# Piper Proposes Allowing Paedobaptist Members



## Fly Caster

What the Elders Are Proposing

Any thoughts on this?


----------



## wsw201

It is interesting that that will accept those who have been baptized as infants, but will they go the rest of the way and begin baptizing infants since they have no problem with infant baptism?


----------



## ChristianasJourney

Perhaps the difference lies in the heart of the believer --

A believer coming to me, professing his belief and acknowledging his baptisim, even though done as an infant seems different to me, than two parents who want to baptize their infant and have the child accepted into the church. In one case I'm bending the rules, in the other I'm changing my theology.


----------



## crhoades

slippery slope


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Fly Caster_
> What the Elders Are Proposing
> 
> Any thoughts on this?


----------



## Me Died Blue

Finalization of old news, in a way...see the third and fourth posts down on this page.



> _Originally posted by ChristianasJourney_
> Perhaps the difference lies in the heart of the believer --
> 
> A believer coming to me, professing his belief and acknowledging his baptisim, even though done as an infant seems different to me, than two parents who want to baptize their infant and have the child accepted into the church. In one case I'm bending the rules, in the other I'm changing my theology.



If baptism and visible Church membership are given their biblical weight, the former is no less a change in one's theology than the latter, as it is a definite change in someone's answer to one of the following two questions: 1) "Is it biblically _possible_ for an infant baptism to be sufficient to consider someone a _truly baptized_ member of the visible Church?" or 2) "Beyond a profession of faith, are the biblical requirements for true membership in the visible Church any narrower than the biblical requirements for true membership in the invisible Church?" Bethlehem seems to be changing their theology on the _second_ of those questions, now answering in the negative.

[Edited on 9-9-2005 by Me Died Blue]


----------



## Herald

*Piper\'s Envelope*

...once more into the breech...

Here we go again.... 

From the Baptist perspective the issue is believers baptism. It is a common practice among Baptist churches to accept prior baptism by immersion from other like-minded churches. The problem with Bethlehem Baptist Church accepting prior paedobaptism is that the majority of paedobaptisms occur prior to a child having a cognitive ability to understand the gospel. While this presents no problems to those who adhere to paedobaptism, it is an inconsistency with typical Baptist belief. I would rather Bethlehem Baptist Church accept paedobaptism completely than to hold to believers baptism by immersion while not questioning someone who was baptized as an infant in the past. It is a mish-mosh and confusing.

[Edited on 9-9-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> slippery slope


----------



## Scott Bushey

I don't see a problem from their perspective; however, if a paedobaptist does not have the conviction to attach him/herself to a Presbyterian covenant community, I would really wonder if they are truly paedobaptist.


----------



## Herald

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> I don't see a problem from their perspective; however, if a paedobaptist does not have the conviction to attach him/herself to a Presbyterian covenant community, I would really wonder if they are truly paedobaptist.



Scott - I agree. It is a doctrinal distinctive that Baptists do not practice. In my book - you are either in or out. Or as Yoda said, "Do or do not! There is no try!"


----------



## Steve Owen

Just to say that this is not in any way unusual in Britain, and indeed is what my own church practises. It was, of course, the practice of John Bunyan's church.

We will accept into membership (but not leadership) those who make a credible confession of faith, who were baptized as infants and who are reluctant to be re-baptized. The reasoning is that although proper Biblical baptism is important, it is not of the essence of the faith. Therefore we are trying to observe Rom 14:13.

However, if such a brother had infant children, we would gently suggest that if he wished to have them baptized, he should join another church. Those who have joined us on this basis have tended to be elderly refugees from the apostate Church of England.

Such a position does not come from any doubts concerning the correctness of Believer's Baptism, but a desire not to put a stumbling block in front of a weaker brother or sister.

BTW, Scott, there is only one Reformed Presbyterian church within a hundred miles of where I live...........

.........and it is credo-baptist 
[an Ian Paisley church plant]

Martin

[Edited on 9-9-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> BTW, Scott, there is only one Reformed Presbyterian church within a hundred miles of where I live...........
> 
> .........and it is credo-baptist
> [an Ian Paisley church plant]
> 
> Martin
> 
> [Edited on 9-9-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Way to go, Piper. I'm all for a Baptist church dropping Anabaptist tendencies.


----------



## Puritanhead




----------



## Poimen

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Fly Caster_
> What the Elders Are Proposing
> 
> Any thoughts on this?
Click to expand...




It is a great start to bringing the Baptist church(es) in line with the historic Christian faith.


----------



## Larry Hughes

I think it is great news that Dr. Piper is moving in this direction. Like many of us he is wrestling with the issues at hand.

It has to be tough as Dr. Piper himself has said to wonder why many if not most of his "heros" of the faith, Luther, Calvin, Owen, Edwards saw baptism the way they saw it and why they could never be elders/leaders in his church. In the quite of the night that has to make one think regardless of where one falls on the issue. Certainly sinful men are not infallible, but that humble pie slices both ways.

Ldh


----------



## BrianBowman

... with Luther's view on D&R he certainly could not be an elder or deacon under Dr. John Piper.


----------



## Romans922

I really didn't like the cover sheet with the Romans verse. It shows they believe paedobaptists to be of a lesser faith. This seems contradictory because the have allowed Presbyterian pastors preach in their pulpits (J. Ligon Duncan, Phillip Ryken, etc.), recognizing they are ordained ministers of the gospel. Then they say they are of lesser faith or weaker faith. This seems rather contradictory to me.


----------



## Herald

> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> I really didn't like the cover sheet with the Romans verse. It shows they believe paedobaptists to be of a lesser faith. This seems contradictory because the have allowed Presbyterian pastors preach in their pulpits (J. Ligon Duncan, Phillip Ryken, etc.), recognizing they are ordained ministers of the gospel. Then they say they are of lesser faith or weaker faith. This seems rather contradictory to me.



Andrew - I agree with you. Is it enough that we are like-minded on the sovereignty of God? Presbyterians and Calvinistic Baptist are part of the body of Christ. We still maintain some doctrinal distinctives because both groups consider their own positions to be more faithful to the bible. We should maintain dialouge, certainly. But to blend beliefs while contradicting others? I feel it weakens what we do believe. It is also inconsistent. Just my opnion.

[Edited on 9-10-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]


----------



## Steve Owen

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> 
> It is a great start to bringing the Baptist church(es) in line with the historic Christian faith.



I'd sooner be in line with the Biblical Christian faith 

Martin


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> I'd sooner be in line with the Biblical Christian faith
> 
> Martin



Really, Martin? In that case, congratulations on your conversion to the Biblical doctrine of paedobaptism and the covenant inclusion of children!


----------



## Steve Owen

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> I'd sooner be in line with the Biblical Christian faith
> 
> Martin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really, Martin? In that case, congratulations on your conversion to the Biblical doctrine of paedobaptism and the covenant inclusion of children!
Click to expand...


My mind is always open, Joseph.

Just show me that text in 3Corinthians where Paul tells them that they're not baptizing their babies properly.......

Or the chapter in Second Titus where Paul explains the procedure for infant baptism......

And I'm all yours! 

Martin


----------



## biblelighthouse

You have a deal, Martin . . . just as soon as you show me that text in 4th Corinthians where Paul gives an explicit command to give the Lord's Supper to women . . .


----------



## Bryan

I'm happy for this decision but not all the suprised. If someone does a search for stuff on Piper and Baptism on this board it was mentioned a long time ago that this issue was emerging.

I agree with Piper's position on this and to be consistant I would also like to see Presybertian/Dutch Reformed churches allow believers in Cedo-Baptism to join. Won't happen, but I would like to see it. 

Bryan
SDG


----------



## rgrove

I'm not sure I understand why they are doing this. Must be some kind of reason, but at our church we would recommend that they go to one of the excellent reformed paedobaptist churches in the area. I've fellowshipped with the excellent PCA men's biblestudy down the street many times in the past. Love them and would recommend them in an instant. Until I found out there was one lonely 1689 church in the Portland area I was considering going there. I would have done whatever was necessary so that I was officially under the authority of the elders there. If that meant some kind of "lesser membership" or whatever I wouldn't have had a problem with that becuase I would have understood that I was out of line with a major teaching position of the church and it's confession. I personally wouldn't find this to be insulting in any way. There's a couple more PCA on the other side of town and at least one good OPC church that I know of. There are also some good congregational Reformed Paedobaptist churches in the area. I don't understand why someone would want to join a Credobaptist church unless there are extrenuating circumstances. Like distance problems (a problem for Reformed paedos and credos alike unfortunately). But I should expect that there are very good Reformed Paedobaptist churches in Piper's area that (in my opinion) these people should be joining and building up. We should all seek to be under the teaching, preaching and authority of a like-minded Eldership. Now, as I stated, we don't live in a perfect world and if there are distance problems, or some other extrenuating circumstance, then things need to be evaluated. But I still believe they should be encouraged to become members at another good church in the area under normal circumstances (normal meaning there are solid options available to the person, which sadly isn't always the case). 

