Credo-Baptism Answers Why not allow infant-baptized Christians to the Lord's Table?

[Simpleton Luke]

A little bit of background; my wife and I have been discerning membership at a (Reformed-leaning) Southern-Baptist Church, and have run into an issue where she may not be able to commune with the church or even be admitted to membership because she was baptized as a three year old. She and I are also considering the validity of her baptism, and are hoping for insight. I am scheduled to speak to the pastors about these issues, but I was hoping to get some info beforehand so I can ask relevant questions.

For those of you who attend or pastor a baptist church which does not allow those who have been baptized as infants to take communion or become members, what has led you to take such a stance?
Do you believe that paedobaptism is valid, though improper?
What do you believe about the baptismal status of the "Church Fathers," the reformers, or puritans? Would you admit them to the Table?
Would you consider baptism a primary issue (pertaining to salvation) or a secondary issue (pertaining to the Christian life, but not of salvific importance)

Thank you for helping me to understand.

 

[cameronpickett]

There are brothers and sisters on the board here who are far wiser than I on this subject, but here’s what the LBCF states and what my church adheres to:

“Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.” Paragraph 2, Of Baptism

Simply put, an infant cannot make this profession of faith which would make it an invalid baptism.

Praying for you and your wife to find the answers you’re looking for!

 

[Phil D.]

I

For those of you who attend or pastor a baptist church which does not allow those who have been baptized as infants to take communion or become members, what has led you to take such a stance?
Do you believe that paedobaptism is valid, though improper?
What do you believe about the baptismal status of the "Church Fathers," the reformers, or puritans? Would you admit them to the Table?
Would you consider baptism a primary issue (pertaining to salvation) or a secondary issue (pertaining to the Christian life, but not of salvific importance)

I've expressed my views on this several times here over the years.

I do not consider those baptized as infants to necessarily be unbaptized in the most important or ultimate sense. If they are not aware of the reasons for the credo position, or have truly and sincerely considered the various credo/paedo arguments and are convinced of the validity of their baptism, the benefits of which have since been appropriated by faith, then I will gladly have communion and fellowship with them as "full" believers/Christians.

I would say I see infant baptism and non-immersion as biblically unintended and irregular practices, but a clear conscience and true faith graciously trumps believers' sincere errors (of which I am sure I have more than my fair share). In terms of baptism I largely base this on the principle I see in 1 Pet. 3:21.

For the same reasons I do not consider most Church Fathers, Reformers, or Puritans to have been unbaptized.

As already indicated, I believe the physical particulars of water baptism (as distinguished from the overall act of physically submitting to and undertaking the sacrament) are very much secondary to faith and conscience.

I am admittedly out of step with most Baptists on this. So I guess that only qualifies me as a baptist...

 

[Phil D.]

Simply put, an infant cannot make this profession of faith which would make it an invalid baptism.

Will you nonetheless partake in Communion with those you deem unbaptized, or not?

I ask because this question forced me to be more deliberative in my own consideration of what baptism is.

 

[cameronpickett]

Will you nonetheless partake in Communion with those you deem unbaptized, or not?

I ask because this question forced me to be more deliberative in my own consideration of what baptism is.

That’s a great question! I suppose I’ve never thought of it personally in that depth. I’ve always understood communion (common union) to be for regenerate believers only. The fruit of that regeneration is then expressed outwardly through baptism and communion. We come to the same table together, holding to the same faith and profession, united in Christ. On that note, I think my knowledge falls short here. I know that we are all one in Christ, if you are regenerate, but I think it would still be biblical and advised for an actual baptism to partake before I take communion with that person. How do you reconcile that though if we are both regenerate? Definitely forces you, like you said, to be more deliberate! I’m open to learn more but still believe the bible does not teach infant baptism.

 

[TheInquirer]

I personally do not like “fencing the table” and would only suggest it for those who are unbelievers or excommunicated. I believe it is a matter of self-examination first and foremost in accordance with 1 Corinthians 11:28.

