# Whatever became of Piper's desire to allow Paedos to partake of Communion



## SolaScriptura

I never hear the outcome... Some have told me that Bethlehem Baptist Church amended its constitution and bylaws to allows folks who have a credible profession of fatih and were baptized as infants to have some limited membership so that they can partake of communion... but I thought I read that the elders backed off it and Piper, in submission to the elders, agreed to stop pushing for it.

What happened?


----------



## raekwon

SolaScriptura said:


> I never hear the outcome... Some have told me that Bethlehem Baptist Church amended its constitution and bylaws to allows folks who have a credible profession of fatih and were baptized as infants to have some limited membership so that they can partake of communion... but I thought I read that the elders backed off it and Piper, in submission to the elders, agreed to stop pushing for it.
> 
> What happened?



That's pretty much it, as far as I know. I don't think that the issue has been revisited since Piper's fellow elders shot it down.


----------



## Herald

The last I read was that Piper did back off his attempt at allowing paedos to join Bethlehem Baptist Church. I am not sure what their practice is regarding communion. Some Baptist churches announce, "The Lord's table is open to all who have been scripturally baptized..." They don't go further than this. A visiting paedo will consider themselves scripturally baptized and partake. Unless the credo pastor or elder _specifically_ mentions believers baptism, this is likely to be the case.


----------



## Turtle

Herald said:


> The last I read was that Piper did back off his attempt at allowing paedos to join Bethlehem Baptist Church. I am not sure what their practice is regarding communion. Some Baptist churches announce, "The Lord's table is open to all who have been scripturally baptized..." They don't go further than this. A visiting paedo will consider themselves scripturally baptized and partake. Unless the credo pastor or elder _specifically_ mentions believers baptism, this is likely to be the case.



I had a very trying experience, because of my baptism, when I considered joining a reformed baptist church. I was sprinkled in my teens after making a profession of faith. So in essence the mode in which I was baptized was the only issue that precluded my joining. Needless to say it caused no shortage of feelings of being cast out.

I desired to be obedient to the elders but my conscience prevented so I refused to be baptized again unless I was convinced of the scriptures. I suffered the result. After reading many books from various camps I remained unconvinced and was satisfied that baptism hadn't been crucified for me so I wouldn't worry about it. *(To be specific, what gave me piece was the realization that Chris was baptized, and I am sure He did it correctly. If I was sinning in the manner in which I was baptized, then that was one more sin He covered over with His righteousness!)* Several years later, while not even looking for answers to baptism, the scriptures shouted out the answer. 

It was a marvelous lesson, we have a book that sheds a lot of light on commentaries and camps of thought!


----------



## ww

Turtle said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> The last I read was that Piper did back off his attempt at allowing paedos to join Bethlehem Baptist Church. I am not sure what their practice is regarding communion. Some Baptist churches announce, "The Lord's table is open to all who have been scripturally baptized..." They don't go further than this. A visiting paedo will consider themselves scripturally baptized and partake. Unless the credo pastor or elder _specifically_ mentions believers baptism, this is likely to be the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had a very trying experience, because of my baptism, when I considered joining a reformed baptist church. I was sprinkled in my teens after making a profession of faith. So in essence the mode in which I was baptized was the only issue that precluded my joining. Needless to say it caused no shortage of feelings of being cast out.
> 
> I desired to be obedient to the elders but my conscience prevented so I refused to be baptized again unless I was convinced of the scriptures. I suffered the result. After reading many books from various camps I remained unconvinced and was satisfied that baptism hadn't been crucified for me so I wouldn't worry about it. Several years later, while not even looking for answers to baptism, the scriptures shouted out the answer.
> 
> It was a marvelous lesson, we have a book that sheds a lot of light on commentaries and camps of thought!
Click to expand...


So what's the answer?


----------



## Herald

whitway said:


> Turtle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> The last I read was that Piper did back off his attempt at allowing paedos to join Bethlehem Baptist Church. I am not sure what their practice is regarding communion. Some Baptist churches announce, "The Lord's table is open to all who have been scripturally baptized..." They don't go further than this. A visiting paedo will consider themselves scripturally baptized and partake. Unless the credo pastor or elder _specifically_ mentions believers baptism, this is likely to be the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had a very trying experience, because of my baptism, when I considered joining a reformed baptist church. I was sprinkled in my teens after making a profession of faith. So in essence the mode in which I was baptized was the only issue that precluded my joining. Needless to say it caused no shortage of feelings of being cast out.
> 
> I desired to be obedient to the elders but my conscience prevented so I refused to be baptized again unless I was convinced of the scriptures. I suffered the result. After reading many books from various camps I remained unconvinced and was satisfied that baptism hadn't been crucified for me so I wouldn't worry about it. Several years later, while not even looking for answers to baptism, the scriptures shouted out the answer.
> 
> It was a marvelous lesson, we have a book that sheds a lot of light on commentaries and camps of thought!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what's the answer?
Click to expand...


