need to submit himself to believer's baptism by immersion.
Thus I believe my initial comments are true: BBC's new policy effectively makes two baptisms.

 

[Romans922]

He would have to submit, but would he have to be rebaptized?

 

[SolaScriptura]

Originally posted by Romans922
He would have to submit, but would he have to be rebaptized?

Yes.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by SolaScriptura

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by AdamM

The reason I ask, is because I see absolutely no problem with saying, your baptism is sufficient for membership, but your view of baptism is insufficient to allow you to be an elder.

Fred, I agree.

I don't see how Piper's policy is a whole lot different then that reflected in the BCO.

Exactly, unless it were in fact the case that Piper's church would require a rebaptism to move from elder to member. If that were the case, I would be with Ben on this.

I honestly am not sure, even after perusing the 85 page document online.

Fred, sorry it has taken me a while to get back to you on this... Yesterday I received an email from Tom Steller at BBC who affirmed that my reading is correct: to become an elder, one would need to submit himself to believer's baptism by immersion.
Thus I believe my initial comments are true: BBC's new policy effectively makes two baptisms.

Wow. That is indeed truly offensive.

Thanks for following up.

 

[Steve Owen]

Fred,
Why do you find that offensive?

The church I currently attend has had a similar rule to this since it was founded 40 years ago. The purpose is purely one of love. It is aimed at true Christians leaving apostate Anglican churches, to give them an evangelical church home. We would encourage them to undergo Believers' Baptism, but wouldn't force it upon them if they didn't feel happy about it. They can have full membership rights without it. This is not a lack of confidence in our beliefs, but a concession to a weaker brother or sister; it is an acknowledgement that the essence of our salvation is not baptism but a new birth. We are evangelical before we are baptistic.

But we are determined to retain our baptistic roots, and therefore require anyone who comes into church leadership to have undergone baptism by imersion. Why is that offensive? Would a Presbyterian church allow someone who was baptistic into a leadership role?

Grace & Peace,

Martin

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
Fred,
Why do you find that offensive?

The church I currently attend has had a similar rule to this since it was founded 40 years ago. The purpose is purely one of love. It is aimed at true Christians leaving apostate Anglican churches, to give them an evangelical church home. We would encourage them to undergo Believers' Baptism, but wouldn't force it upon them if they didn't feel happy about it. They can have full membership rights without it. This is not a lack of confidence in our beliefs, but a concession to a weaker brother or sister; it is an acknowledgement that the essence of our salvation is not baptism but a new birth. We are evangelical before we are baptistic.

But we are determined to retain our baptistic roots, and therefore require anyone who comes into church leadership to have undergone baptism by imersion. Why is that offensive? Would a Presbyterian church allow someone who was baptistic into a leadership role?

Grace & Peace,

Martin

Martin,

It is offensive because it does indeed establish a dual standard of baptism, and invites "well you may have been 'sort of' baptized for membership, but everybody knows that you still need to be 'really baptized.'"

You may recall earlier that I thought the BBC policy was to require assent to the doctrine - that is to see that immersion was the best mode, but that it was not the only acceptable mode. What BBC gives with the one hand it takes away with the other.

I would never suggest that a paedobaptist must be allowed to be an elder, but if a church says that a baptism is a true enough baptism for membership, then it is a baptism, period. I would similarly say the same thing if a Presbyterian church required sprinkling.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I agree in this: that genuine parity of doctrine (even in disagreement) has not been achieved. I add: I commend Piper for attempting to bridge a gap between faith and practice, even if I recognize that it falls short.

Parity is not present because: Presbyterians "recognize" all Christian baptisms-by-profession as legitimate, true baptisms. No baptist-to-presbyterian change in conviction results in a new (or "true") baptism. Piper's inclusive move will not change the fundamental reality that a change in conviction from presbyterian-to baptist necessitates the adoption of baptist practice, i.e. submission to a new rite.

The one group that will benefit from the change will be those who have not been free to partake of the Lord's Supper because they are not members anywhere, although they have attended BBC. And I don't even know what BBC's policy is/was on that score either. Did/Do they fence the table? The church's membership roll may expand (slightly).

So, I don't think this is an earth-shaking change. I'm not even sure I'd define it as progress. It is a "less-precise" move, not a more carefully defined one. My own denomination is considering moves that, in my view, will take us away even farther from our heritage and identity, and all under the name of solving problems. The solutions to our denominational problems, like BBC's solution to a perceived problem, is ultimately more pragmatically driven than doctrinally. And that is where the proposed solutions (in both cases) will ultimately prove either fruitless or detrimental.