 

[requested deletion member 13777]

First, I would not consider a three year old an infant. I believe a three year old child could properly profess Faith (though it might be uncommon and we would not ordinarily practice baptism at such a young age). If your wife was a professing believer at 3 and baptized by immersion, we would likely acknowledge the baptism and offer full membership.

If she was sprinkled/poured as a three year old, or was not able to profess faith in Christ at the time, we would require her to be baptized before entering into church membership.

My view of the Lord’s Supper is that members, visiting members of another church, or adherents who cannot join officially for matters of conscience should be admitted to the Lord’s table. So I would allow a Paedobaptist believer to receive communion in our church as an “adherent ” though they could not be a member, especially since there are no faithful paedobaptist churches in our area.

Despite this, I still do not consider any baptism other than immersion as a believer a valid baptism; this is what it is to be baptist, otherwise we would indeed be rebaptizers.

I hope that helps. May God bless you and give you and your pastors wisdom in this.

 

[cameronpickett]

Reading these responses definitely makes me reconsider my convictions on this issue in regard to partaking in communion with someone. Thankful for your insight gentleman. Highly convicting.

 

[DanSSwing]

I've expressed my views on this several times here over the years.

I do not consider those baptized as infants to necessarily be unbaptized in the most important or ultimate sense. If they are not aware of the reasons for the credo position, or have truly and sincerely considered the various credo/paedo arguments and are convinced of the validity of their baptism, the benefits of which have since been appropriated by faith, then I will gladly have communion and fellowship with them as "full" believers/Christians.

I would say I see infant baptism and non-immersion as biblically unintended and irregular practices, but a clear conscience and true faith graciously trumps believers' sincere errors (of which I am sure I have more than my fair share). In terms of baptism I largely base this on the principle I see in 1 Pet. 3:21.

For the same reasons I do not consider most Church Fathers, Reformers, or Puritans to have been unbaptized.

As already indicated, I believe the physical particulars of water baptism (as distinguished from the overall act of physically submitting to and undertaking the sacrament) are very much secondary to faith and conscience.

I am admittedly out of step with most Baptists on this. So I guess that only qualifies me as a baptist...

I agree with this. While I come down on the side of credobaptism, I think there's a strong enough biblical case for paedobaptism not to question it for these purposes if another believer considers himself to have been baptized. I've also attended a church that required post-conversion baptism for communion yet allowed those baptized as infants to preach from the pulpit--which was a real head-scratcher for me.

 

[requested deletion member 13777]

I


I've expressed my views on this several times here over the years.

I do not consider those baptized as infants to necessarily be unbaptized in the most important or ultimate sense. If they are not aware of the reasons for the credo position, or have truly and sincerely considered the various credo/paedo arguments and are convinced of the validity of their baptism, the benefits of which have since been appropriated by faith, then I will gladly have communion and fellowship with them as "full" believers/Christians.

I would say I see infant baptism and non-immersion as biblically unintended and irregular practices, but a clear conscience and true faith graciously trumps believers' sincere errors (of which I am sure I have more than my fair share). In terms of baptism I largely base this on the principle I see in 1 Pet. 3:21.

For the same reasons I do not consider most Church Fathers, Reformers, or Puritans to have been unbaptized.

As already indicated, I believe the physical particulars of water baptism (as distinguished from the overall act of physically submitting to and undertaking the sacrament) are very much secondary to faith and conscience.

I am admittedly out of step with most Baptists on this. So I guess that only qualifies me as a baptist...

The question becomes, would you baptize those sprinkled as infants? Here is where the trouble with this position comes. If you recognize an infant baptism as valid and yet still would baptize afterwards as an adult, you are baptizing twice.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

I don't believe in the distinction between "valid baptism" and "invalid baptism". There is either baptism or there is not baptism.

Sprinkling water onto a small child that is barely able to speak let alone grasp complex concepts, no matter whether the "right words" were used or not, is not a baptism.

Such a person needs to be baptized before being given access to the Lord's Table and being received into the membership of the church.