Well, since Turtle is a member of a PCA church, I suppose the baptism issue became moot.


----------



## Herald

If you're a Presbyterian, and you seek to join an RB church, don't be shocked if they require you to be baptized upon your profession of faith. No Baptist is going to put a gun to your head and force you to join. You can disagree with RB practice all you want. But if you're a paedo, why would you want to join an RB church?


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist

I know of a family who was Presbyterian but became active in a Reformed Baptist church. I asked a friend of theirs (shortly after they started attending) what they thought about having to be rebaptized, and the friend said "Hm. I don't know if they've considered this."

A couple years later, they left because of the rebaptism requirement. This is why I could never _join_ an RB church - like the poster above, I was sprinkled as a teenager.


----------



## Herald

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> I know of a family who was Presbyterian but became active in a Reformed Baptist church. I asked a friend of theirs (shortly after they started attending) what they thought about having to be rebaptized, and the friend said "Hm. I don't know if they've considered this."
> 
> A couple years later, they left because of the rebaptism requirement. This is why I could never _join_ an RB church - like the poster above, I was sprinkled as a teenager.



You mean they left because of the _baptism_ requirement. 

Sorry. Had to represent the Baptist perspective.


----------



## Herald

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> I know of a family who was Presbyterian but became active in a Reformed Baptist church. I asked a friend of theirs (shortly after they started attending) what they thought about having to be rebaptized, and the friend said "Hm. I don't know if they've considered this."
> 
> A couple years later, they left because of the rebaptism requirement. This is why I could never _join_ an RB church - like the poster above, I was sprinkled as a teenager.



Actually, that is a good reason to leave. If you consider the Baptist view of baptism to be rebaptism, then you have no business being there unless it is the only church in the area.


----------



## Scott1

This is why it is important to have a confession of faith that defines doctrine, binds unity, and is used for accountability.

Regardless of one's view on this issue, having a confession can define this, not leave it up to the subjective doctrinal evaluation of a leader(s) at a given point in time.

This is one of the advantages we have in reformed theology, broadly speaking. At a minimum, we are defined by:

doctrines of grace ("five points") + covenant theology + confession

In reformed theology, unity is grounded on doctrinal agreement and the church is a community covenanted together to serve God in this world. It is not this way in "broad" evangelicalism.

As charitably and broadly as we can define reformed theology, it cannot be less than this. A confession of faith is a basis of unity and accountability on doctrines like this, and visitors, regular attenders, members and officers must be able to know that.


----------



## Herald

Scott1 said:


> This is why it is important to have a confession of faith that defines doctrine, binds unity, and is used for accountability.
> 
> Regardless of one's view on this issue, having a confession can define this, not leave it up to the subjective doctrinal evaluation of a leader(s) at a given point in time.
> 
> This is one of the advantages we have in reformed theology, broadly speaking. At a minimum, we are defined by:
> 
> doctrines of grace ("five points") + covenant theology + confession
> 
> In reformed theology, unity is grounded on doctrinal agreement and the church is a community covenanted together to serve God in this world.
> 
> As charitably and broadly as we can define reformed theology, it cannot be less than this. A confession of faith is a basis of unity and accountability on doctrines like this, and visitors, regular attenders, members and officers must be able to know that.



Scott, excellent point. As I'm teaching through the 1689 LBC in Sunday school, it's obvious that many members have never wrestled with these doctrines. I've heard comments such as, "Now that makes sense." Or, "I wonder why we believe that way."


----------



## smhbbag

I have yet to see any sense in a Reformed Baptist position that would refuse membership and/or the Lord's Table to our (theologically) closest Christian brothers.

I would sooner refuse these things over the Doctrines of Grace than I would over agreement on credobaptism.


----------



## Turtle

whitway said:


> So what's the answer?



Well, of course I won't tell you the answer! 

