When the church you attend is baptistic, but you are paedobaptist

[Constantlyreforming]

What would you do? Our daughter was baptized as an infant 5 years ago. A year and a half later, my wife and I were starting a church along with 5 other families that focuses on God's word, exegetical teaching, evangelism, and fellowship with one another throughout the week (you know, what God calls the believer to do in scripture?). Anyhow, the church started was not started as paedo-baptistic. It is a credo-baptistic church. However, I am an elder at the church and have decided that I do not believe that a difference in baptism views is sufficient grounds to break fellowship with believers.

As the community of believers that I worship with is credo-baptistic (as the majority of elders are), I feel that it is in accordance with God’s word to not break fellowship with them, but to submit to the leadership of the church in this area, even though my belief is paedo-baptistic. I just don’t feel that going and sprinkling my soon to be born son would be a good example to the flock. Having an elder go and baptize their infant when this is contrary to what the church as a whole believes would just be reason for any person to do as they wish, in contrast to what the church believes and holds to (speaking in tongues, women in ministry, gays as church members would suddenly be challenged, etc…).

What are your thoughts on this? I feel very strongly, and have spent a great deal of prayer in this area. In addition, I am confident in Christ that He has called me to be of service to these people, to live in Quincy, and to continue ministering here. I feel that if asked, I may of course comment that I believe in covenant baptism, as I have shared with the elders and such, but I feel that it is righteous to not do what our church has taken a step on, so as to not break fellowship. There are no other solid churches in the area, and this church is solid in all areas except this, in my opinion. however, I don't feel that this is something that has to be "take it or leave it", you know?

Thoughts? PLEASE? At this point the church has a stance to not re-baptize those who have been baptized as infants.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

My question would be, were you aware that you were starting a church with credobaptists? And if so, did you not envision the possibility of more offspring and the dilemna it would present? I think personally that you are correct in your assessment that it would bring division to the congregation for an elder to baptize their child in a manner not in accordance with the beliefs of the church as a whole. I think that you need to make a decision based on the way that you feel God is leading you, and that means either converting to credobaptism or finding a new church.

 

[Constantlyreforming]

I think that you need to make a decision based on the way that you feel God is leading you, and that means either converting to credobaptism or finding a new church.

why would that mean "converting" to credobaptism? What would you all think of "privately" having a baptism of my son, and not going in front of the church to do it, as to not be divisive? I would never lie when asked, but I wouldn;t go flaunting it anyhow, as my child and their baptism is something between God and myself...a covenant between us.

 

[Jack K]

Wow. Your situation is unusual in that you are not merely a member but actually an elder in a church where you don't fully agree with a substantial doctrinal position. I can relate to some of your struggle in that I'm a paedobaptist heavily involved in teaching ministry in a Baptist church. The difficulites are quite tricky at times. But I'm not an elder (nor would I agree to be), and I don't expect to have any more children who would need baptizing.

So. What do you do? This is a tough one, but I'm inclined to agree with you that an elder ought not to go off seeking a way to circumvent his own church. You may be forced to choose between continuing in your office as an elder and doing what you believe is right regarding your child. Serving officially as an elder in a credobaptist church may not have been a good idea in the first place, however noble it appeared at the time. And in a church where fellowship between credo- and paedo- is valued, as it appears to be in your church, your ability to minister and to shepherd folks within that congregation may not be too severely hampered even if you're no longer an official elder.

The other possiblity that occurs to me is to see if the elders might amend their doctrinal position somewhat or add a provision for cases such as yours. You owe it to them and to yourself to discuss the matter with them anyway. If the church already has a stance that it doesn't re-baptize those baptized as infants, perhaps it would also adopt a stance that members who're convinced of the paedo- position may have their children baptized at some other church. The fact that this is a rather new church, and a paedo-baptist like yourself was a founding member, makes me think that sort of stance might be a possibility. What I've just described happens in a lot of Evangelical Free churches.

---------- Post added at 02:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:05 PM ----------

I think that you need to make a decision based on the way that you feel God is leading you, and that means either converting to credobaptism or finding a new church.

why would that mean "converting" to credobaptism? What would you all think of "privately" having a baptism of my son, and not going in front of the church to do it, as to not be divisive? I would never lie when asked, but I wouldn;t go flaunting it anyhow, as my child and their baptism is something between God and myself...a covenant between us.

But as you know, since you're a good paedo-baptist, baptism is NOT just a matter between yourself and God. The whole covenant concept upon which paedo-baptism rests sees the rite as entrance into the covenant community, so it is also a matter for the church. For this reason, a private baptism that involves no church at all is a wrong idea, and baptism by the church where you're a member is much preferred. In a highly unusual situation like yours, that best option may not be available. But in that case, you still ought to avoid a purely private baptism.

 

[Scottish Lass]

The other possiblity that occurs to me is to see if the elders might amend their doctrinal position somewhat or add a provision for cases such as yours. You owe it to them and to yourself to discuss the matter with them anyway. If the church already has a stance that it doesn't re-baptize those baptized as infants, perhaps it would also adopt a stance that members who're convinced of the paedo- position may have their children baptized at some other church. The fact that this is a rather new church, and a paedo-baptist like yourself was a founding member, makes me think that sort of stance might be a possibility. What I've just described happens in a lot of Evangelical Free churches.