I know that there are Baptists who disagree with me on this, and that's ok, but I think my view is consistent with Baptist principles.

 

[requested deletion member 13777]

I don't believe in the distinction between "valid baptism" and "invalid baptism". There is either baptism or there is not baptism.

Sprinkling water onto a small child that is barely able to speak let alone grasp complex concepts, no matter whether the "right words" were used or not, is not a baptism.

Such a person needs to be baptized before being given access to the Lord's Table and being received into the membership of the church.

I know that there are Baptists who disagree with me on this, and that's ok, but I think my view is consistent with Baptist principles.

You are correct, thanks for pointing this out. My language of valid vs invalid is not the best. In reality it is baptism or it isn’t and this what I mean by valid or invalid.

 

[Phil D.]

The question becomes, would you baptize those sprinkled as infants? Here is where the trouble with this position comes. If you recognize an infant baptism as valid and yet still would baptize afterwards as an adult, you are baptizing twice.

I do understand some of the difficulties, especially as would concern a local church policy on recognition of a baptism. But in terms of any particular person I don't see how one ultimately gets around the issue of individual conscience no matter what. Outsiders can try and inform someone's conscience, but ultimately they must come to a final determination themselves. I think some things can be done irregularly without making them outright invalid. Similar to my view on baptism would be that I deem intinction in communion to be irregular and highly unadvisable, but if received in faith I don't see at as meaningless.

To not commune with another blood-bought believer in the sacrament that strengthens and confirms the very benefits of that atoning sacrifice, through faith, because of a sincere disagreement over baptism, is incomprehensible to me. Again, I know I am not in agreement with most Baptists on this. And as others have pointed out, what then about subjecting oneself, or those under their charge, to the teaching of a supposed unbaptized believer, not only live but even via media like books or the PB?

I have also posed the same questions to paedobaptists, who insist that credos are guilty of a great sin by not having their infants baptized - why then would you commune or closely associate with someone who is unrepentant of a serious sin? Again, I think conscious unavoidably comes into play. As I've also said before, I think there is a happy inconsistency in the way that many who "officially" hold such views will still fellowship and commune with each other.

No position is without its own difficulties in this area, unless you are willing to take a very hardline, which I do not see as necessary for the reasons already given.

 

[Ben Zartman]

Baptism is the outward sign of entering into the visible church, administered by that church to validate that person's testimony. That the paedobaptist assemblies do it wrong by our lights doesn't invalidate them as churches-- that they're receiving members differently than we do surely doesn't make them un-churches. And if they are true churches, who are we, who are called to charity, to deny communion--another church ordinance--to someone who has been received by those we believe to be a true church?
It's not like they're in open rebellion to the Scripture--they just see the ordinance differently, and are acting according to conscience. Uninformed, perhaps, but clean in that they really believe children should be sprinkled.
As far as membership, maybe I'll get ridden out on a rail here, but I would receive a paedobaptized christian, who had a credible profession, into membership without insisting on baptism. If we wanted to ferret out all irregularities, how many of us would have to be baptized again every time we acted un-christian and repented? How many would be tortured in conscience wondering if they were not really converted until 19, though baptized at 16? Where would it stop?
Unless we are willing to believe that all paedobaptist churches are not true churches, we must receive them as brethren, irregularities notwithstanding, and enjoy fellowship and communion with them as fellow-citizens in God's kingdom.

 

[lynnie]

This essay is by a prof at Westminster Seminary...not sure if he is retired now. It is encouraging Baptists to consider young age baptism, as young as two. Don't let the title throw you, it is so excellent. Three years old is NOT an infant.

Indifferentism and Rigorism

by Vern Sheridan Poythress [Published in Westminster Theological Journal 59/1 (1997) 13-29. Used with permission.] pdf. Westminster Theological Seminary P.O. Box 27009 Philadelphia, PA 19118-0009 A…

frame-poythress.org

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Isn't Dr. Poythress a paedobaptist?

 

[SeamusDelion]

Imagine giving an infant a shot of wine... Lord please help us.