In the end, at the least, there should be some _serious_ questions asked about why these people aren't seeking membership in a like-minded church before membership is considered.


----------



## BrianBowman

Ron,

Great insights. In fact, it is interesting that in our PCA their are a "handful" of families who don't go along with paedobaptism, yet are still members in good standing. It is my understanding that they go to a Baptist pastor for Baptism in our area once their kids have been Catechized and make a credible profession of the faith to our Elders. Thereafter they are considered communicant members in our PCA congregation.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Bryan_
> I agree with Piper's position on this and to be consistant I would also like to see Presybertian/Dutch Reformed churches allow believers in Credo-Baptism to join. Won't happen, but I would like to see it.



Bryan, 

I believe they already do, don't they? I'm pretty sure any PCA church, for example, would welcome credobaptistic people into membership.


----------



## Romans922

> _Originally posted by Bryan_
> I'm happy for this decision but not all the suprised. If someone does a search for stuff on Piper and Baptism on this board it was mentioned a long time ago that this issue was emerging.
> 
> I agree with Piper's position on this and to be consistant I would also like to see Presybertian/Dutch Reformed churches allow believers in Cedo-Baptism to join. Won't happen, but I would like to see it.
> 
> Bryan
> SDG



Ah, Bryan...they do.


----------



## Bryan

> I'm pretty sure any PCA church, for example, would welcome credobaptistic people into membership.





> IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized





> V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.



Just trying to work this out; If a couple who is Credobaptist was to join a PCA church, then have a child and refuse to have him baptized would they not be committing a great sin by neglecting his/her baptism? Would the PCA church not be forced to discipline the parents for this "great sin", or do they allow exceptions on this point?

Likewise the Dutch Reformed Churches I would assume would definitly be a no go since they do not have exceptions and therefore members must be in agreement with the Heudelberg's question 74? 

Like I said, I'm all for having Padeo/credo baptism have no bearing on membership so if as you say it is the case then I'm glad, but looking at the doctrinal statments I don'understand how that could be the case at this time.

Bryan
SDG


----------



## biblelighthouse

The PCA church in McKinney, TX *currently* has credobaptistic members with children (friends of mine). They are good friends with the church's pastor, and I don't believe there is any discipline going on.

I think this is standard for the PCA. I have never heard of a credo family being disciplined for being credo.

I don't know about the Dutch Reformed churches, though. Someone else will have to answer that.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Joe,
One would would wonder what the divines meant when they used the expression 'great sin' in describing the failure to baptise the children of believers. No where else in the confession do they use this expression (at least, not that I am aware of). If it is a 'great sin', would it not be consistant to deal with the greatness of it by disciplining? If it seems brutal to allow credo members to join , only to immediately administer discipline, I agree. In this, I wonder if it is prudent to allow credo believers membership. There are just too many credo churches available nowadays to sacrifice consistancy in our confession for the sake of just adding another body to our pughs.

My 2 cents


----------



## biblelighthouse

Good point, Scott. I have thought about that too.

Of course the other side of the coin is education. Would you rather a credobaptist just go down to the local baptist church, or would you rather he stay at your church, where he stands a much better chance of learning Biblical Reformed Covenant Theology, proper baptism, etc.?


(By the way, I'm not trying to start a war here . . . I fully recognize that all the paedo-vs.-credo arguments below can be turned right back around on paedos in credo churches. So these observations work both ways, and are not intended to offend anyone.)


It's a tough question. If there were no nearby credo churches to escape to, I'd be more likely to support church discipline in such a case. But these days, it would probably just keep credos from ever joining and learning to appreciate paedo churches.

On the other hand, there is the purity of the church to think about. I wonder how many paedos have been turned away from paedobaptism due to credos in the Presbyterian pews? I really hope there haven't been many.

Anyway, I'm just thinking out loud. Good point, Scott!


----------



## rgrove

Finally, I'm not the only one here who thinks that giving a free pass either way comes at a cost. And is that cost worth it? What does "membership" mean if you can commit what your church's confession calls a "grievous sin" and that's okay? Perhaps the more pertinent question is what does membership mean? 

I've read more on this elsewhere and still think that the best thing for the paedobaptists going to Piper's church is to attend a good Reformed Paedobaptist church in the area. Why won't they go to a church where they will be under the teaching, preaching and authority of like-minded elders? Or is someone here from this area and can attest to there not being any good churches up there for them to attend? I agree that the terminology of the WCF is strongly worded and seems to me to be setting the church up for future problems in the areas of doctrine and unity. In the same breath, Baptist ecclesiology is pretty firm in it's position as well. The way I see it, PCA churches appear to be ignoring some pretty serious language in their confession and credo churches like Piper's are basically throwing Baptist ecclesiology out with the bathwater. I'm not sure I think that's a good idea on either side of the coin.


----------



## biblelighthouse

Then, on the other side of the coin, is the Free Presbyterian Church. They explicitly made it part of their church doctrine to *not* divide over baptism. Here is an excerpt from chapter 6 of their Articles of Faith:


"The Free Presbyterian Church, under Christ the Great King and Head of the Church, realizing that bitter controversy raging around the mode and proper subjects of the ordinance of Christian Baptism has divided the Body of Christ when that Body should have united in Christian love and Holy Ghost power to stem the onslaughts and hell-inspired assaults of modernism, hereby affirms that each member of the Free Presbyterian Church shall have liberty to decide for himself which course to adopt on these controverted issues, each member giving due honour in love to the views held by differing brethren, but none espousing the error of baptismal regeneration." 


Then, in further explanation, they continue on their website:

"We do not undervalue baptism, but we do not want needless division either. We would not wish to be so exclusively Presbyterian that we could find no place for a C. H. Spurgeon just because he strongly adhered to believer's baptism. Nor would we wish to be so Baptistic that we would exclude a Robert Murray M'Cheyne just because he strongly held to baptism for the children of believers."



There is something to be said for this approach.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Then, on the other side of the coin, is the Free Presbyterian Church. They explicitly made it part of their church doctrine to *not* divide over baptism. Here is an excerpt from chapter 6 of their Articles of Faith:
> 
> 
> "The Free Presbyterian Church, under Christ the Great King and Head of the Church, realizing that bitter controversy raging around the mode and proper subjects of the ordinance of Christian Baptism has divided the Body of Christ when that Body should have united in Christian love and Holy Ghost power to stem the onslaughts and hell-inspired assaults of modernism, hereby affirms that each member of the Free Presbyterian Church shall have liberty to decide for himself which course to adopt on these controverted issues, each member giving due honour in love to the views held by differing brethren, but none espousing the error of baptismal regeneration."
> 
> 
> Then, in further explanation, they continue on their website:
> 
> "We do not undervalue baptism, but we do not want needless division either. We would not wish to be so exclusively Presbyterian that we could find no place for a C. H. Spurgeon just because he strongly adhered to believer's baptism. Nor would we wish to be so Baptistic that we would exclude a Robert Murray M'Cheyne just because he strongly held to baptism for the children of believers."
> 
> 
> 
> There is something to be said for this approach.



The approach is antibiblical:

Gen 17:9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. 
Gen 17:10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. 
Gen 17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. 
Gen 17:12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. 
Gen 17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 
Gen 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

Exo 4:25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. 

Antireformed:
V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,[13] yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it;[14] or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[15]

13. Gen. 17:14; Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38; see Luke 7:30
14. Rom. 4:11; Acts 10:2, 4, 22, 31, 45, 47
15. Acts 8:13, 23

Herman Witsius, "Here certainly appears the extraordinary love of our God, in that as soon as we are born, and just as we come from our mother, he hath commanded us to be solemnly brought from her bosom, as it were, into his own arms, that he should bestow upon us, in the very cradle, the tokens of our dignity and future kingdom;...that, in a word, he should join us to himself in the most solemn covenant from our most tender years: the remembrance of which, as it is glorious and full of consolation to us, so in like manner it tends to promote Christian virtues, and the strictest holiness, through the whole course of our lives." (The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, (London, 1868) Volume 3, Book 4, Chapter 18, Page 1219.)

Zacharias Ursinus, "First, all that belong to the covenant and church of God are to be baptized. But the children of Christians, as well as adults, belong to the covenant and church of God. Therefore, they are to be bapÂ­tized, as well as adults. Secondly, those are not to be excluded from baptism to whom the benefit of remission of sins, and of reÂ­generation, belongs. But this benefit belongs to the infants of the church; for redemption from sin, by the blood of Christ, and the Holy Ghost, the author of faith, is promised to them no less than to the adult. Therefore, they ought to be baptized." (Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, (1st American Edition, 1851, Pages 366-367.)