But I will tell you that my PCA pastor offered to have me immersed, sprinkle or poured. 


I will of course tell you the verse that broke the log jam for me though. You will notice that in the first chapter of John, John the Baptist has been causing quite stir in the town so a delegation of the Pharisees was sent out to enquire if he was the Christ. He of course said that he was not. The Pharisees became exasperated. Why?

Well John the baptist was baptizing (which is no surprise for us) but obviously the fact that he was baptizing meant a big deal to them. It meant that he had to be the Christ. John 1:25.

So, baptism must be able to be defined from the old testament.

If you can find the verses that the Pharisees used to identify Christ as the one who would be baptizing then you have it.

But, I can tell you that I don't feel the need to reject any of the modes.


----------



## Hippo

Turtle said:


> But, I can tell you that I don't feel the need to reject any of the modes.



Refusing the sacraments on the basis of mode is blatant sectarianism.


----------



## Zenas

What if I was baptized as a heathen on a false profession of faith but I will baptize my kids. Is that a sufficient "believer's baptism"?


----------



## lshepler412

Herald said:


> If you're a Presbyterian, and you seek to join an RB church, don't be shocked if they require you to be baptized upon your profession of faith. No Baptist is going to put a gun to your head and force you to join. You can disagree with RB practice all you want. But if you're a paedo, why would you want to join an RB church?


Sometimes people have to relocate and there is no Reformed/Presbyterian Church. That is why they might want to join a RB.


----------



## Scott1

Turtle said:


> whitway said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what's the answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, of course I won't tell you the answer!
> 
> But I will tell you that my PCA pastor offered to have me immersed, sprinkle or poured.
> 
> 
> I will of course tell you the verse that broke the log jam for me though. You will notice that in the first chapter of John, John the Baptist has been causing quite stir in the town so a delegation of the Pharisees was sent out to enquire if he was the Christ. He of course said that he was not. The Pharisees became exasperated. Why?
> 
> Well John the baptist was baptizing (which is no surprise for us) but obviously the fact that he was baptizing meant a big deal to them. It meant that he had to be the Christ. John 1:25.
> 
> So, baptism must be able to be defined from the old testament.
> 
> If you can find the verses that the Pharisees used to identify Christ as the one who would be baptizing then you have it.
> 
> But, I can tell you that I don't feel the need to reject any of the modes.
Click to expand...


In the Old Testament, God's people (Israel) did baptize. If a non-Israelite converted, he had to be baptized (cleansed) to be admitted to Israel.

This is what was so outrageous to the Jews who heard John tell them they, as sons and daughters of Jacob, had to be baptized, when they were already in the covenant (they thought). They thought only "unclean" gentiles, outside the covenant community of Israel had to be baptized.

So, what was their mode in the Old Testament? I'm not sure, somebody here will know.


----------



## Herald

smhbbag said:


> I have yet to see any sense in a Reformed Baptist position that would refuse membership and/or the Lord's Table to our (theologically) closest Christian brothers.
> 
> I would sooner refuse these things over the Doctrines of Grace than I would over agreement on credobaptism.



Jeremy, I wish it was as simplistic as you make it seem. The RB view of baptism is rooted in scriptural command, and the view of the New Covenant. Those two are inexorably linked in RB structure. The 1689 LBC is very clear on the nature of the covenant, and the ordinance of baptism. If a paedo cannot in good conscience submit to this teaching they should not seek to join a confessional Baptist church.

Is there room for exception? Yes. I believe there is. Say you are a paedo and you move to an area where there is no paedo church. The only church is a Baptist church. A sit down with the pastor and elders would be in order to inform them of your doctrinal convictions. It is quite possible that the pastor and elders could be convinced to receive a brother into fellowship based on these circumstances so long as he agrees not to teach contrary to what the church believes. Is that normative? No. Most members of the PB live in an area where they have the luxury of which church to attend. 

The 1689 LBC does not prohibit paedos from partaking of the Lord's Supper. My _personal conviction_ is that they should be allowed to partake. They are members of the body of Christ, and therefore, should be allowed to the table.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Wow. I asked a simple question about the status of a particular church's position on their membership requirements and it spawned this.


----------



## Herald

SolaScriptura said:


> Wow. I asked a simple question about the status of a particular church's position on their membership requirements and it spawned this.