 

[Mr. Great-Heart]

One of my children happens to currently be 3 years old, and occasionally I hear the comment or get asked the question if the child is 4 because, in particular, they speak as if they are older than their age. I am also a member of a church which has many other young families who do the things Dr. Poythress suggests might start happening if four year olds get baptized, but with God's blessing on sound teaching over many decades, these things happen without the preschool baptisms. And if they didn't, other means could be suggested by which those practices could be encouraged without, again, baptizing preschoolers.

All that context just to say, I would be outright flabbergasted if someone were to seriously suggest that my 3 year old should be baptized. It boggles the mind. However,

A little bit of background; my wife and I have been discerning membership at a (Reformed-leaning) Southern-Baptist Church, and have run into an issue where she may not be able to commune with the church or even be admitted to membership because she was baptized as a three year old.

Do you mean that absolutely, or just that they would (possibly) require her to be baptized again before admitting her to membership? I assume the latter but it was not explicitly stated.

Why was she baptized as a 3 year old? If it was upon a profession of faith, and you both are of the mind she should not be baptized again, perhaps in part you could explain your reasoning exactly on the section of the 1689 that was quoted in post #2.

Though, if that is the direction in which the pastors go and if it is merely a disagreement of judgment for the two of you and not a matter of conscience, and this is the church you believe you should join with these pastors to watch for your souls (1689 chapter 26 paragraph 10), then I would suggest submitting to their decision.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

A little bit of background; my wife and I have been discerning membership at a (Reformed-leaning) Southern-Baptist Church, and have run into an issue where she may not be able to commune with the church or even be admitted to membership because she was baptized as a three year old. She and I are also considering the validity of her baptism, and are hoping for insight. I am scheduled to speak to the pastors about these issues, but I was hoping to get some info beforehand so I can ask relevant questions.

For those of you who attend or pastor a baptist church which does not allow those who have been baptized as infants to take communion or become members, what has led you to take such a stance?
Do you believe that paedobaptism is valid, though improper?
What do you believe about the baptismal status of the "Church Fathers," the reformers, or puritans? Would you admit them to the Table?
Would you consider baptism a primary issue (pertaining to salvation) or a secondary issue (pertaining to the Christian life, but not of salvific importance)

Thank you for helping me to understand.

Try asking the elders this scenario. A person comes forward at age 13 and professes Christ and is baptized. Six months later they quit attending church, fall into a lascivious lifestyle of sex, drugs, and rock n roll for years. They've shown no signs of repentance during that whole time as well. They then come back and tell the church they were truly saved a few days ago and am sorry for all the sins they committed. Ask them if they would rebaptize that person. If not, then say hello to a form of paedobaptism, as they are accepting him back into their church after he was baptized as an unbeliever. And if they say they'd rebaptize them, then they have ran into another problem, as there is nowhere in all of holy writ where rebaptism is required.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

I don't believe in the distinction between "valid baptism" and "invalid baptism". There is either baptism or there is not baptism.

Sprinkling water onto a small child that is barely able to speak let alone grasp complex concepts, no matter whether the "right words" were used or not, is not a baptism.

Such a person needs to be baptized before being given access to the Lord's Table and being received into the membership of the church.

I know that there are Baptists who disagree with me on this, and that's ok, but I think my view is consistent with Baptist principles.

What if the late R.C. Sproul came to your church and it was a communion service. Would you have excluded him from partaking of it?

 

[requested deletion member 13777]

I was trying to find some of Bunyan’s writings on this topic, because I recall reading him in the past. I couldn’t find it right now but I’ll look again in a few days when i’m back home.

This article explains briefly how this is an old issue amongst credo-baptists and briefly explains Bunyan’s dispute with the Baptists.

Again, I would advocate a middling position, not allowing membership but not excluding from the Lord’s table. Bunyan believed they should be allowed in membership.

@SeanPatrickCornell is advocating for the consistent and traditional Baptist position.

 

[DanSSwing]

Imagine giving an infant a shot of wine... Lord please help us.

