# Piper & Bethlehem Baptist change their minds.....



## Scott Bushey (Jan 6, 2006)

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It was withdrawn by the elders at the Annual Strategy Meeting on December 18, 2005.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 Why was it withdrawn?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


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 6, 2006)

It sounds like back in September they had kind of put the cart before the horse in terms of publicity versus certainty.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> It sounds like back in September they had kind of put the cart before the horse in terms of publicity versus certainty.



Correct. If they keep the horse on the right side, they would end up Presbyterian. 

As well, They should consult some local Presbyterian leadership. They would have found out that the people wanting to join their congregation are not really Presbyterian to begin with.



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


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> ...



I naturally agree with you in an ultimate sense, although above I was more just observing how they apparently announced their "change" before they were completely ready to commit, or stable on what they all thought it entailed.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 4. What is the plan for dealing with this issue in the future?
> 
> 
> ...



If I were an Elder I would be uncomfortable with changing because of how I understand the doctrine of Baptism. I have a love for other people who differ in doctrine but I wouldn't allow change for the benefit of calling them voting members or ruling elders. I hold to the Reformed Baptist position which differs on who is a Covenant member in a New Testament Church as opposed to Covenant Paedo Baptists. We differ on these definitions. 
I believe there are true congregations who belong to the Lord that are Calvinistic Dispensational but I wouldn't allow my Church doctrine to change because I believe there are true believers in the Dispensational Camp. I also believe there are true congregations that are Evangelical Free. But I am not going to change my doctrine to allow them to become ruling Elders or voting members who will bring in their Semi-Pelagian view. 

I would allow them to become active persons in the congregation but I think I would stop there. They would be considered members of the Body of Christ but they couldn't be much more involved than that for the sake of congregational unity. A constitution is set. If a whole congregation wanted to become Paedo they should recant their former position and disband and seek to become under the headship of another Denomination that they are in agreement with. If Bethlehem Baptist doesn't want to stick with it's Baptist heritage she should acknowledge such and move on. If they want to start another Denomination that is similar to the Baptism Theology of the Free Presbyterian Church she should move in that direction without laying claim to being Baptist. Maybe they should just become a Congregational Church without a Baptism destinctive.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 7, 2006)

I don't know if Piper himself changed his mind, but apparently some elders did. I've also seen that Piper is being treated for prostate cancer. 
http://reformation21.org/Reformation_21_Blog/Reformation_21_Blog/58/?pm=114&vobId=1887


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 7, 2006)




----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 7, 2006)

Others may be privy to information that I'm not aware of. But I doubt there's a huge influx of Presbyterians, Lutherans, etc. clamoring to join Bethlehem Baptist who refuse immersion. 

I seem to remember seeing (I think it was on the DGM site) that the impetus for this initiative was a conference they held on "Open Theism" where Sinclair Ferguson spoke, and Piper realized that Greg Boyd could be a member of their church but that Ferguson couldn't simply because Boyd is a Baptist and Ferguson is a Presbyterian. Obviously Ferguson's thought is much closer to Piper's than Boyd's.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 7, 2006)

Boyd wouldn't be allowed to be a member at the Church I consider my cradle. He couldn't confess the same things we confess. He wouldn't even come close to agreeing with our Confession of Faith. I guess Pipers church needs to become a confessional church. 

Here is the first line in our confession.

*The word confession (Greek "homologeo") means "to speak the same thing". *

I wouldn't want to be in a denomination or church that allowed Boyd as a member. That is just me. He may still be a brother in the body of Christ but not member of this local congregation. He wouldn't confess the same things we do. 

I would feel Pipers pain also if I was in his shoes. He ought to do something about it. I don't believe the present past course should be it though.


----------



## Joseph Ringling (Jan 9, 2006)

> The Baptist churches in this area of western NC are all into this "40 days of pukage" or are preaching yet another sermon series on Revelation (they are always pouring out their vials and emptying their bowls it seems...enough trumpets and riders, already!).
> 
> What to do, what to do?



 for the church in America. I'm sorry to hear this Trevor. These churches are more concerned with filling seats than proclaiming God's truth.


Proverbs 23:23 *Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding.*

[Edited on 1-9-2006 by Joseph Ringling]


----------



## JohnV (Jan 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> I would allow them to become active persons in the congregation but I think I would stop there. They would be considered members of the Body of Christ but they couldn't be much more involved than that for the sake of congregational unity. A constitution is set. If a whole congregation wanted to become Paedo they should recant their former position and disband and seek to become under the headship of another Denomination that they are in agreement with. If Bethlehem Baptist doesn't want to stick with it's Baptist heritage she should acknowledge such and move on. If they want to start another Denomination that is similar to the Baptism Theology of the Free Presbyterian Church she should move in that direction without laying claim to being Baptist. Maybe they should just become a Congregational Church without a Baptism destinctive.


I'm not a Baptist, but I'd have to agree with this if I were one. But it should be noted that this is no different for Presbyterians. They too accept Baptists into their congregation, even as members. That does not mean that they qualify for elders, though. You can't have elders that don't uphold the church's confession.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 9, 2006)

In my opinion, if there are likeminded options available, I do not see how someone whom really understands CT or credobaptistism could submit to something that is contrary to their theology. I believe this has got to be the case in these situations. In doing so, the person is really showing that they have no idea of what they actually believe. In this way, if a person would want to join BBC that is coming out of a Presbyterian setting, if I was John Piper, et. al., I would't be that concerned. I would extensively school the person on doctrine and theology; the next thing you would find is that the person can be swayed away from that which they thought they held to. Problem solved!

As well, since the person coming from a Presbyterian form of government has made a vow to submit to the leadership, a membership transfer would be in order. Possibly Piper doesn't understand this. There should be a referral from the sending Presbyterian session to the receiving church. I don't believe that the sending church would in right conscience transfer a membership for a person that is Presbyterian (outside of providential hinderance) to become a member in a credo church.


----------