----------



## Herald

Herald said:


> smhbbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have yet to see any sense in a Reformed Baptist position that would refuse membership and/or the Lord's Table to our (theologically) closest Christian brothers.
> 
> I would sooner refuse these things over the Doctrines of Grace than I would over agreement on credobaptism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremy, I wish it was as simplistic as you make it seem. The RB view of baptism is rooted in scriptural command, and the view of the New Covenant. Those two are inexorably linked in RB structure. The 1689 LBC is very clear on the nature of the covenant, and the ordinance of baptism. If a paedo cannot in good conscience submit to this teaching they should not seek to join a confessional Baptist church.
> 
> Is there room for exception? Yes. I believe there is. Say you are a paedo and you move to an area where there is no paedo church. The only church is a Baptist church. A sit down with the pastor and elders would be in order to inform them of your doctrinal convictions. It is quite possible that the pastor and elders could be convinced to receive a brother into fellowship based on these circumstances so long as he agrees not to teach contrary to what the church believes. Is that normative? No. Most members of the PB live in an area where they have the luxury of which church to attend.
> 
> The 1689 LBC does not prohibit paedos from partaking of the Lord's Supper. My _personal conviction_ is that they should be allowed to partake. They are members of the body of Christ, and therefore, should be allowed to the table.
Click to expand...


I need to correct my last statement. I'm not sure what I believe regarding paedos partaking of the Lord's Supper. My statement was made more out of personal feeling than conviction. It is something I am still working on.


----------



## DMcFadden

Church membership involves an affirmation of the particular confessional constraints of that community. This is a smaller circle than that of true Christians. Membership in a RB or Presbyterian church is not the same as salvation. I always invited all professing believers in fellowship with their Christian church to participate in the Lord's Supper.


----------



## smhbbag

> Jeremy, I wish it was as simplistic as you make it seem. The RB view of baptism is rooted in scriptural command, and the view of the New Covenant. Those two are inexorably linked in RB structure. The 1689 LBC is very clear on the nature of the covenant, and the ordinance of baptism. If a paedo cannot in good conscience submit to this teaching they should not seek to join a confessional Baptist church.



Agreed, including on the last sentence in normal circumstances.

My point is that even though the paedo should not seek membership at an RB church if there are paedo churches around....this does not necessitate that membership should be denied by the RB church. 



> Is there room for exception? Yes. I believe there is. Say you are a paedo and you move to an area where there is no paedo church. The only church is a Baptist church. A sit down with the pastor and elders would be in order to inform them of your doctrinal convictions. It is quite possible that the pastor and elders could be convinced to receive a brother into fellowship based on these circumstances so long as he agrees not to teach contrary to what the church believes. Is that normative? No. Most members of the PB live in an area where they have the luxury of which church to attend.



Pretty much agreed here, as well.



> The 1689 LBC does not prohibit paedos from partaking of the Lord's Supper. My personal conviction is that they should be allowed to partake. They are members of the body of Christ, and therefore, should be allowed to the table.



Agreed again.

My, shall we say, strongest distaste is for those who would deny the LS even to visiting paedos, and that in fact appears to be the majority in my experience. This includes my own congregation.

I would recognize that elders should discourage a Presbyterian joining if there were a reasonably solid paedo church around, for his own conscience sake if nothing else. But, with the caveat that he never teach against the RB position, I could not see a justification to refuse membership. 

Your very last sentence is the heart of it for me. If one is in Christ, with a serious, thoughtful, and lived-out confession of saving faith, then no Bible-believing church has the authority to refuse the Lord's Supper nor, in my mind, membership. Though, as said, the latter may be discouraged or counseled against, but not refused. If accepted to membership, the elders do have full authority to limit what he advocates to others in the church setting, and would be wise to have disciplinary standards for the member's disobedience on that point.


----------



## Mushroom

That one, last, ever-so-small vestige of autonomy is hard to give up, ain't it?


----------



## Turtle

..the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. With them they sent the following letter: 

The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.

Acts 15


----------



## smhbbag

> That one, last, ever-so-small vestige of autonomy is hard to give up, ain't it?



To what do you refer?


----------



## Ivan

dmcfadden said:


> church membership involves an affirmation of the particular confessional constraints of that community. This is a smaller circle than that of true christians. Membership in a rb or presbyterian church is not the same as salvation. I always invited all professing believers in fellowship with their christian church to participate in the lord's supper.