A little rum on the gums is great for teething. I'm just sayin'.

 

[Simpleton Luke]

Three years old is NOT an infant.

First off, thanks to everyone who has taken the time to provide insight and wisdom into this issue, I really appreciate it.
To answer some of the questions, my wife was baptized at three in the manner of infant baptism. This was not due to her own profession of faith, neither do I consider three years old to be within the category of "infant," but what I mean is that she was sprinkled by a PCA pastor at the will and faith of her parents, regardless of what she may have believed at the time.

One of my children happens to currently be 3 years old, and occasionally I hear the comment or get asked the question if the child is 4 because, in particular, they speak as if they are older than their age. I am also a member of a church which has many other young families who do the things Dr. Poythress suggests might start happening if four year olds get baptized, but with God's blessing on sound teaching over many decades, these things happen without the preschool baptisms. And if they didn't, other means could be suggested by which those practices could be encouraged without, again, baptizing preschoolers.

All that context just to say, I would be outright flabbergasted if someone were to seriously suggest that my 3 year old should be baptized. It boggles the mind. However,

Do you mean that absolutely, or just that they would (possibly) require her to be baptized again before admitting her to membership? I assume the latter but it was not explicitly stated.

Thank you for your input Jake. To answer your question, we had heard from a trusted member that my wife would not be admitted to the table based on her baptism as a child. The reason I say she "may not be" is because we hadn't confirmed with the pastors yet.

 

[MyCrows]

Would you consider baptism a primary issue (pertaining to salvation) or a secondary issue (pertaining to the Christian life, but not of salvific importance)

Is the church you are attending making it a primary issue pertaining to salvation?

 

[Simpleton Luke]

So, an update. I was able to snag the pastors yesterday afternoon and ask them the questions I posted here.
They answered by saying that the PCA and Southern Baptists lie at the ends of very different hermeneutical trails which are each hundreds of years separated, and the PCA view of covenantal theology and its application to the Christian life comes to different conclusions on issues like these, thus allowing for infant baptism. I was given a lengthy explanation of the history and biblical background of the decisions that are made in Southern Baptist churches, such as their alignment with other churches who believe that baptism must come first, then communion.
The pastors said that those who are of true faith and baptized as infants are brothers and sisters in Christ, but have never actually been baptized, and would need to do so before being admitted to membership or the Lord's Table.
I asked if they would withhold the Lord's Table from the historic Church as well as the reformers and puritans and they said that based on the invalid baptism of the historic church, they would not be allowed Communion, even if Martin Luther were around today, he would have to just go to a different church. I thought this to be a ridiculous statement and offensive to the Body of Christ. I asked who the Body and Blood of Christ was for, and they affirmed that it was intended for the Body of Christ (the Church), but when asked why they would withhold the Lord's Supper from the Body of Christ, they answered that because it is an ordinance which is performed at the local church level, they hold the right to practice it however they see fit and "don't try to tell us how we can and can't practice."
One of the pastors, despite never meeting or speaking to my wife, told me that she was already decided on the issue and was just making me ask them questions to justify her own belief in infant baptism. I told them that this was not the case, as she has expressed her humility and submission to me and Christ's headship in truly praying for discernment on the issue. I could tell that they were insulted by my questions, and frankly I was insulted as well.

This article explains briefly how this is an old issue amongst credo-baptists and briefly explains Bunyan’s dispute with the Baptists.

Again, I would advocate a middling position, not allowing membership but not excluding from the Lord’s table. Bunyan believed they should be allowed in membership.

I asked how they would respond to John Bunyan, who called the practice of withholding communion the "unchristianizing" of many members of the body of Christ, and was answered that if I was going to rely on what Bunyan believed, I would not agree with any church and "would be living in John Bunyan land," by their own words.

