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



## johnrsorrell (Oct 28, 2005)

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 (Oct 28, 2005)

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 (Oct 28, 2005)




----------



## Saiph (Oct 28, 2005)

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 (Oct 28, 2005)

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 (Oct 28, 2005)

> _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.
> ...



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 (Oct 28, 2005)

> 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 (Oct 28, 2005)

> _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.
> ...



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 (Oct 28, 2005)

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 (Oct 29, 2005)

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 (Oct 29, 2005)




----------



## Larry Hughes (Oct 29, 2005)

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 (Oct 29, 2005)

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 (Oct 29, 2005)

That is an interesting point.


----------



## Steve Owen (Oct 29, 2005)

> _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 (Oct 29, 2005)

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

Its his ecclesiology that needs conviction.


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 29, 2005)

> _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 (Oct 29, 2005)

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

We had conversations about this before.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Oct 29, 2005)

Fred & Martin,

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

Ldh


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Peter_
> ...



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 (Oct 31, 2005)

> _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.
> ...



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 (Oct 31, 2005)

> _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 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 (Oct 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Puddleglum_
> ...




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 (Nov 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by AdamM_
> ...



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 (Nov 7, 2005)

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


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> He would have to submit, but would he have to be rebaptized?



Yes.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



Wow. That is indeed truly offensive.

Thanks for following up.


----------



## Steve Owen (Nov 7, 2005)

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 (Nov 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Fred,
> Why do you find that offensive?
> 
> ...



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 (Nov 7, 2005)

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.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by 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.
> ...



It seems like Piper's Church is saying: "We don't really consider you baptized but we can overlook that if you only want to be members and participate in the body life of the Chuch. If you want to be an Elder or teach then you need to become really baptized."


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Nov 7, 2005)

I like how Puddlegums church does it.


----------



## Steve Owen (Nov 8, 2005)

Fred wrote:-


> 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.'"



Not at all! I can't speak for Piper's church, but as far as mine is concerned, there is no 'sort of baptized.' There is one form of water baptism practised in the Bible as far as we can see, and that is what we practise. However, we also recognise that the only baptism that truly counts is baptism of the Spirit and we would wish to have fellowship with all those who have that baptism. 

Therefore, if someone comes to our church who gives credible evidence of being born again, but whose conscience troubles him about being re-baptized, then we would not exclude him from church membership. If someone really is red-hot for infant baptism, then doubtless he will find another church, and for the sake of unity it is better that he should; but evangelical paedo-baptist churches are few and far between in England.

Martin


----------



## pastorway (Nov 8, 2005)

I agree with Martin here in practise. And while I do applaud what Piper and BBC have attemptd to do, I do not agree with they way they are going about it. As I read it, they will accept you as a member of the church if you believe you have been baptized. 

So they do require "baptism" for membership.

But then there is the issue that if you are to be an elder you must be baptized upon a profession of faith by immersion. This does indeed send the message that while you think you are baptized you can join the church, but to be an elder you have to submit to the elders view of baptism, which is that you were not really baptized even though you thought you were!

Our church simply removed the requirement for baptism from the requirements for membership. If you were baptized paedo (or even not baptized at all) we will welcome you as a member. But if you were baptized as an infant, or _before_ a profession of faith, we will not accept that you have been baptized! 

And church leadership must have been baptized according to our confession of faith.

It does seem that Piper has opened the door for a two-tier view of baptism.

Phillip


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 8, 2005)

At the very least, he and the elders should clarify whether or not they see themselves as _truly_ requiring "baptism" for membership, as your church has done - and if so, they should clarify what they mean by those terms as well.

It seems to me that under a Baptistic view, the only consistent options are to either 1) not have baptism as a requirement for membership, 2) require baptism for membership, and accept into eldership and membership alike those who have not been baptized by immersion on profession, or 3) require baptism for membership, reject from eldership and membership alike those who have not been baptized by immersion on profession.

#2 is the logical practice for a church that believes sprinkling or pouring to be _legitimate_, but _not preferable_, while #3 is logical for a church that does not even believe it to be legitimate. #1 leaves for the possibility of either one of those views. I agree with those who have said Piper and his elders should clarify what they believe on the issue and stick to it in a fully consistent manner, rather than trying to fit in more than one of those options.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 8, 2005)

I think this only adds to my argument in another thread that there is naturally more "tension" for the paedobaptist joining a credobaptist Church. The paedobaptist accepts the baptism of adults as a matter of course while the credobaptist cannot really accept infant baptism as legitimate and remain faithful to their confession.

While a strident paedobaptist myself, my wife and I joined a Southern Baptist Church out of a love for the Saints here in Okinawa. I can make that decision with a short term view of serving the Body here in Japan because I will only be here for 3 years and my children are 3 and 19 months and in the womb. I can have my 3rd child baptized upon a visit to the States to my "home" congregation. I will not have to face the issue later on where my children's baptisms will be disputed by the congregation or I would simply not join at this point to remove that stumbling block both for my children and for the Church. It is good that I can both serve the Church by joining it and remain faithful to conscience.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 8, 2005)




----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> At the very least, he and the elders should clarify whether or not they see themselves as _truly_ requiring "baptism" for membership, as your church has done - and if so, they should clarify what they mean by those terms as well.
> 
> It seems to me that under a Baptistic view, the only consistent options are to either 1) not have baptism as a requirement for membership, 2) require baptism for membership, and accept into eldership and membership alike those who have not been baptized by immersion on profession, or 3) require baptism for membership, reject from eldership and membership alike those who have not been baptized by immersion on profession.
> ...