_*Amen!*_


----------



## OPC'n

Herald said:


> If you're a Presbyterian, and you seek to join an RB church, don't be shocked if they require you to be baptized upon your profession of faith. No Baptist is going to put a gun to your head and force you to join. You can disagree with RB practice all you want. But if you're a paedo, why would you want to join an RB church?



That's a very valid point. As a Presbyterian I wouldn't want to join a RB, however, I don't see how either side can bar the other from the Lord's Supper. The disciples were not yet baptized before they partook of the Lord's Supper when viewed through the lens of the credo. Baptism before the death and resurrection of Christ would line up more with the Paedo's lens of baptism...in my opinion but I could be very wrong even according to my own denomination. I've never encountered a church who would bar a Presbyterian from the Lord's Supper so I've never had to look into the timing of the disciple's baptism.


----------



## Herald

sjonee said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're a Presbyterian, and you seek to join an RB church, don't be shocked if they require you to be baptized upon your profession of faith. No Baptist is going to put a gun to your head and force you to join. You can disagree with RB practice all you want. But if you're a paedo, why would you want to join an RB church?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a very valid point. As a Presbyterian I wouldn't want to join a RB, however, I don't see how either side can bar the other from the Lord's Supper. The disciples were not yet baptized before they partook of the Lord's Supper when viewed through the lens of the credo. Baptism before the death and resurrection of Christ would line up more with the Paedo's lens of baptism...in my opinion but I could be very wrong even according to my own denomination. I've never encountered a church who would bar a Presbyterian from the Lord's Supper so I've never had to look into the timing of the disciple's baptism.
Click to expand...


I wonder how much of the resistance there is in allowing a paedo to partake of the Lord's supper is justified on the basis of theology or practice. 

There is a former member of the PB who, although he is a paedo, attended a credo church. There was no lack of paedo churches in his area. He remained in the credo church because he had a close relationships with other believers, and he was actively working to change the church to the paedo view. He was engaging in dialog with the pastor and elders over that very thing. He left the PB years ago, so I'm not sure how that whole affair played out. That is a fear in the mind of some Baptist churches. Some paedos are concerned about the same thing. Too many individuals join who hold to the opposite view of baptism, and it there is a fear it will threaten the core principles of the church itself. Unfounded fear? Possibly. But these things have happened, and they're not always pretty. 

Last night I looked at the 1689 LBC and could not find a prohibition against administering the Lord's Supper to a paedo. One defense I can imagine would be from this part of the confession:



> 1689 LBC 30.8 All ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Christ, so are they unworthy of the Lord's table, and cannot, without great sin against him, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto; yea, whosoever shall receive unworthily, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, eating and drinking judgment to themselves.


Some churches may consider a paedo to be in unrepentant sin by holding a view on baptism that is contrary to scripture. But lest we skewer Baptists solely with this charge, it can go both ways. Is this what the framers of the confession had in mind? I don't think so. We all have some degree of imperfect doctrine. We misunderstand God continually, and we're not always aware of it. If we partake of the Lord's Supper, unaware that we may have a doctrinal view that is antithetical to scripture, are we guilt of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ? No. God's mercy and grace is sufficient to cover our ignorance. It's quite another matter when we are aware of our sin, or have been brought under church discipline, and refuse to repent.

Ben, I know you didn't expect this thread to take these twists and turns, but I think it is a profitable conversation.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

This is case where I agree with Mark Dever.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Since we're all saying what we think...

If I was a Baptist pastor, I'd think that those who were baptized as infants were not in fact baptized. And as such, while they may be genuine believers, they are sinning by not being baptized. As such, if I was a Baptist pastor I would, when fencing the table, exclude them from it. Regardless of how they feel.

If I was a Presbyterian pastor, I'd think that those who refused to baptize their infants are clearly living in open and unrepentant sin. And as such, I'd caution them against partaking of the Lord's supper. Regardless of their opinion on the subject.

Praise God I'm an Army Chaplain.


----------



## Herald

> Praise God I'm an Army Chaplain.



You're given some wiggle room there, aren't you?


----------



## SolaScriptura

Herald said:


> Praise God I'm an Army Chaplain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're given some wiggle room there, aren't you?
Click to expand...


Yep. I focus on trust_ing_ in Christ alone for salvation (as opposed to having made a decision at one time in the past). But I do believe baptism is a prerequisite, so I say, "... if you've been biblically baptized..." and I leave it to their conscience as to what precisely that means in terms of infant baptism or credo-only-baptism, etc.