Belgic ch 34

Therefore we detest the error of the Anabaptists, who are not content with the one only baptism they have once received, and moreover condemn the baptism of the infants of believers, who we believe ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant, as the children in Israel formerly were circumcised upon the same promises which are made unto our children. And indeed Christ shed His blood no less for the washing of the children of believers than for adult persons; and therefore they ought to receive the sign and sacrament of that which Christ has done for them; as the Lord commanded in the law that they should be made partakers of the sacrament of Christ's suffering and death shortly after they were born, by offering for them a lamb, which was a sacrament of Jesus Christ. Moreover, what circumcision was to the Jews, baptism is to our children. And for this reason St. Paul calls baptism the circumcision of Christ.

The Heidelberg Catechism, "Q74: Are infants also to be baptized? A74: Yes, for since they, as well as their parents, belong to the covenant and people of God, and through the blood of Christ both redemption from sin and the Holy Ghost, who works faith, are promised to them no less than to their parents, they are also by Baptism, as a sign of the covenant, to be ingrafted into the Christian Church, and distinguished from the children of unbelievers, as was done in the Old Testament by circumcision, in place of which in the New Testament Baptism is appointed. (Lord's Day 27)

John Calvin, "It follows, that the children of believers are not baptized, that they may thereby then become the children of God, as if they had been before aliens to the church; but, on the contrary, they are received into the Church by this solemn sign, since they already belonged to the body of Christ by virtue of the promise." (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4:15:22. cf. 4:16:24)


They are man pleasers and have consorted with the devil. They have left such an issue to liberty of conscience for the sake of unity. They are no longer presbyterian..........

1Th 5:3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.


----------



## rgrove

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> They are man pleasers and have consorted with the devil. They have left such an issue to liberty of conscience for the sake of unity. They are no longer presbyterian..........
> 
> 1Th 5:3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.


----------



## Steve Owen

> They are no longer presbyterian..........



So there's hope for them yet then! 

Martin


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> They are man pleasers and have consorted with the devil. They have left such an issue to liberty of conscience for the sake of unity. They are no longer presbyterian..........
> 
> 1Th 5:3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.




So, let me get this straight . . .

If Charles Spurgeon wanted to preach a message at your church, would you tell him to get lost? How about A.W. Pink? Would you tell him that he's consorting with the devil, and that he has no business preaching the Gospel?

As you know, I am a paedobaptist with conviction. I think covenant baptism is very important. But methinks you have gone way too far. 

The church I go to is baptistic. But instead of jumping ship, I'm hanging in there with my brothers in Christ, trying to make a difference. And I believe there is beginning to be a shift within our local body. I would love to see McKinney Bible Church move to become more like the Free Presbyterian Church. That would be a big improvement! (Of course, if our church would join the PCA, that would be even better, but I digress. . . .)


----------



## turmeric

I think the extenuating circumstance making the paedos want to join Piper's church may be that the pastor is John Piper. He's a pretty charismatic guy. I could be wrong. If I lived in Minneapolis, I'd probably go there, don't know if I'd join, though.

[Edited on 9-14-2005 by turmeric]


----------



## Scott Bushey

I would not let Spurgeon or Pink preach in my pulpit. Would Calvin or the divines approve of allowing the credobaptist into our pulpits? This is not to say that these men are not Christians, or that they have no eternal value; they do. However, as the bible states & the WCF, failure to place the sign on one's children is 'a GREAT sin'. 


As far as you staying with the church you are with Joseph, thats your issue. However, would Calvin have done the same if there were Presbyterian options?

As far as me 'going to far', I hold hands with the reformers. Did they go too far?



[Edited on 9-15-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> I think the extenuating circumstance making the paedos want to join Piper's church may be that the pastor is John Piper. He's a pretty charismatic guy. I could be wrong. If I lived in Minneapolis, I'd probably go there, don't know if I'd join, though.
> 
> [Edited on 9-14-2005 by turmeric]



For a Presbyterian to attach himself to a baptist church when there are presbyterian churches available only shows that the person is not really Presbyterian. He does not understand the covenant............


----------



## rgrove

I might point out that the continental Anabaptists that the Reformers knew of and were addressing in their confessions and writings were very, very different beasts than us 1689ers for example... Some of their language was driven by much of the Anabaptist Christological, Soteriological and Eschatalogical heresies. As well as their pacifism even in the face of Turkish invasion. This isn't to minimize the differences that do remain between Baptist and Congregationalist modifications that came to be the 1689 LCF, but let's be clear who they were directing their wrath towards. Continental Anabaptists who are as theologically offensive to us as they were to Calvin and Luther.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> As far as you staying with the church you are with Joseph, thats your issue. However, would Calvin have done the same if there were Presbyterian options?



Good question. Unfortunately, we will never know the answer.

However, we DO know that Luther didn't initially want to break away from Rome; he wanted to reform it. Ultimately it was Rome that threw _him_ out.

And to go back even farther, consider 1 Corinthians. Many ministers today would sooner start their own churches, rather than have anything to do with such a church. But is this what Paul encouraged? No. The church had many problems, but Paul simply told them to get back to Scripture, obey God, and work things out.

Where does Scripture encourage leaving a church, rather than being holy and encouraging in the one you're in?



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> As far as me 'going to far', I hold hands with the reformers. Did they go too far?



The Trinity-denying Anabaptists were a different crowd. Of course they were rightly shunned.

But were there any "Spurgeons" or "Pinks" in Luther's or Calvin's time?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> Good question. Unfortunately, we will never know the answer.



We do know the answer. Calvin saw the anabaptists as criminal and ran them out of Geneva. I promise you he would not have joined them.



> However, we DO know that Luther didn't initially want to break away from Rome; he wanted to reform it. Ultimately it was Rome that threw _him_ out.



Amo 3:3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed? 

So, you believe God has called you to reform your present church? My question to you is how can you appreciate the preaching when in fact the covenant premise is missing as a component to the preaching thats being done? 



> And to go back even farther, consider 1 Corinthians. Many ministers today would sooner start their own churches, rather than have anything to do with such a church.



I am not saying have nothing to do with them. I am saying that as a presbyterian, one would think that you would see the value in attaching yourself to a covenant community of likeminded believers. There are a lot of things to consider. lawful ordination is an issue. 



> But is this what Paul encouraged? No. The church had many problems, but Paul simply told them to get back to Scripture, obey God, and work things out.



These believers were presbyterian; they were not a mixture of all sorts of denominations trying to _work_ things out.



> Where does Scripture encourage leaving a church, rather than being holy and encouraging in the one you're in?



There are many passages which warn us of error. If I follow this line of thinking I might as well go back to Calvary Chapel.




> The Trinity-denying Anabaptists were a different crowd. Of course they were rightly shunned.
> 
> But were there any "Spurgeons" or "Pinks" in Luther's or Calvin's time?



There are some degrees of difference; granted, the present day reflection does not deny the trinity. However, Calvin was not running them out of geneva because of their antitrinitarianism.

[Edited on 9-15-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## doulosChristou

I believe that those, credo or paedo, who bar believers from the local church over differences concerning water baptism are elevating ecclesiology over soteriology and are guilty of being schismatic.

"Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all." Eph 4:1-6

Having been baptized into one body by the Spirit of God, the redeemed of God share a spiritual bond of unity like no other that has ever been known by man. Even if compared to the bond of marriage, the unity of the communion of saints is intrinsically superlative, being everlasting. The unity of the church, the body of Christ, is as inviolable as is the unity of the Godhead. We who have been genuinely justified by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone are brothers, sharing a common interest in Christ, belonging to the same family of adopted sinners, each possessing varying degrees of light and maturity yet each being sanctified for the benefit of the church of Christ to the glory of God.

In Christ, dC

King Charles II once asked John Owen why he bothered to put himself under the preaching of an uneducated Baptist like Bunyan. Owen replied, "Could I posses the tinker's abilities for preaching, please your majesty, I would gladly relinquish all my learning."


----------



## Puddleglum

Bryan,

Good question! This issue was raised in the OPC several years ago; here's the results of the GA study committe: http://www.opc.org/GA/refuse_bapt.html

Basically, the way the OPC is now, it's up to each session to decide whether or not they will allow credo-baptists to be members. My church does.


----------



## Larry Hughes

My two bits and that's all. And I have no solution. This is a tougher question in our time. For on the one hand compromise for unity is an ever present danger. BUT it does force us to really stay on our toes and define infant baptism without slipping into sloth over it, which is an ever present danger. It is a tough question I've faced on two sides now, formerly credo and now paedeo. When under either convictions, the former and the present, I struggle(d) much and pray(ed) much as to why this is so on the opposite side.

