# Response to Grudem on Baptism and Church Membership



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 9, 2007)

Response to Grudem on Baptism and Church Membership :: Desiring God

Well I saw this and responded to someones question concerning it and here was my response.



> Piper says....
> 
> When I weigh the kind of imperfection involved in tolerating an invalid baptism because some of our members are deeply persuaded that it is biblically valid, over against the kind of imperfection involved in saying to a son or daughter of the living God, “You are excluded from the local church,” my biblical sense is that the latter is more unthinkable than the former. The local church is a visible expression of the invisible, universal, body of Christ. To exclude from it is virtually the same as excommunication. And no serious church takes excommunication as an invitation to attend the church down the street.
> 
> ...


 
I use to hold to Pipers view that the Baptism debate needs to take a back seat to Church membership. In fact, I had great admiration for the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland because they hold this view. But as of the last few years my convictions have sharpened a bit.

I have always held a view that a local congregation is not the whole body of Christ. Unity and Union are very important but Unity and Union are two different issues in my opinion. Union seems to have more of a connection to something than unity. When a union is entered into an attachment is achieved whereby others are put together as one. . Unity to me is a state or quality of being in accord or working harmoniously together. We all have Union with Christ as His body. But congregationally or denominationally we are like many members who may not be directly connected to each other. But we must be walking and working together in unity.

In our separate confessional standards we have a Union with each other because of our Head Christ Jesus. 1689ers and WCFers so to speak have unions in their confessions. It is convicton and confession that binds the confessors into a union though.

At this point there are a few issues that one goup must call the other out on. I do know Presbyterians and Baptists who accuse the other of sin if one does not line up with the convictions of the other. The Baptist is accused of the sin of anabaptism by some Presbyterian's along with the sin of not applying the seal of the covenant upon their children. These are not light issues as Piper does not address them. Some Baptist's accuse Presbyterian's of poor hermeneutics in their understanding of Covenant Theology and sinning by not following Christ's command that disciples must be baptised as repentant converts of Christ. Disciples can not be infants or church members in the Final Covenant because one must first exhibit cognizant confessional capabilities. Therefore the Presbyterian is knowingly admitting an unregenerate unforgiven Church membership that is not acknowledged in Jeremiah 31 or the New Covenant.

There are major differences that do not promote a denominational Union and would in fact be a place where division would be caused by doctrinal differences. At the same time I do believe we can walk in Unity. For we have much more in Common because of our confessional beliefs. The LBCF and WCF are very close to each other. For instance the Person and Work of Christ as laid out in our confessions is spot on, and both of our Confessions hold to a bi-covenantal structure. These are things we can walk in Unity concerning our faith and Practice. And our Union is truly with the Son of God.

I was a member in a RPCNA church when I was in my 20's. I have also been a PCA member. I joined the PCA with a promise to not cause any fuss over the issue of Baptism. And I didn't. I could never hold a position of authority in that Church because of my beliefs and my non adherence to the WCF. So another question for me to Piper would be.... Why in tarnations would you limit someone like R. C. Sproul, Pipa, Ryken, or any other good Presbyterian in a Baptist Church membership, or would you limit them? Would they be able to live out their convictions in good conscience in a 1689 confessional Church, or in your Reformed Baptist Church? If you are truly a 1689 Covenantal Baptist you couldn't. But if they dwelt amongst themselves they would not be limited in such a way. I would not let them perform their gifts of Elder in a Baptist Church or we would be in a compromised position to hold to our doctrine in my opinion. But at the same time I do hold them as Elders in the Church of Christ in their distinct Presbyterian Union. And I dearly respect them as Elders.

The differences are to great in my estimation.

Still desiring for the Consumation where all differences will be put aside by Him who will reveal His Perfection and Glory.

Randy

Sorry I should have put this in the baptism thread.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 9, 2007)

I had the same reaction to Piper's statement. I agree with him on a lot of things, but not on this one. While I love my brothers and sisters who do not agree with me on the issue of baptism, if we believe that baptism unites a person with the visible body of Christ in a particular location, then a Baptist Church cannot allow someone to become a member who has not been baptized in the way they think biblical.

I also found it interesting that Bethlehem Baptist Church makes you take a membership class and sign their membership covenant (all very standard Baptist practices) in order to become a member. What if my conscience won't allow me to take that membership class because I believe they are adding extra-biblical practices to the membership requirements of a church? Will they allow me to join anyway? Probably not. Yet, Piper is willing to discard the issue of baptism (but still teach it) for the sake of unity.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 9, 2007)

Well, Wayne Grudem responded back..... 

http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/758_wayne_grudems_response_to_piper/


----------



## Kaalvenist (Aug 11, 2007)

As a Paedobaptist, I agree with you (and Grudem). The only consistent thing for Baptists to do is to refuse those who have been baptized as infants, by sprinkling or pouring, from church membership, unless they were to renounce their previous baptism and submit to believers baptism by immersion. Nor is this *in spite of* my close, personal fellowship with Baptists; rather, it is precisely *because* I respect my Baptist brethren and their opinions, that I believe they would be inconsistent to allow one baptized as an infant to their church's membership.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 12, 2007)

Interestingly enough, the LBCF, though very nearly duplicate to the WCF in most aspects, purposefully deleted the phrase in the WCF that stated that baptism joins a person to the visible Church.