[

I agree.

 

[Constantlyreforming]

Wow. Your situation is unusual in that you are not merely a member but actually an elder in a church where you don't fully agree with a substantial doctrinal position. I can relate to some of your struggle in that I'm a paedobaptist heavily involved in teaching ministry in a Baptist church. The difficulites are quite tricky at times. But I'm not an elder (nor would I agree to be), and I don't expect to have any more children who would need baptizing.

So. What do you do? This is a tough one, but I'm inclined to agree with you that an elder ought not to go off seeking a way to circumvent his own church. You may be forced to choose between continuing in your office as an elder and doing what you believe is right regarding your child. Serving officially as an elder in a credobaptist church may not have been a good idea in the first place, however noble it appeared at the time. And in a church where fellowship between credo- and paedo- is valued, as it appears to be in your church, your ability to minister and to shepherd folks within that congregation may be too severely hampered even if you're no longer an official elder.

The other possiblity that occurs to me is to see if the elders might amend their doctrinal position somewhat or add a provision for cases such as yours. You owe it to them and to yourself to discuss the matter with them anyway. If the church already has a stance that it doesn't re-baptize those baptized as infants, perhaps it would also adopt a stance that members who're convinced of the paedo- position may have their children baptized at some other church. The fact that this is a rather new church, and a paedo-baptist like yourself was a founding member, makes me think that sort of stance might be a possibility. What I've just described happens in a lot of Evangelical Free churches.

---------- Post added at 02:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:05 PM ----------

I think that you need to make a decision based on the way that you feel God is leading you, and that means either converting to credobaptism or finding a new church.

why would that mean "converting" to credobaptism? What would you all think of "privately" having a baptism of my son, and not going in front of the church to do it, as to not be divisive? I would never lie when asked, but I wouldn;t go flaunting it anyhow, as my child and their baptism is something between God and myself...a covenant between us.

But as you know, since you're a good paedo-baptist, baptism is NOT just a matter between yourself and God. The whole covenant concept upon which paedo-baptism rests sees the rite as entrance into the covenant community, so it is also a matter for the church. For this reason, a private baptism that involves no church at all is a wrong idea, and baptism by the church where you're a member is much preferred. In a highly unusual situation like yours, that best option may not be available. But in that case, you still ought to avoid a purely private baptism.

I understand COMPLETELY, but isn't the idea of a baptism IN the church a rather new idea, as it seems as though all baptisms in the new testament were NOT in a church setting.

 

[Jack K]

I understand COMPLETELY, but isn't the idea of a baptism IN the church a rather new idea, as it seems as though all baptisms in the new testament were NOT in a church setting.

The accounts of Christian baptism in the New Testament weren't necessarily in a worship service, but wouldn't you say they were a church function rather than a family function? In those days, private homes and river banks were the church setting. Nevertheless, we see apostles and preachers and missionaries involved in the baptizing. These are people who represent the church.

 

[Kevin]

Jack has some good advice.

I'll pray.

 

[Marrow Man]

I agree that you should not break fellowship over the issue of baptism, but also understand that differences are going to develop not just on the sacrament/ordinance of baptism, but on the nature of the church as well (visible, invisible, all of that). It is not just a water problem. For example, you will look at your daughter as a member of the church, they will not. That's a fundamental difference, in my opinion.

The one thing that concerns me is that this new church was apparently started without any sort of confessional standard (please correct me if I am wrong). So, at this point, there appears to be nothing to bind you together as believers. Also, how is your pastor called? What body has ordained him? These are issues that, to some degree, Presbyterians and Baptists are also going to disagree on.

If there is no confessional standard, though, that will be a recipe for disaster. Just my

 

[Contra_Mundum]

This is a highly unusual/irregular set of circumstances, made more complicated by the fact that the church's statement of faith regarding baptism is minimal: "Water baptism is an outward testimony of a person's belief in Christ." LifePoint Bible Church - Our Faith. But you explain it is a credo-baptist-only church.

From what you've written, I do not think you are going to avoid creating a scene if you insisted on baptizing your child among many people who are opposed. Unless "toleration" on this point is spelled out, there likely will be offended people. You could create division in a body that will not be healed--just look at the division that persists today among churches that "split" hundreds of years ago.

Who is going to treat your child like a church-member, other than you and your family? If the child is baptized, where will its membership be recorded? Where is your five-year-old's membership held? Is she a member in good standing at your present church? I guess not, but that she will not be baptized again when she makes a profession?

I think you are simply enmeshed in a situation where your child will have to go without this means of grace, as long as your family remain members at this church. You sound as thought your conscience is keeping you there. Are you "Westminsterian" by confession? If so, you're going to have to decide whether you feel your actions are not contradictory to your stated conformity to the WCF 28.5, "...it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance..." Are you, or are you not, contemning or neglecting it under the circumstances? Is their greater good in delaying it? Do you have the right to determine that for yourself?

I believe that simply "getting the child baptized" for the sake of the rite, or some supposed benefit for the child thereby apart from recognizing church-membership is an abuse of the sacrament. It is non-submissive, it ends up smacking of a magical view of the sacrament, and it fails in its primary purpose of formally attaching the baptized to the visible church.