From the ole neutral ground and looking in the present only just to observe the dynamic (yes I understand the artificial limitation this places on one):

From the infant side: Why would a Spurgeon or a Pink more studied than I'll ever dream of being and stronger in the faith than I could fathom not see the truth of covenant baptism?

From the credo side: Why would a Calvin, Luther or Edwards more studied than I'll ever dream of being and stronger in the faith than I could fathom not see the truth of believers only baptism?

Both sides can see this obvious issue in the present. I say in the present because both sides will claim history for their side, although one is on very thin ice.

Luther didn't have a strong covenant theology because of the covenantal approach back then had obscured the Gospel, the covenant had become a works system dreamed up by men. Calvin comes along and picks up the Gospel Luther blazed and reset true covenant structure forth to declare forth stronger rather than obscure the Gospel. Then along come the Anabaptist obscuring it again over the issue of baptism and piety (not unlike Rome but from the reverse angle) for their thought was that the chief evil of Rome was not obscurring the Gospel but the baptism of children. Huh?

The issue seems always to be the Gospel. Paul is instructive to us for Paul allowed circumcision when by not doing it - it became a hinderance to furthering the Gospel. Yet, he called down curses on it in Galatians when circumcision became "another Gospel". This seems to point the same issue out, that the Gospel is primary and ANY teaching that may otherwise be technically accurate, if it is set forth such that it obscures the Gospel of Christ alone, imputed righteousness, then it must be rejected as presented. For the Gospel must stand first and foremost. Hence if a Gospel sign (in truth) becomes a Law sign (by men's inventions) it must be rejected as men have dreamed it up and presented it, and then placed back into it proper perspective.



> However, we DO know that Luther didn't initially want to break away from Rome; he wanted to reform it. Ultimately it was Rome that threw him out



This is a key thing to recognize, Luther didn't actively seek schism or disunity, he waited and God set it forth by Rome divorcing themselves and anathemizing the Gospel, "those who left us...never were of us...". This is contra the Anabaptist (and indepentants today) who sought schism from the beginning and is very telling of their rebellious actions. These type always loath unity but guise it very craftily under "being more biblical". Luther on the other hand saw the hellish error of Rome in obscuring the Gospel, but he did not seek to shatter the church of God, rather he waited and God did the work God wanted done. Hence the difference between an obedient godly servant and a schismatic who sees himself too highly.

That's my two bits,

Ldh


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> I believe that those, credo or paedo, who bar believers from the local church over differences concerning water baptism are elevating ecclesiology over soteriology and are guilty of being schismatic.



Doulos,
You are correct; you state "I believe....". This is key. The question to ask is why did Westminster not see this as schismatic?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

I wouldn't let Spurgeon preach in 'my pulpit' if I were a minister. I don't see how that is schismatic.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Would you let Ian Paisley?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Would you let Ian Paisley?



If Paisley does not hold to the WCF or historic Presbyterianism, I would not.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> Would you rather a credobaptist just go down to the local baptist church, or would you rather he stay at your church, where he stands a much better chance of learning Biblical Reformed Covenant Theology, proper baptism, etc.?



I would not allow them to join. I would take a few months to counsel with them on these very important matters that lead to being in "great sin" with God, and if they accept the teachings of Scripture, then accept them into membership - if they do not, then sadly reject their appeal to membership.

I would send a militant credo-baptist (one who would not change thier view) to a militant credo-baptist church.




> I believe that those, credo or paedo, who bar believers from the local church over differences concerning water baptism are elevating ecclesiology over soteriology and are guilty of being schismatic.



If this is the case, then the apostles are guilty for not allowing Paul to join them after his conversion. If they simply regarded ecclisiology as "non-important" of "less important" then they would have allowed him to join the moment he asked.

[Edited on 9-15-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> If this is the case, then the apostles are guilty for not allowing Paul to join them after his conversion. If they simply regarded ecclisiology as "non-important" of "less important" then they would have allowed him to join the moment he asked.



I seriously doubt that their initial hesitancy with Paul was because they differed with him over ecclesiology. Rather, I think it is much more likely that they were skeptical regarding his conversion. He was after all a fierce persecutor of the church. They may have thought that his "conversion" was just a ploy to find more martyrs.

Here's proof:


> And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but *they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple*. (Acts 9:26)



Thus, I don't think this passage does anything to support your argument.

If they had *believed* Paul was a disciple, then they *would* have accepted him into their membership immediately!




[Edited on 9-15-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## gwine

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that those, credo or paedo, who bar believers from the local church over differences concerning water baptism are elevating ecclesiology over soteriology and are guilty of being schismatic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this is the case, then the apostles are guilty for not allowing Paul to join them after his conversion. If they simply regarded ecclisiology as "non-important" of "less important" then they would have allowed him to join the moment he asked.
> 
> [Edited on 9-15-2005 by webmaster]
Click to expand...


Act 9

26 And when he had come to Jerusalem, he attempted to join the disciples. And they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple. 
27 But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles and declared to them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who spoke to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus.

Perhaps I misunderstand you, but as I understand this the apostles were afraid of Paul because they didn't know for sure that he had been converted. I see nothing about ecclesiology or soteriology. Can you help me out here?


----------



## gwine

One minute too late . . .

Thanks for backing me up, Joseph.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> One minute too late . . .
> 
> Thanks for backing me up, Joseph.



 No problem, my brother. It looks like the Holy Spirit put us both on the same page!


----------



## gwine

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> However, as the bible states & the WCF, failure to place the sign on one's children is 'a GREAT sin'.



I am curious. Can you point me, Scott, to where the Scriptures call the failure to baptize one's children a great sin?


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> However, as the bible states & the WCF, failure to place the sign on one's children is 'a GREAT sin'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am curious. Can you point me, Scott, to where the Scriptures call the failure to baptize one's children a great sin?
Click to expand...


Baptism stands in the same place in the NT as circumcision stood in the OT. And failure to circumcise one's child certainly was a great sin in the OT (cf. Genesis 17:14; Exodus 4:24).


----------



## Steve Owen

> Baptism stands in the same place in the NT as circumcision stood in the OT.


*Prove it!*


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> If they had believed Paul was a disciple, then they would have accepted him into their membership immediately!



You've just proved the point. Paul had to show them he beleived what they beleived, and that his life demonstrated it. They did not jkust opent he door to anyone who professed faith. They were VERY careful.

They didn't. Unity and fellowship were more important until they saw that Paul was actually converted. Your profession must attend the fruit of it. Otherwise, they won't let you into the church. They work together. So you have just reinforced the point I made. The church is the pillar and ground of the truth. Unity at the expense of the truth is not unity. (i.e. soteriology at the exepnse of ecclesiology (in regards to the church) will never pass the "covenant community" test).

Also, the Reformed church cannot be called schismatic if they deny a schismatic into the church. That would be called "discipline."

[Edited on 9-15-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## doulosChristou

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> 
> If they had believed Paul was a disciple, then they would have accepted him into their membership immediately!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've just proved the point. Paul had to show them he beleived what they beleived, and that his life demonstrated it. They did not jkust opent he door to anyone who professed faith. They were VERY careful.
> 
> They didn't. Unity and fellowship were more important until they saw that Paul was actually converted. Your profession must attend the fruit of it. Otherwise, they won't let you into the church. They work together. So you have just reinforced the point I made. The church is the pillar and ground of the truth. Unity at the expense of the truth is not unity. (i.e. soteriology at the exepnse of ecclesiology (in regards to the church) will never pass the "covenant community" test).
> 
> Also, the Reformed church cannot be called schismatic if they deny a schismatic into the church. That would be called "discipline."
> 
> [Edited on 9-15-2005 by webmaster]
Click to expand...


Huh?

Matt, his point is that they were very careful to determine that Paul was genuinely converted before allowing him into the fellowship. How does that bolster your stance? No one is arguing that the church should allow people in who profess Christ but whose lives prove themselves reprobate. Unless the mere conviction of credobaptism in a brother causes you to judge him a reprobate, I don't see the connection at all between not allowing those who are judged to have no interest in Christ into the church and shutting out genuine saints (those who have been baptized into the same unity, the one spiritual body as yourself) who hold to a difference over water baptism. 

Would you excommunicate a brother who was a member of your local church, became convinced of credodobaptism, and yet desired to remain at your church? Would you take him through the steps of Matthew 18 and, if he did not repent of his belief in credobaptism, kick him out of the church, turn him over to Satan, and "let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax-collector"?




[Edited on 9-15-2005 by doulosChristou]


----------



## doulosChristou

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Also, the Reformed church cannot be called schismatic if they deny a schismatic into the church. That would be called "discipline."