----------



## KMK

SolaScriptura said:


> Since we're all saying what we think...
> 
> If I was a Baptist pastor, I'd think that those who were baptized as infants were not in fact baptized. And as such, while they may be genuine believers, *they are sinning by not being baptized*. As such, if I was a Baptist pastor I would, when fencing the table, exclude them from it. Regardless of how they feel.
> 
> If I was a Presbyterian pastor, I'd think that those who refused to baptize their infants are clearly *living in open and unrepentant sin*. And as such, I'd caution them against partaking of the Lord's supper. Regardless of their opinion on the subject.



I've never understood this. How can a man who is following his conscience, following the counsel of his elders, and following Scripture as he understands it, be labeled as, "clearly living in open and unrepentant sin"?


----------



## SolaScriptura

KMK said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since we're all saying what we think...
> 
> If I was a Baptist pastor, I'd think that those who were baptized as infants were not in fact baptized. And as such, while they may be genuine believers, *they are sinning by not being baptized*. As such, if I was a Baptist pastor I would, when fencing the table, exclude them from it. Regardless of how they feel.
> 
> If I was a Presbyterian pastor, I'd think that those who refused to baptize their infants are clearly *living in open and unrepentant sin*. And as such, I'd caution them against partaking of the Lord's supper. Regardless of their opinion on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never understood this. How can a man who is following his conscience, following the counsel of his elders, and following Scripture as he understands it, be labeled as, "clearly living in open and unrepentant sin"?
Click to expand...



Because they're ALL wrong - his conscience, his elders, his understanding of Scripture - everything. What matters is my group's understanding. See, if my group is administering it, then WE get to decide what constitutes legitimate participation. It doesn't matter what your group says. 


Make sense?


----------



## coramdeo

*Anabaptist?*

I was baptised as an infant in the Presbyterian Church and years later I was re-baptised as an adult when I joined a Southern Baptist Church. Does that make me an Anabaptist?
That was a long time ago. All of this discussion had given me pause to think.
I remember wrestling with the idea of it, but eventually submitted. I am now wondering about my motives in doing so. I think that I felt I was being to prideful in resisting. To me, it was an act of obedience to the rule of the church and a testimony affirming my salvation. ( Isn't that what is is anyway? ) My big burden today is rather all of those who sit in the pews in our church every Sunday convinced they are saved because they once walked an aile , said a prayer and were baptised......any yet were not and are not actually born again.


----------



## Herald

SolaScriptura said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since we're all saying what we think...
> 
> If I was a Baptist pastor, I'd think that those who were baptized as infants were not in fact baptized. And as such, while they may be genuine believers, *they are sinning by not being baptized*. As such, if I was a Baptist pastor I would, when fencing the table, exclude them from it. Regardless of how they feel.
> 
> If I was a Presbyterian pastor, I'd think that those who refused to baptize their infants are clearly *living in open and unrepentant sin*. And as such, I'd caution them against partaking of the Lord's supper. Regardless of their opinion on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never understood this. How can a man who is following his conscience, following the counsel of his elders, and following Scripture as he understands it, be labeled as, "clearly living in open and unrepentant sin"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because they're ALL wrong - his conscience, his elders, his understanding of Scripture - everything. What matters is my group's understanding. See, if my group is administering it, then WE get to decide what constitutes legitimate participation. It doesn't matter what your group says.
> 
> 
> Make sense?
Click to expand...


It makes sense, and that's precisely why we're all hunkered down in our respective camps. All with the best of intentions, of course. 

I'm a Baptist because I am convinced, by scripture, that is the most biblical theological system. I hope my Presbyterian brethren feel the same way about their beliefs. If we dispense with the pride issue ("I'm right, and you're wrong."), we are left with some polarizing convictions. Ligonier conferences, Together for the Gospel, the Puritan Board; all are wonderful venues to bring Reformed believers together in areas of agreement. But as we celebrate our unity in gospel truth, we are going to inevitably reach areas of impasse. Some of these impasses separate us. These are the doctrinal issues we are willing to fall on our swords over. Besides unrepentant sin, is it Christ-like to deny the bread and the cup to believers for whom Christ died? Perhaps it is. If so, why? If we claim that the baptismal position of a brother is just cause to deny the elements, are we then saying that only the _known_ sins we are guilty of warrant our abstaining? Would we not still be guilty of improperly taking the elements if we are abiding sin, even in our ignorance?