Confessionally speaking, from a Baptist standpoint, baptism does not join a person to the visible Church.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 12, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Interestingly enough, the LBCF, though very nearly duplicate to the WCF in most aspects, purposefully deleted the phrase in the WCF that stated that baptism joins a person to the visible Church.
> 
> Confessionally speaking, from a Baptist standpoint, baptism does not join a person to the visible Church.



Good point, Rich. I might have to do some research on how Baptists viewed baptism in conjunction with church membership.

Most modern Baptists see it as a way to "join" the church, but I'm not sure how that idea developed and if modern Baptists even know why they view it that way.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Aug 12, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> > Interestingly enough, the LBCF, though very nearly duplicate to the WCF in most aspects, purposefully deleted the phrase in the WCF that stated that baptism joins a person to the visible Church.
> ...



I bet if you probed, most consider it an "initiation" into the *local* body...


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 12, 2007)

jdlongmire said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> > SemperFideles said:
> ...



I agree. But Rich's point was that the LBCF specifically dropped that line in their copying from the WCF, which is pretty clear.


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 12, 2007)

Randy, what you are thinking of is not the Free Presbyterian church of Scotland but Ian Paisley's group, the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster.


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 12, 2007)

I don't have time to peruse the LBCF right now, but I can guarantee you that Benjamin Keach, William Kiffin, et. al. saw baptism as the initiatory rite into the local church, as do Romanists, the Reformed, etc. John Bunyan was subjected to heavy criticism from the Particular Baptists for his stance that a profession of faith and not baptism is all that should be required for admission into the church.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 12, 2007)

Pilgrim said:


> I don't have time to peruse the LBCF right now, but I can guarantee you that Benjamin Keach, William Kiffin, et. al. saw baptism as the initiatory rite into the local church, as do Romanists, the Reformed, etc. John Bunyan was subjected to heavy criticism from the Particular Baptists for his stance that a profession of faith and not baptism is all that should be required for admission into the church.




Evidence of this can be seen from Hiscox's Principles and Practices for Baptist Churches, published initially in 1894(!):



> Nearly all Baptists in the United States, and a large part of those in foreign lands, are _strict_ communion in practice (Hiscox, 448)
> 
> The second class of open-communonists assert that the ordinances sustain no necessary relation to each other; that baptism can claim no priority over the Supper, and, therefore, it is not a condition, nor prerequisite to it. Consequently, unbaptized persons, if believers - for they do make _faith_ a condition - may partake of the Supper as lawfully baptized persons. Therefore immersion or sprinkling, either or neither, is equally indifferent. This theory virtually denies the memorial and symbolic character of the ordinance...this course of argument, however plausible, is rejected and condemned by the great body of Christians the world over, both Baptists and PedoBaptists. (Hiscox 449)



Actually (to play the baptist's advocate), the issue is not over the sign and seal nature of the covenant. For almost all baptists, for centuries (and set forth in formal form in Hiscox's Manual) it is:

1. Admission to the Lord's Supper is for _baptized_ Christians
2. Paedobaptism is not baptism (the same argument is used by many with reference to non-immersions)
3. Hence, those who were "baptized" as infants have not been truly or actually baptized; they are in need of "Christian baptism"
4. Therefore, as unbaptized professors, such persons cannot be admitted to the Table


So Grudem's position is essentially that non-immersionist credobaptists are not Christians. They are not permitted to be members, but also not permitted (according to standard Baptist polity) to partake of the Lord's Supper either.

I discuss this a bit with Phillip Way here:
http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?p=42778&highlight=hiscox#post42778


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 12, 2007)

J.L. Dagg in "Manual of Theology" gives the classic argument on how he could allow a paedo minister to bring the word but at the same time not admit him to membership or to the table. The mainstream position has been that there are certainly saved individuals in paedo churches, but that those are not properly ordered churches since they do not have biblical baptism. 

Fred is right about standard Baptist polity not allowing unbaptized (in their view) professors to come to the table, although it certainly seems to be non-standard today, when many Baptist churches practice what amounts to open communion while restricting membership to those who have had "proper" baptism.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 12, 2007)

Chris & Fred,

I probably should have nuanced what I said a bit more.

I think part of the reason that the LBCF left that part out was that it is my understanding that Particular Baptists deny a visible/invisible Church distinction. There's more to the fact that they leave out that part of the WCF than first meets the eye.

I think part of the reason it's left out is that they would want to say that a person is not part of the Church unless they are elect. A person may therefore be baptized but, if not elect, would not be joined to the Church.

I realize not everybody here that adheres to the LBCF understands this the same way but I think this is the way it was to be understood.

In one sense then, the Particular Baptist might affirm that baptism joins to the Church but not necessarily and not in a way known to any but God. From my standpoint, then, on an LBCF scheme baptism doesn't join anyone _visibly_ to the Church except to say that there is a probability that some of those being baptized are elect.


----------