We spoke for almost two hours, and overall I found the conversation to be disappointing and tragic, considering their opinion and treatment of their brothers and sisters in Christ.
"You just want us to be something other than what we are, and if you want something else, you can go somewhere else," was their final point, which was sad for me to hear because we have been attending off and on for more than two years now building relationships and growing to love their style, and have spent two months really trying to immerse ourselves in fellowship and we have loved every minute of the worship preaching and communion with the congregation.
We are returning to our home church, and are working on contentment. Prayers would be appreciated.
Thanks again to everyone who contributed. I know this post probably sounds more like a rant, and it may be; the whole situation feels like an awkward breakup. If you have feedback I would be glad to hear it.

 

[Simpleton Luke]

And if they say they'd rebaptize them, then they have ran into another problem, as there is nowhere in all of holy writ where rebaptism is required.

I did ask them about that. They told me that they (re)baptize if one believes he is unsaved (based on conscience) and that one of the pastors had been baptized four times at that church because of his continual backsliding and fear that he had not been previously saved.
At the end, one of the pastors asked me what I wished would happen, and I told him that I wished that each congregant would be able to participate based on conscience, and that the church would consider conscience and faith to be the standard of true baptism for the paedobaptist just as they regard it to be the standard for the twice-baptized-believer who believes that his first baptism wasn't done in true faith.
I agree with you that rebaptism is unscriptural, but their argument is that it is logically consistent with the faith-baptist hermeneutic, and that there is only ever one baptism, even if you are immersed multiple times.

 

[SeamusDelion]

A little rum on the gums is great for teething. I'm just sayin'.

LOL brother that was a god one!

 

[Sovereign Grace]

So, an update. I was able to snag the pastors yesterday afternoon and ask them the questions I posted here.
They answered by saying that the PCA and Southern Baptists lie at the ends of very different hermeneutical trails which are each hundreds of years separated, and the PCA view of covenantal theology and its application to the Christian life comes to different conclusions on issues like these, thus allowing for infant baptism. I was given a lengthy explanation of the history and biblical background of the decisions that are made in Southern Baptist churches, such as their alignment with other churches who believe that baptism must come first, then communion.
The pastors said that those who are of true faith and baptized as infants are brothers and sisters in Christ, but have never actually been baptized, and would need to do so before being admitted to membership or the Lord's Table.
I asked if they would withhold the Lord's Table from the historic Church as well as the reformers and puritans and they said that based on the invalid baptism of the historic church, they would not be allowed Communion, even if Martin Luther were around today, he would have to just go to a different church. I thought this to be a ridiculous statement and offensive to the Body of Christ. I asked who the Body and Blood of Christ was for, and they affirmed that it was intended for the Body of Christ (the Church), but when asked why they would withhold the Lord's Supper from the Body of Christ, they answered that because it is an ordinance which is performed at the local church level, they hold the right to practice it however they see fit and "don't try to tell us how we can and can't practice."
One of the pastors, despite never meeting or speaking to my wife, told me that she was already decided on the issue and was just making me ask them questions to justify her own belief in infant baptism. I told them that this was not the case, as she has expressed her humility and submission to me and Christ's headship in truly praying for discernment on the issue. I could tell that they were insulted by my questions, and frankly I was insulted as well.

I asked how they would respond to John Bunyan, who called the practice of withholding communion the "unchristianizing" of many members of the body of Christ, and was answered that if I was going to rely on what Bunyan believed, I would not agree with any church and "would be living in John Bunyan land," by their own words.

We spoke for almost two hours, and overall I found the conversation to be disappointing and tragic, considering their opinion and treatment of their brothers and sisters in Christ.
"You just want us to be something other than what we are, and if you want something else, you can go somewhere else," was their final point, which was sad for me to hear because we have been attending off and on for more than two years now building relationships and growing to love their style, and have spent two months really trying to immerse ourselves in fellowship and we have loved every minute of the worship preaching and communion with the congregation.
We are returning to our home church, and are working on contentment. Prayers would be appreciated.
Thanks again to everyone who contributed. I know this post probably sounds more like a rant, and it may be; the whole situation feels like an awkward breakup. If you have feedback I would be glad to hear it.

So, they will take their rules over what scripture says.