So not only must Baptists drop the label Calvinist and Reformed, we must replace these with the label of schismatic even if we are bringing our God-given edificatory gifts and seeking to join your church? From the most censorious and severe a state of mind I can imagine, I could see how one might label a person who withdrew from your church to join a Baptist work a schismatic but I'm perplexed as to how a brother with a hermeneutical difference wishing to unite with you can be guilty of schism. I'm curious. Do you label everyone who holds to an exception to the WCF a schismatic?


----------



## doulosChristou

For the Baptists:

Those of you Baptists who would deny membership to paedos not immersed as believers, I recommend to you a work in case you have not already studied it. It is, to my knowledge, the oldest known work directly on the subject at hand written by a Baptist over three hundred years ago.

_DIFFERENCES IN JUDGMENT ABOUT WATER BAPTISM, NO BAR TO COMMUNION: OR, TO COMMUNICATE WITH SAINTS, AS SAINTS, PROVED LAWFUL._

The context of this writing is an argument going on between Reformed Baptists over the issue of allowing paedobaptists as members into Baptist churches. Bunyan was one of the Baptists who were called "open communion, open membership." (see _Grace Abounding: The Life, Books & Influence of John Bunyan_ a new book on Bunyan's life and theology by David B. Calhoun.) Bunyan's confession of faith made explicit his stance. Two Baptist contemporaries, Mr. T. Paul and Mr. W. Kiffin, wrote a book in response to Bunyan titled _SOME SERIOUS REFLECTIONS ON THAT PART OF MR BUNYAN'S CONFESSION OF FAITH, TOUCHING CHURCH COMMUNION WITH UNBAPTIZED BELIEVERS_. The following work is written in response to these two brothers, answering their objections and vindicating the practice. He goes about proving 5 things:



> 1. I effectually prove, 'That baptism is not the initiating ordinance.'
> 
> 2. I prove, 'That though it was, yet the case may so fall out, that members might be received without it.'
> 
> 3. I prove, 'That baptism makes no man a visible saint, nor giveth any right to church fellowship.'
> 
> 4. I prove, 'That faith, and a life becoming the law of the ten commandments, should be the chief and most solid argument with true churches to receive saints to fellowship.'
> 
> 5. I prove, 'That circumcision in the flesh, which was the entering ordinance of old, was a type of circumcision in the heart.'



The debate taking place between Bunyan and Mr. Paul and Mr. Kiffin has been debated among Baptists for hundreds of years, and the debate goes on today. Both of the Reformed Baptist churches where I have served and have been a member hold to Bunyan's view. It is, nevertheless, the minority view among Baptists. Now that one of the nation's most visible Reformed Baptist churches, Bethlehem Baptist, has come out in favor of "open communion, open membership," it is sure to be a hot topic among Baptists for the next few years. Bunyan's work gives a good overview of the Scripture involved and helps set our current debate among Baptists in its historical framework. 

http://www.johnbunyan.org/text/bun-baptism.htm


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> 
> 
> Baptism stands in the same place in the NT as circumcision stood in the OT.
> 
> 
> 
> *Prove it!*
Click to expand...


Martin,
If you are seeking education, there are a number of excellent books already written on the subject.

[Edited on 9-16-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> If they had believed Paul was a disciple, then they would have accepted him into their membership immediately!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've just proved the point. Paul had to show them he beleived what they beleived, and that his life demonstrated it. They did not just open the door to anyone who professed faith. They were VERY careful.
Click to expand...


Nonsense. They most certainly DID open the door to anyone who professed faith. Paul was a very exceptional case, due to the fact that he had fiercely persecuted the Church.

They were very careful *because* Paul had a reputation for persecuting Christians. Your assumption that they treated all converts like this is unwarranted.

--- Apparently, a bare profession of faith was plenty for the 3000 baptized into the church in Acts 2. There was no time for intensive instruction and question & answer time. All who gladly received Peter's word were brought into the church . . . and it doesn't look like Peter gave a very long sermon. 

--- Also consider the eunuch in Acts 8. Philip required that the eunuch believe in Christ with his whole heart. He did not require the eunuch to sign a form, to make sure he agreed with 27 various points of ecclesiology.

--- In Acts 4:2, Peter and John preached Christ's resurrection from the dead. In Acts 4:4 a couple thousand more people believed this message and joined the church. I don't believe there was any preliminary ecclesiology catechism here.

I could go on, but I won't. The overwhelming Scriptural evidence is that people were admitted into the church, simply because they believed in Jesus, the risen Savior. People professing faith were not held at arm's length indefinitely, until they convinced the elders that they personally held to a perfectly orthodox system of ecclesiology. Such a suggestion is just pure nonsense.

You have taken the exceptional case of Paul, and have desperately tried to eisogete your assumptions into the text. You are correct that the church wanted to know that Paul believed what they believed. But you are incorrect about the extent of belief required. They wanted to be sure that Paul trusted in *Christ*, not in their system of ecclesiology.





> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> 
> Huh?
> 
> Matt, his point is that they were very careful to determine that Paul was genuinely converted before allowing him into the fellowship. How does that bolster your stance? No one is arguing that the church should allow people in who profess Christ but whose lives prove themselves reprobate. Unless the mere conviction of credobaptism in a brother causes you to judge him a reprobate, I don't see the connection at all between not allowing those who are judged to have no interest in Christ into the church and shutting out genuine saints (those who have been baptized into the same unity, the one spiritual body as yourself) who hold to a difference over water baptism.



Amen, Gregory! You and I are on the same page at this particular juncture. Matt is _really stretching_ this text to its breaking point!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> 
> 
> Baptism stands in the same place in the NT as circumcision stood in the OT.
> 
> 
> 
> *Prove it!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Martin,
> If you are seeking education, there are a number of excellent books already written on the subject.
> 
> [Edited on 9-16-2005 by biblelighthouse]
Click to expand...


Joe, I believe he has read plenty on the subject.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _originally posted by doulosChristou _
> I'm curious. Do you label everyone who holds to an exception to the WCF a schismatic?



Yes they do.

But I don't believe all PCA Elders would hold to this point. If Matt, Scott, and the WCF's views are totally correct they would be obligated to follow the WCF and their conclusions.


[Edited on 9-16-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## rgrove

Interesting. I've not been on a board before where so many people recommended others simply read or study more and the other party will certainly come to the same conclusion they have. At least it seems unique compared to the other boards I've been on. Isn't it possible that someone can read more material on your point of view than you have and still honestly disagree? Oh well... Neither her nor there I guess.


----------



## gwine

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by gwine_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> However, as the bible states & the WCF, failure to place the sign on one's children is 'a GREAT sin'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am curious. Can you point me, Scott, to where the Scriptures call the failure to baptize one's children a great sin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Baptism stands in the same place in the NT as circumcision stood in the OT. And failure to circumcise one's child certainly was a great sin in the OT (cf. Genesis 17:14; Exodus 4:24).
Click to expand...


Well, if you accept that premise then those two references would be sufficient.


----------



## gwine

> _Originally posted by rgrove_
> Interesting. I've not been on a board before where so many people recommended others simply read or study more and the other party will certainly come to the same conclusion they have. At least it seems unique compared to the other boards I've been on. Isn't it possible that someone can read more material on your point of view than you have and still honestly disagree? Oh well... Neither her nor there I guess.



Were that it was so easy. Such is the human heart . . .


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by rgrove_
> Interesting. I've not been on a board before where so many people recommended others simply read or study more and the other party will certainly come to the same conclusion they have. At least it seems unique compared to the other boards I've been on. Isn't it possible that someone can read more material on your point of view than you have and still honestly disagree? Oh well... Neither her nor there I guess.



I think that can be a good way to disagree. Oftentimes, other internet fora consist of modern day "Apostle Pauls" who believe that they can decimate any argument from the other side (regardless of which side they are on), being completely ignorant of the centuries of profound believers who have held the opposite opinion.

I'd rather read a giant's treatise anyday over the 10 second musings of a half-baked internet computer-jockey theologian (again, regardless of his position).


----------



## SolaScriptura

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> I'd rather read a giant's treatise anyday over the 10 second musings of a half-baked internet computer-jockey theologian (again, regardless of his position).



Hey! Some of us spend at least 30 seconds!!!


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

I think we are talking past each other.

Ecclesiology is *not * nonsense Jospeh. It is not nonsense to determine whether someone is converted first to allow them to enter the church. That is not a soteriological question, it is an ECCLESIASTICAL question. You are _completely _ missing the point overall. So maybe we are talking past one another.

It would be nonsense to say that the door is open wide, and everyone who wants can come into the covenant community without the ELDERS having convictions of EXACTLY how those members enter the covenant community should be determined (that's not soteriology that's ecclesiology).