I agree completely. Of course baptists could require complete adherence to their confession for leadership (elder/deacon), while allowing a credible profession and baptism for membership. But it now appears to me that what BBC has done is remove baptism as a requirement/precursor for membership. Ironically, I believe that this does more damage to the baptist position than accepting infant non-immersion baptism as a true (although flawed) baptism.


----------



## Puddleglum (Nov 8, 2005)

Nate,
The problem is - and here is where I agree with Rich - is that, in some ways, it's harder for a credo church to accept someone baptized paedo into membership than it is for a paedo church to accept someone baptized credo. Nowhere does the WCF say that my baptism is invalid. But a consistant baptist position will say that the sprinkling of a baby isn't baptism. 

That is, I think, why Phillip's church doesn't require baptism for membership. They're trying to recognize that paedos are Christians and thus are part of the church and should be able to be members - but they aren't pretending that they believe that their sprinkled brothers & sisters were baptized. 

The problem comes when you believe that the Bible teaches that you should be baptized to join a church. Which is when you end up with something like Piper's church - or, you decide that you have to be re-baptized if you were sprinkled. Which effectively bars all good paedos from membership. 

Paedo churches don't have this difficulty. That doesn't mean that they're right (necessarily), but it does make it a lot easier for my church to accept me as a member - because the only issue is what I believe - than it is for a credo to accept a paedo - because the issue is not just what they believe, but also the validity of their baptism & whether baptism is required for church membership. 

(But I do agree with you - I really appreciate the way my church approaches the issue!)


----------



## AdamM (Nov 8, 2005)

After reading the responses, it seems obvious that the Bethlehem policy has some inconsistencies, but I think we need to be careful that we don't miss the opportunity to rejoice in the very positive overall direction Piper is attempting to move in. Piper is grappling with a very difficult issue, especially for Baptists and I confess that it grieves me to see that when they start making genuine progress in coming our direction, they get jumped on because out of the box they haven't dotted every i and crossed every t. Of course it isn't an ideal policy from a paedo standpoint, but again, can't we praise God that the elders are at least thinking through these issues and have confidence that as they do so, we'll see further progress?

[Edited on 11-8-2005 by AdamM]


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> After reading the responses, it seems obvious that the Bethlehem policy has some inconsistencies, but I think we need to be careful that we don't miss the opportunity to rejoice in the very positive overall direction Piper is attempting to move in. Piper is grappling with a very difficult issue, especially for Baptists and I confess that it grieves me to see that when they start making genuine progress in coming our direction, they get jumped on because out of the box they haven't dotted every i and crossed every t. Of course it isn't an ideal policy from a paedo standpoint, but again, can't we praise God that the elders are at least thinking through these issues and have confidence that as they do so, we'll see further progress?
> 
> [Edited on 11-8-2005 by AdamM]



Thanks for that perspective Adam. It is very easy to be critical. While there is often a reason to be so, it is also important to be charitable and hopeful.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 6, 2006)

This one bit the dust..........

Taken from Bethlehem Baptist Church's website:


What is the Present Status of the

Baptism and Membership Issue

At Bethlehem Baptist Church?



1. What was the original motion from the Council of Elders?



In September, 2005 the Council of Elders of Bethlehem Baptist Church introduced a motion at the Quarterly Strategy Meeting proposing constitutional changes that would have preserved the belief, practice and teaching of believers baptism by immersion as the official position of the church and elders, but would also have allowed for some regenerate persons to be members of the church even though they believed the Bible endorsed their infant sprinkling as baptism. The criterion that would have been used to determine who would be admitted would have been whether the beliefs surrounding the baptismal ritual undermined the gospel.





2. What is the present status of this motion?



It was withdrawn by the elders at the Annual Strategy Meeting on December 18, 2005.





3. Why was it withdrawn?



At the December 6 Elder Council meeting, a few elders who previously voted in favor of the motion no longer supported it. In the original vote only two had opposed the motion. Others had now become uncertain about the wisdom of moving forward with the motion. It was clear that the support was not sufficient to move forward. 





4. What is the plan for dealing with this issue in the future?



The elders realize that the issue cannot be dropped because the majority of the elders still favor the motion, including almost all the pastoral staff, and because that conviction puts most of the elders and staff in conflict with at lease one literal reading of the Bethlehem Affirmation of Faith. Our Affirmation of Faith defines the local church as follows: "œWe believe in the local church, consisting of a company of believers in Jesus Christ, baptized on a credible profession of faith, and associated for worship, work, and fellowship." In the most narrow reading, this definition would mean that a Gospel-preaching Presbyterian Church, for example, is not a church. Most of us do not believe that. So at least there are explicit clarifications that we believe we should make in the present Affirmation of Faith. In view of these things, we will be praying and thinking and discussing various ways to move forward together as a church. 


http://www.bbcmpls.org/What_is_the_Present_Status_of_the_Issue_12_29_05

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


----------