I did ask them about that. They told me that they (re)baptize if one believes he is unsaved (based on conscience) and that one of the pastors had been baptized four times at that church because of his continual backsliding and fear that he had not been previously saved.
At the end, one of the pastors asked me what I wished would happen, and I told him that I wished that each congregant would be able to participate based on conscience, and that the church would consider conscience and faith to be the standard of true baptism for the paedobaptist just as they regard it to be the standard for the twice-baptized-believer who believes that his first baptism wasn't done in true faith.
I agree with you that rebaptism is unscriptural, but their argument is that it is logically consistent with the faith-baptist hermeneutic, and that there is only ever one baptism, even if you are immersed multiple times.

More than one baptism is unscriptural to the core. They are putting more emphasis on water than salvation it seems. I’m as big a supporter of baptism (yes including immersion, sprinkling, and/or pouring) as the rest, but we have to have it in its proper place.

 

[requested deletion member 13777]

I did ask them about that. They told me that they (re)baptize if one believes he is unsaved (based on conscience) and that one of the pastors had been baptized four times at that church because of his continual backsliding and fear that he had not been previously saved.
At the end, one of the pastors asked me what I wished would happen, and I told him that I wished that each congregant would be able to participate based on conscience, and that the church would consider conscience and faith to be the standard of true baptism for the paedobaptist just as they regard it to be the standard for the twice-baptized-believer who believes that his first baptism wasn't done in true faith.
I agree with you that rebaptism is unscriptural, but their argument is that it is logically consistent with the faith-baptist hermeneutic, and that there is only ever one baptism, even if you are immersed multiple times.

I’m perhaps as sympathetic to paedobaptists as any baptist, but I have a hard time being upset with a Baptist church standing firm on the traditional baptist position, though the multiple baptism after “backsliding” thing has always bothered me. I feel for your situation, and at my church we would allow your wife to the table, but we wouldn’t stop trying to convince her to be baptized and would not allow membership. Your church’s position is far from unusual.

No baptist church in a Baptist association that I know of would allow membership for an infant-sprinkled believer. And if your church’s conviction is that baptism must absolutely always preclude The Lord’s Supper, then they are doing what is right by their convictions.

At the end of the day, if they won’t make an exception, and your wife won’t be baptized, don’t hold it against them. They are a Baptist church holding to Baptist beliefs. Very few if any of our Reformed Paedobaptist brothers would allow an unbaptized (within their view of Baptism) person to the table either.

So, they will take their rules over what scripture says.

This is an unfair accusation. Their rules are based on what many Baptists believe Scripture demonstrates.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

I’m perhaps as sympathetic to paedobaptists as any baptist, but I have a hard time being upset with a Baptist church standing firm on the traditional baptist position, though the multiple baptism after “backsliding” thing has always bothered me. I feel for your situation, and at my church we would allow your wife to the table, but we wouldn’t stop trying to convince her to be baptized and would not allow membership. Your church’s position is far from unusual.

No baptist church in a Baptist association that I know of would allow membership for an infant-sprinkled believer. And if your church’s conviction is that baptism must absolutely always preclude The Lord’s Supper, then they are doing what is right by their convictions.

At the end of the day, if they won’t make an exception, and your wife won’t be baptized, don’t hold it against them. They are a Baptist church holding to Baptist beliefs. Very few if any of our Reformed Paedobaptist brothers would allow an unbaptized (within their view of Baptism) person to the table either.



This is an unfair accusation. Their rules are based on what many Baptists believe Scripture demonstrates.

If someone is rebaptized that’s unscriptural. Yes, if they insist on it, seeing they were not saved when first baptized then after walking them through scripture to prove it’s unnecessary and they still insist on it, they should rebaptize them. My problem is when churches insist they must be rebaptized because that’s their rule. I used to belong to a baptist denomination that if you came from another church, even if baptist and Trinitarian in baptism, they must be rebaptized by their ministers, as they have invalidated their previous baptism. So that’s why I stand so vehemently opposed to rebaptizing ppl.