----------



## Herald

coramdeo said:


> I was baptised as an infant in the Presbyterian Church and years later I was re-baptised as an adult when I joined a Southern Baptist Church. Does that make me an Anabaptist?
> That was a long time ago. All of this discussion had given me pause to think.
> I remember wrestling with the idea of it, but eventually submitted. I am now wondering about my motives in doing so. I think that I felt I was being to prideful in resisting. To me, it was an act of obedience to the rule of the church and a testimony affirming my salvation. ( Isn't that what is is anyway? ) My big burden today is rather all of those who sit in the pews in our church every Sunday convinced they are saved because they once walked an aile , said a prayer and were baptised......any yet were not and are not actually born again.



Greg, it does not make you an Anabaptist. Since you have been baptized upon a profession of faith, I would let it rest there and move on, unless you are convinced that the credo position is wrong. If that is the case, then you must follow your conscience. 

There are many sitting in our pews who are baptized, either as an infant or upon a credible profession, that know not Christ. It is good that you have a burden for these people. Act on that burden by loving the saints; living the gospel before all, "that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven." Also, pray for your church; it's leaders and your fellow members.


----------



## bookslover

Herald said:


> smhbbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 1689 LBC does not prohibit paedos from partaking of the Lord's Supper. My _personal conviction_ is that they should be allowed to partake. They are members of the body of Christ, and therefore, should be allowed to the table.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, Bill. Any Christian with a credible profession of faith who is a member in good standing of a Bible-believing church should be allowed to take communion, in a Reformed Baptist church or elsewhere. We are saved by Christ's death on the cross for our sins, not by what "kind" of baptism we believe in.
Click to expand...


----------



## DonP

Herald said:


> If you're a Presbyterian, and you seek to join an RB church, don't be shocked if they require you to be baptized upon your profession of faith. But if you're a paedo, why would you want to join an RB church?



Because there is not a fit presbyterian minister for hundreds of miles. 

I went to a Southern Baptist church for a while. The pastor was a fan of my old pastor John Mac Arthur and began reforming his church. 
He met with other RB ministers. I was able to support him and his church to follow him. 
But his deacons, who functioned like elders, would not allow me to be a member even though he was for it. They said there are pres churches around let him go there even though we pointed they were dead liberal ones. They let me take communion but I wanted to be under the authority of the minister as well while I was there. 
And I had been immersed back when I was a Baptist before I had decoded the riddle posed below, but because I now believed Paedo they would not let me in. 

Eventually as they got more steeped into Bill Gothard so because of the rejection and a new Reformed work was starting we left for it.

-----Added 4/7/2009 at 02:24:26 EST-----



Turtle said:


> Well John the baptist was baptizing (which is no surprise for us) but obviously the fact that he was baptizing meant a big deal to them. It meant that he had to be the Christ. John 1:25.
> 
> So, baptism must be able to be defined from the old testament.
> 
> If you can find the verses that the Pharisees used to identify Christ as the one who would be baptizing then you have it.
> 
> But, I can tell you that I don't feel the need to reject any of the modes.



Is this a riddle? I got it I got it 

Ezek 36:24-27
24 For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land. 25 Then *I will sprinkle clean *water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.
NKJV

Isa 52:13-15
Behold, My Servant shall deal prudently;
He shall be exalted and extolled and be very high. 
14 Just as many were astonished at you,
So His visage was marred more than any man,
And His form more than the sons of men; 
15 So shall *He sprinkle many nations.*
NKJV

-----Added 4/7/2009 at 02:28:26 EST-----



Scott1 said:


> This is one of the advantages we have in reformed theology, broadly speaking. At a minimum, we are defined by:
> 
> doctrines of grace ("five points") + covenant theology + confession
> 
> In reformed theology, unity is grounded on doctrinal agreement and the church is a community covenanted together to serve God in this world. It is not this way in "broad" evangelicalism.
> 
> As charitably and broadly as we can define reformed theology, it cannot be less than this. A confession of faith is a basis of unity and accountability on doctrines like this, and visitors, regular attenders, members and officers must be able to know that.



Don't you wish. I haven't been in a Pres church that even did session controlled communion of visitors. If they think they qualify they get the Supper. 
The elders say we fenced it by the notice in the bulletin or a few words before the Supper. 

In the Free Reformed church you let your friends know if they wanted communion they had to meet with the elders before the service and give a credible profession and tell where they were members.