My point was not that Paul was a murderer, or converted, or not converted. It was that regardless of the circumstacnes, a simple profession was not enough for the ELDERS of the CHURCH to allow Paul INTO the covenant community. In other words, upon allowing anyone into the church, you must, of necessity deal with ECCLESIOLOGY. That is the entire point of this thread in total. Its not that one is "raising" ecclesiology over salvation (as doulos said), but that in order to "well-order" the church, ECCLESIOLOGY by the ELDERS must be exemplified with every catechumen entering the church, professing or not (such as in the case of infants). 

If you are a Baptist, then you will say that soteriology is the *main * matter of allowing entrance into the church because you are looking for a regenerate membership. For a Peado, it is covenatalism that drives his "entrance" into the church, not simply something soteriology. But one is not exalted above the other. They play different roles for different reasons. One is attending the INVISIBLE church, the other is attending the VISIBLE church. It seems that some are confusing this.

So, nonsense? I don't think so unless you are a hypocritical Baptist in Paedo clothing Jospeh.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> 
> 
> Baptism stands in the same place in the NT as circumcision stood in the OT.
> 
> 
> 
> *Prove it!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Martin,
> If you are seeking education, there are a number of excellent books already written on the subject.
> 
> [Edited on 9-16-2005 by biblelighthouse]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Joe, I believe he has read plenty on the subject.
Click to expand...



I fully recognized that Martin has probably read much on the subject.

I was just being sarcastic. 

If I really thought Martin was ignorant of the arguments linking circumcision with baptism, then I would be happy to explain the link to him. But since I know he already knows the arguments, I gave a sarcastic response. I'm not going to waste my time proving something to him that is already clear from Scripture, and that has already been clearly expounded to him in many books.

Anyway, I did not intend for anyone to take my comment literally. My apologies for making a bad assumption.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> So not only must Baptists drop the label Calvinist and Reformed, we must replace these with the label of schismatic even if we are bringing our God-given edificatory gifts and seeking to join your church?



By definition, Congregationalism is schismatic (see the Independent's "Apologetical Narration" and other documents on this issue). Its impossible to overcome unless you simply redefine the entire nature of the church (which is exactly what Credo theology does). His ecclesiology and mine (WCF ecclesiology) differ GREATLY. (But that is not for this thread)



> From the most censorious and severe a state of mind I can imagine, I could see how one might label a person who withdrew from your church to join a Baptist work a schismatic but I'm perplexed as to how a brother with a hermenuetical difference wishing to unite with you can be guilty of schism. I'm curious.



Don't misunderstand. One said that if I deny his membership in my church, then I am being schismatic. I said that is impossible since he is ALREADY schismatic. He would become unified by adhering to the right order of church government, sacraments, discipline, and sound doctrine as found "in the best Reformed Churches" (WCF, SLC, SSK) if he joined my church under repetance of that "great sin."



> Do you label everyone who holds to an exception to the WCF a schismatic?



Yes, following the Reformed tradition, Calvin, and Westminster. Everyone outside the Reformed church are schismatics to the Church. That does not mean they are not churches (as they would so hold the marks of a true church as we give lenience based on biblical necessity) but demonstrate schism (see any historic Reformed theologian, pastor, or scholar on this point).

That is why the question for a "real" Paedo of allowing a schismatic to continue to hold to their position, but want to join their church anyway, and ALLOW THEM TO, would be impossible if they were really Reformed and Paedo to begin with. Their definitions of the church, covenant, sacraments, etc., are radically different.

JOwen in another thread said this succinctly about allowing a family who was credo into his church:

"Brother, The Presbyterian in me would try and convince them scripturally, allow one year to work things through, and if they still do not see the biblical warrant for covenant children to receive the sign and seal, I would sorrowfully refuse membership." 
(cf. http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=12545#pid177918)

Our BCO does not give me the ability to allow dispensationalism of any kind (of which credo resinates) in the church, or be taught int he church. I would not be able to allow them in.


----------



## Poimen

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> 
> 
> Baptism stands in the same place in the NT as circumcision stood in the OT.
> 
> 
> 
> *Prove it!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Martin,
> If you are seeking education, there are a number of excellent books already written on the subject.
> 
> [Edited on 9-16-2005 by biblelighthouse]
Click to expand...


----------



## BrianBowman

. . . regarding Church memberhsip in our local PCA: A practical and real life example. My wife Anne and I took our membership vows last Sunday afternoon after 14 months of active participation at Peace PCA. This included a 13-week membership class where were introduced to PCA & Reformed distinctives. Here is how the "membership exam" went:

1) Two Elders (currently on Session) came to our home.
2) Anne and I were each ask to share how we came to Faith in Jesus Christ and if we ever had a significant "season of rebellion" since that time.
3) We were asked when and where we each of us were baptized.
4) We were asked if we were members in our former Church (it did not have "membership" formally)
5) Because of our involvement in the Church and the example of our lives, the Elders proceeded to administer our Membership vows. We were told that under some circumstances they would have "stepped outside" to discuss whether or not it could be determined that we were actually believers or not, and to deny Membership if such could *not* be determined (this seems to be in keeping with Matt's deliberation above).
6) Because we were not formally members in another Church we were accepted into Membership on "reaffirmation of faith". Note that Anne and I both had valid Covenant baptisms as infants in the Lutheran Church.

... it was mentioned at some point that these issues are in keeping with the BCO.

[Edited on 9-16-2005 by BrianBowman]

[Edited on 9-16-2005 by BrianBowman]


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> I think we are talking past each other.



At least at certain points, I agree that we have been talking past each other.



> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Ecclesiology is *not * nonsense Jospeh.



I never said that ecclesiology is nonsense. I think ecclesiology is VERY important. 

Rather, I said that your specific argument about Paul was nonsense. You are taking an exceptional case and are trying to make it normative.



> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> It is not nonsense to determine whether someone is converted first to allow them to enter the church. That is not a soteriological question, it is an ECCLESIASTICAL question. You are _completely _ missing the point overall. So maybe we are talking past one another.
> 
> It would be nonsense to say that the door is open wide, and everyone who wants can come into the covenant community without the ELDERS having convictions of EXACTLY how those members enter the covenant community should be determined (that's not soteriology that's ecclesiology).
> 
> My point was not that Paul was a murderer, or converted, or not converted. It was that regardless of the circumstacnes, a simple profession was not enough for the ELDERS of the CHURCH to allow Paul INTO the covenant community. In other words, upon allowing anyone into the church, you must, of necessity deal with ECCLESIOLOGY. That is the entire point of this thread in total. Its not that one is "raising" ecclesiology over salvation (as doulos said), but that in order to "well-order" the church, ECCLESIOLOGY by the ELDERS must be exemplified with every catechumen entering the church, professing or not (such as in the case of infants).



Ok, I see where you are coming from, to an extent. I agree that the question, "who should be admitted into the church?", is an ecclesiastical question. Thus, it is critical for the *elders* of a church to have a proper understanding of ecclesiology, so that they will know who to admit to the church, and who to turn away.

So we agree that ecclesiology is important, and we agree that the decision to admit someone into the church is an ecclesiastical decision.


However, that did not appear to be your point. If I understood you correctly (and it is possible that I didn't), you were not arguing the importance of ecclesiology, and you were not arguing the importance of *elders* holding to correct ecclesiology. Rather, you were suggesting that a person was either accepted into the church, or turned away from it, based on whether he personally agreed with the proper form of ecclesiology. And you were attempting to use Saul of Tarsus as your Scriptural example of this. It is *this* suggestion that I am calling nonsense. 

Is it critical for elders to have Covenant Theology straight, so that they admit the proper people into the church, admitting both faith-professors and their children? Certainly! But should new Christians be turned away from church membership until they personally grasp covenantal ecclesiology? God forbid! 

The ecclesiology of first century elders dictated that they would only permit credible faith-professors into the church, as well as their covenant children.

But the ecclesiology of first century elders did NOT dictate that they would only permit credible eccesiology-professors into the church. Catechism on ecclesiology came AFTER people joined the church, not as a prerequisite for joining.




> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> If you are a Baptist, then you will say that soteriology is the *main * matter of allowing entrance into the church because you are looking for a regenerate membership. For a Peado, it is covenatalism that drives his "entrance" into the church, not simply something soteriology. But one is not exalted above the other. They play different roles for different reasons. One is attending the INVISIBLE church, the other is attending the VISIBLE church. It seems that some are confusing this.



Agreed. These are critical questions for every elder, when determining whether to admit a person into the church. The baptist elder admits a person based on soteriology. The presbyterian elder admits a person based on the covenant.

But *neither* elder should admit a person or turn him away because of that person's failure to understand the ecclesiastical requirements for church admission. A person may mistakenly think the ecclesiastical requirements for church admission are soteriological. Nevertheless, the elders can still admit him to the church for covenantal reasons. That layman's erroneous ecclesiology does not negate his covenantal membership in the church.


One thing is necessary for a person to join the church. Quite another thing is necessary for a person to be a qualified elder. Let's not confuse those two sets of requirements.



> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> So, nonsense? I don't think so unless you are a hypocritical Baptist in Paedo clothing Jospeh.



I pray that the Holy Spirit will convince you to apologize for slandering me with this inflammatory statement. 

Do you really believe I am a hypocrite?

Do you really believe I am a baptist?

Do you really doubt that I am a covenantal paedobaptist?

You should know me better than that by now, Matt.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> I'm not going to waste my time proving something to him that is already clear from Scripture,





I dont' think it is as clear as you wish it to be. Do you know what is clear? The Decalogue is. The command to baptize and partake of the Lords's supper. These are clear. I don't see paedo baptism quiete so clear. Don't presume your ties are air tight. I don't think they are. I am not unintelligent either. You act pretty smug sometimes. Even Einstien didn't know God. We would do better if we prayed more. I am glad you have it all figured out. But it just isn't as simple for someone like me. I allow room for error on both sides of this issue. I don't equate baptism and circumcision so it isn't some great sin. I believe your inferences have fouled you all up. When we get to heaven you will see what I am trying to tell you. I will see more clearly what is going on also.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you label everyone who holds to an exception to the WCF a schismatic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, following the Reformed tradition, Calvin, and Westminster. Everyone outside the Reformed church are schismatics to the Church. That does not mean they are not churches (as they would so hold the marks of a true church as we give lenience based on biblical necessity) but demonstrate schism (see any historic Reformed theologian, pastor, or scholar on this point).
> 
> That is why the question for a "real" Paedo of allowing a schismatic to continue to hold to their position, but want to join their church anyway, and ALLOW THEM TO, would be impossible if they were really Reformed and Paedo to begin with. Their definitions of the church, covenant, sacraments, etc., are radically different.
> 
> JOwen in another thread said this succinctly about allowing a family who was credo into his church:
> 
> "Brother, The Presbyterian in me would try and convince them scripturally, allow one year to work things through, and if they still do not see the biblical warrant for covenant children to receive the sign and seal, I would sorrowfully refuse membership."
> (cf. http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=12545#pid177918)
> 
> Our BCO does not give me the ability to allow dispensationalism of any kind (of which credo resinates) in the church, or be taught int he church. I would not be able to allow them in.
Click to expand...


You have argued above that a person should be denied church membership if they hold to faulty "definitions of the church, covenant, sacraments, etc."

Such a requirement would make it impossible for virtually anyone to be allowed into the church, until they spent years of theological study.

But in Acts 8, I don't see Philip asking the eunuch about covenant theology. I don't see him quizzing him about infant inclusion in the covenant. I don't see him asking for "definitions of the church", and I don't see him giving a lecture on the sacraments, Christ's spiritual presence in the Lord's Supper, etc. --- What do I see? Phillip just makes sure that the eunuch believes in the risen Christ. --- And the same goes for Acts 2, 4, etc. Adults had to profess faith. Then they and their children were baptized into the church. Simple as that.

When an elder goes beyond Scripture, and raises the bar of church membership to an unbiblical level, the result is division and schism. We have no Scriptural warrant to require any more of a person than the apostles did. And they admitted people into the church simply because the people were covenant members. 

And whether a baptist likes it or not, he is a covenant member, and should be admitted to the church on covenantal grounds.

[Edited on 9-16-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> I'm not going to waste my time proving something to him that is already clear from Scripture,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont' think it is as clear as you wish it to be. Do you know what is clear? The Decalogue is. The command to baptize and partake of the Lords's supper. These are clear. I don't see paedo baptism quiete so clear. Don't presume your ties are air tight. I don't think they are. I am not unintelligent either. You act pretty smug sometimes. Even Einstien didn't know God. We would do better if we prayed more. I am glad you have it all figured out. But it just isn't as simple for someone like me. I allow room for error on both sides of this issue. I don't equate baptism and circumcision so it isn't some great sin. I believe your inferences have fouled you all up. When we get to heaven you will see what I am trying to tell you. I will see more clearly what is going on also.
Click to expand...



I think Scripture is much clearer than either you or I think it is.

The problem is not with the clarity of Scripture.

The problem is with our unsanctified hearts.



There are some Biblical issues regarding which you have probably been blessed with "sanctified eyes" to see God's truth.

There are some other Biblical issues regarding which I have probably been blessed with "sanctified eyes" to see God's truth.



I really do believe paedobaptism can be clearly demonstrated from the Scriptures. I think this just happens to be one issue where all baptists need some sanctification.

But on the flip side, if paedobaptism is wrong, then this is one issue where all paedobaptists need some sanctification. So this sword cuts both directions.

In any case, you and I both have some truth, and some error. Let us both diligently speak about God's Word regarding the issues where we believe we see the truth. And let us both pray that the Holy Spirit will clease us from every error.

Neither you nor I are glorified yet. So I'm sure we will both meet a number of theological surprises in Heaven. I can't wait! 


You are my brother in Christ, and I respect you. Please forgive me for coming across as smug. Sometimes there is a fine line between humble confidence and sinful smugness. Please forgive me for crossing that line.

In the service of Christ,
Joseph


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Thanks Joe



By the way... I saw you have a beard now. Good look. You look more sanctified.

[Edited on 9-16-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Herald

> The debate taking place between Bunyan and Mr. Paul and Mr. Kiffin has been debated among Baptists for hundreds of years, and the debate goes on today. Both of the Reformed Baptist churches where I have served and have been a member hold to Bunyan's view. It is, nevertheless, the minority view among Baptists. Now that one of the nation's most visible Reformed Baptist churches, Bethlehem Baptist, has come out in favor of "open communion, open membership," it is sure to be a hot topic among Baptists for the next few years. Bunyan's work gives a good overview of the Scripture involved and helps set our current debate among Baptists in its historical framework.




Greg, thank for the link to this work by Bunyan. Amazing how germane his comments are to the issue at hand. Our church has a keen interest in this matter. We are watching and praying.


----------



## Herald

> I really do believe paedobaptism can be clearly demonstrated from the Scriptures. I think this just happens to be one issue where all baptists need some sanctification. But on the flip side, if paedobaptism is wrong, then this is one issue where all paedobaptists need some sanctification. So this sword cuts both directions.



Joe -

I thank you for your gracious comments. Although you and I would disagree (I am credo), you have made your point known with grace. I have followed your posts in this thread closely. I appreciate your tone and can certainly "see" (as best as one can in via the net) a kind and considerate spirit. This is not to impune the contribution of others. I just find myself intriqued with Joe's insight into this very sticky subject.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> I think the extenuating circumstance making the paedos want to join Piper's church may be that the pastor is John Piper. He's a pretty charismatic guy. I could be wrong. If I lived in Minneapolis, I'd probably go there, don't know if I'd join, though.
> 
> [Edited on 9-14-2005 by turmeric]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For a Presbyterian to attach himself to a baptist church when there are presbyterian churches available only shows that the person is not really Presbyterian. He does not understand the covenant............
Click to expand...


Scott, just for the sake of clarity, as I understand it, there are no Reformed churches in the Minneapolis area right now besides Piper's church. I know the OPC is working on some church plants up there but that's about it.


----------



## matt01

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Bryan_
> I agree with Piper's position on this and to be consistant I would also like to see Presybertian/Dutch Reformed churches allow believers in Credo-Baptism to join. Won't happen, but I would like to see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bryan,
> 
> I believe they already do, don't they? I'm pretty sure any PCA church, for example, would welcome credobaptistic people into membership.
> 
> .........._In another post you wrote......_
> 
> The PCA church in McKinney, TX *currently* has credobaptistic members with children (friends of mine). They are good friends with the church's pastor, and I don't believe there is any discipline going on.
> 
> I think this is standard for the PCA. I have never heard of a credo family being disciplined for being credo.
> 
> I don't know about the Dutch Reformed churches, though. Someone else will have to answer that.
Click to expand...


There may be some PCA churches that allow credobaptistic members to join, but this is hardly the rule. When my wife and I moved from California, where we had been members of Palmdale Reformed Baptist, we ended up attending a PCA plant. We had tried a few baptist churches but found them to be unacceptable. Though we have been faithfully attending this PCA church for close to a year, we will never be allowed to become members. The pastor has made it clear that he would consider us to be in sin if we were to refuse to baptize our children.
Of course at the same time, there are a couple of refugees from baptist congregations who have joined. None of them have children though...

Just to be clear, we attend this church because it is the most biblical church available. If there was a Reformed Baptist congregation with driving distance--the closest is 2.75 hours--we would join them.


----------



## matt01

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Scott, just for the sake of clarity, as I understand it, there are *no Reformed churches in the Minneapolis area right now besides Piper's church*. I know the OPC is working on some church plants up there but that's about it.