-----Added 4/7/2009 at 02:55:59 EST-----



KMK said:


> I've never understood this. How can a man who is following his conscience, following the counsel of his elders, and following Scripture as he understands it, be labeled as, "clearly living in open and unrepentant sin"?



Because to some baptists, the mode and recipients of baptism is not a matter of conscience. You are evil somehow, in my case, not sinning enough to not get communion but unfit for membership in the covenant even though I told them I would be willing to not to teach it.


----------



## KMK

PeaceMaker said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never understood this. How can a man who is following his conscience, following the counsel of his elders, and following Scripture as he understands it, be labeled as, "clearly living in open and unrepentant sin"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because to some baptists, the mode and recipients of baptism is not a matter of conscience. You are evil somehow, in my case, not sinning enough to not get communion but unfit for membership in the covenant even though I told them I would be willing to not to teach it.
Click to expand...


I agree that accusations of 'open and unrepentant sin' come from both quarters. Why was it so important to you to have membership?


----------



## DonP

KMK said:


> Why was it so important to you to have membership?



I believed it was the proper Biblical thing to do, to be under authority to the minister and be a member of the church while I was there. 

It may have reformed more and I may have stayed for ever. Who knows I do not have the right to not be a member. 

But in God's providence since they did not want me and another Reformed work started I decided to leave. Remained friends with the pastor and his family and others for a long time. Then we moved.

Also plus I think I have close communion leanings. At that time may even have had closed leanings. I believe the elders should strictly fence the table. Loved that in the Free Reformed church.


----------



## Clay7926

To tie back into the original question:

Piper did an audio Q and A concerning how the Baptism Resolution went down. I originally found the audio on Monergism's web site, but cannot find it anymore.


----------



## KMK

PeaceMaker said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it so important to you to have membership?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believed it was the proper Biblical thing to do, to be under authority to the minister and be a member of the church while I was there.
Click to expand...


How does being a non-member prevent you from being under the authority of the minister?


----------



## DMcFadden

SolaScriptura said:


> Since we're all saying what we think...
> 
> Praise God I'm an Army Chaplain.



Kind of a "praise the Lord" and "pass the ammunition" position?

Actually, as much as I follow the logic of your arguments, I would not be able to tell a professing Christian in fellowship with their own church that they are unwelcome at the table of the Lord. On the other hand, as much as I love my PB sis and brother circle here, and would hope to receive communion in their fellowships, I would not expect them to compromise their convictions on a membership matter to accommodate me.

My assistant is the wife of a LCMS pastor. His denomination will not permit me to be a guest speaker in his pulpit nor to partake of communion with them. I am not offended by their rules, but would not insist upon those standards in a Baptist church I pastored.


----------



## Turtle

Scott1 said:


> ...
> In the Old Testament, God's people (Israel) did baptize. If a non-Israelite converted, he had to be baptized (cleansed) to be admitted to Israel.
> 
> This is what was so outrageous to the Jews who heard John tell them they, as sons and daughters of Jacob, had to be baptized, when they were already in the covenant (they thought). They thought only "unclean" gentiles, outside the covenant community of Israel had to be baptized.
> 
> So, what was their mode in the Old Testament? I'm not sure, somebody here will know.




For clarification, in the first book of John, the pharisees were sent out to John the Baptist to enquire if he was the Christ, (1:19) because of what he was doing. The fact that he was baptizing gave them warrant to demand if he was the Christ, Eliajah, or the Prophet. They were frustrated because he appeared to be fulfilling a sign of Christ but he denied he was the Christ.. and they had to go back to their bosses to explain who he was. 

"If you are not the Christ.. why are you baptizing?!" They obviously had some prophesy that Christ, Elijah or the Prophet would come baptizing, in a different and observable way, perhaps accompanied with what was being preached in association to the baptizing he was doing.


----------



## DonP

Turtle said:


> "If you are not the Christ.. why are you baptizing?!" They obviously had some prophesy that Christ, Elijah or the Prophet would come baptizing, in a different and observable way, perhaps accompanied with what was being preached in association to the baptizing he was doing.



Was it because he was baptizing or could it have been because he was calling them to repent and prepare the way for the Messiah. Teaching some unusual thing in some unusual way. 

Was it because many false Messiahs had come and if he said he was the Messiah they would have just thought he was one of those nuts?


----------