To confirm, there is at least one other Reformed church, though it is Reformed Baptist, in the Minneapolis area. I realize that you were probably referring to Reformed Presbyterian congregations...

http://www.prbcmn.org/


----------



## gwine

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> I'm not going to waste my time proving something to him that is already clear from Scripture,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont' think it is as clear as you wish it to be. Do you know what is clear? The Decalogue is. The command to baptize and partake of the Lords's supper. These are clear. I don't see paedo baptism quiete so clear. Don't presume your ties are air tight. I don't think they are. I am not unintelligent either. You act pretty smug sometimes. Even Einstien didn't know God. We would do better if we prayed more. I am glad you have it all figured out. But it just isn't as simple for someone like me. I allow room for error on both sides of this issue. I don't equate baptism and circumcision so it isn't some great sin. I believe your inferences have fouled you all up. When we get to heaven you will see what I am trying to tell you. I will see more clearly what is going on also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think Scripture is much clearer than either you or I think it is.
> 
> The problem is not with the clarity of Scripture.
> 
> The problem is with our unsanctified hearts.
> 
> 
> 
> There are some Biblical issues regarding which you have probably been blessed with "sanctified eyes" to see God's truth.
> 
> There are some other Biblical issues regarding which I have probably been blessed with "sanctified eyes" to see God's truth.
> 
> 
> 
> I really do believe paedobaptism can be clearly demonstrated from the Scriptures. I think this just happens to be one issue where all baptists need some sanctification.
> 
> But on the flip side, if paedobaptism is wrong, then this is one issue where all paedobaptists need some sanctification. So this sword cuts both directions.
> 
> In any case, you and I both have some truth, and some error. Let us both diligently speak about God's Word regarding the issues where we believe we see the truth. And let us both pray that the Holy Spirit will clease us from every error.
> 
> Neither you nor I are glorified yet. So I'm sure we will both meet a number of theological surprises in Heaven. I can't wait!
> 
> 
> You are my brother in Christ, and I respect you. Please forgive me for coming across as smug. Sometimes there is a fine line between humble confidence and sinful smugness. Please forgive me for crossing that line.
> 
> In the service of Christ,
> Joseph
Click to expand...


If Scripture were so clear then we would not have this division. So many great minds have come to opposite conclusions. The more I read about this (and most of my reading is on the paedo side) the more I tend to side with the credo position. It would have been easier if the New Testament would have come right out and said 'go and baptize your children' (I know, I know, you will tell me that it does say that. And I will continue to ask, where exactly are those words?)

After all, Jesus himself told us to wash each other's feet (John 13:14) and Paul reinforces the practice (1 Tim 5:10.) Yet I see no place in the OPC where this is an established practice. Why is this not so, since it seems to be such a direct command? This is not an attempt to hijack the thread but merely to point out how simple it would be if there were a similar verse or passage about infant baptism.

Perhaps I ramble too much but I grieve over the animosity exhibited here, especially from people who should know better. May God have mercy on our sinful hearts.


----------



## rgrove

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Scott, just for the sake of clarity, as I understand it, there are no Reformed churches in the Minneapolis area right now besides Piper's church. I know the OPC is working on some church plants up there but that's about it.


Ahhhh... This is what I was looking for. A city that large and no good PCA, OPC, etc congregations!? That's saddens me...  

If this is true then I understand that they then appear to have the choice of one Calvinist credobaptist church or another. When that is the case then I would agree that the credobaptist churches should extend grace to their brethren. An unfortunate situation, but also one 1689 Baptists know well on the flip side.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> Such a requirement would make it impossible for virtually anyone to be allowed into the church, until they spent years of theological study.



Not true. That's why we have membership classes. If someone submitted to the WCF, whether or not they understood everything perfectly or not, we would THEN allow them into the church. Let's say the membership class is 12 weeks, and we cover all the basics and church order. Harry and Betty in the class were part of a non-denominational church. They want to join. They would be REQUIRED to submit to the teaching of the WCF, FoPCG, WLC, WSC, etc., whether they fully understood them or not.

According to our BCO:

They must relinquish their membership in any and all other churches or denominations since they must have only one ecclesiastical affiliation. (Which menas they are under the jurisdiction and discipline of the Presbytery and Session.)

The session will examine each candidate for communicant membership to assure itself, so far as possible, that the candidate: possess the knowledge requisite for active faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; relies for salvation on the work of Christ; is trusting Christ for salvation; and is determined by the grace of God to lead a Christian life.

Their vows: "In reliance upon God for strength we do solemnly promise to walk together as a Church of Jesus Christ according to the Word of God and the subordinate standards of faith and government..." (This means they hold to the WCF and all standards for the WCF, including the FoPCG, and DPW).

If this were not the case, then they could not join the church. They would be, upon entering the church, rejecting its standards and subsequently, the authority of the elders over them.

[Edited on 9-16-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## doulosChristou

Matt,

How many years separated your own conversion and the point at which you attained to a state in which you could be considered admittable into the visible church according to the bar you set forth above?

dC


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> Matt,
> 
> How many years separated your own conversion and the point at which you attained to a state in which you could be considered admittable into the visible church according to the bar you set forth above?
> 
> dC



  


Apparently you have to read 1,000,000 pages of Puritan literature first.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> Matt,
> 
> How many years separated your own conversion and the point at which you attained to a state in which you could be considered admittable into the visible church according to the bar you set forth above?
> 
> dC



Again, I think you are misunderstanding. Let me rephrase - first you would need a uniform definition of the visible church and waht that means. I will assume you are talking about the Presbyterian / Reformed Church. After that is established, then we would ask the question: "How many years separated your own conversion and the point at which you attained to a state in which you could be considered admittable into the Presbyterian / Reformed church according to the bar you set forth above?" That is a different question. If you asked me, "Matt, do you think I am in a true chruch?" I would ask whether your church meets the requirement of the 3 marks of the church (doctrine, sacraments, discipline). If "yes" then I would say you are in a true church, though your church is not "well" as in "the well-being" of the church. Now the question progressed further, or rather jumped fruther, toward having a Credo-baptist as a member of a Presbyterian or Reformed Church. As I answered with the BCO, we would not allow it for the reasons already explain in my above post. That does not mena that the person was not part of a true church (though schismatic) or is not a beleiver. Rather, I think you are confusing, or medling together, how ecclesiology and soteriology relate in admission into the church.

To answer your question based on that clarification, I would say that I was a member of a true church, but I repented of my schismatism and have embraced a well-ordered ecclesiology. Did that take some time? Certainly. But that should never be used as an excuse. If you have elders that know what they are talking about, then this is a completely moot point because EVERY admission or communicant member allowed into the church would be taught correctly about these matters first off. It is a sad thing it is not taught today. In one of our old churches, you did not even need to believe in the doctrines of grace to get into the church. The doors were WIDE open. They thought that by allowing "anything in" so long as they "professed Christ" that it was admissable. 

Jospeh, as you can see, it has little to do with how many Puritans one reads. Rather, it is a matter of juridictional and ecclesiastical authority of the session and presbytery and the Divine Right of Christ as One that places a certain ordering and authority over the church.

If a Baptist wanted to join a Presbyterian church, then they would need to repent of their old views, give up any jurisdiction that once was laid on them by a faulty form of government, and embrace the new views, even if they did not fully understand everything.

In Piper's church, if he is allowing Paedos to join, then 1) those peados are Congregationalists, not Presbyterians, and 2) they remain schismatic. Switching to "covenant theology" does not make one ecclesiatically sound. It may make one partially covenatally sound, but that is only a portion of the battle.

I hope that is more clear.

Also, by way of clarity, you said, "according to the bar you set forth above?" I'm not actually setting that bar. That is the polity of Presbyterianism / Reformed Government based on exegetical work. I'm just parroting the message and the messenger (who is often shot).

[Edited on 9-16-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## Archlute

Gerry,

When you took your membership vows before the Lord and His Church you vowed that you would "agree to submit in the Lord to the government of this church and, in case you should be found delinquent in doctrine or life, to heed its discipline" (DPW V:5). According to our church's doctrinal standards, disavowing covenantal baptism is one of those doctrinal errors (WCF XXVIII.4-5, and WLC Q.165-66 & 176-77). 

As a brother in Christ, I urge that you seek counsel and instruction with the elders of your congregation if these doubts continue, or if you need to clarify the issues. As we see it, it is a matter of importance for the health of the church, and your elders are responsible before God to maintain that health. Don't allow board conversations (or private reading, for that matter) to plant doubt in your mind with faulty arguments. Your elders have been given by Christ to defend the flock from doctrinal corruption, go to them first.

[Edited on 9-16-2005 by Archlute]


----------

