# My credobaptistic Bible church has made its first stride towards accepting infant baptism!



## biblelighthouse (Sep 29, 2005)

Praise the Lord! 

McKinney Bible Church has been thoroughly credobaptistic since its inception over 20 years ago. My pastor has always been staunchly credobaptistic.

I have had some conversation with my pastor for the past few months. He has read a lot of pro-paedobaptism literature. He hasn't changed his mind, but he has gained a lot of respect for the paedobaptist argument.

This past Sunday, he just finished a 3-sermon-series on infant baptism. The first Sunday, he presented a positive case for paedobaptism, to help the congregation understand the Biblical case that Reformed paedobaptists make. And he actually did a pretty fair job of it. Then the next 2 sermons were on credobaptism.

For his conclusion, he said that he was still credobaptistic, and would continue to both practice and teach it. Nevertheless, he made it very clear that paedobaptists are welcome at MBC. 

In fact, he said, "If your Scriptural conviction is for paedobaptism, then you have no choice . . . you MUST get your children baptized!"

Also, there are a number of people at MBC that seem to be becoming more sympathetic to paedobaptist arguments from Scripture.

I am very thankful that I did not just abandon my church the moment I switched to paedobaptism. I'm glad I have placed a higher priority on unity, and on taking the time to talk things out and work things out. I believe MBC is moving in the right direction!

It will be interesting to see where MBC is another year from now, then 2 years from now, 3 years, etc.


----------



## crhoades (Sep 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Praise the Lord!
> 
> McKinney Bible Church has been thoroughly credobaptistic since its inception over 20 years ago. My pastor has always been staunchly credobaptistic.
> ...





So when are you guys gonna start studying church polity?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Sep 29, 2005)

Semper reformanda!


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 29, 2005)

Gee man! You guys need to repent from your wayward paedobaptist flirtations! What's your pastor's e-mail? I can give him a stern but gentle lecturing and point him to resources on believer's baptism!

You know I received believer's baptism by submersion like Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus is a credo-baptist you know. I don't want to hear about infant baptism being prescribed by the Bible.


[Edited on 9-29-2005 by Puritanhead]


----------



## youthevang (Sep 29, 2005)

Praise the Lord. Psalm singing, paedobaptism, what's next. 

[Edited on 9-29-2005 by youthevang]


----------



## Poimen (Sep 29, 2005)

More good news! It sounds as if the Lord is really using you to bless that church over there. I also want to say that I really admire you as you to stay and impart these truths instead of running off somewhere you might be more 'theologically' comfortable.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Sep 29, 2005)

Not to throw water on the fires of baptism, BUT.....

How would you guys feel if a credobaptist started going to your paedobaptistic churches and began trying to change them? Wouldn't it be better to find a paedobaptist church and go there?

This is similar to the thread from the person wanting to know if he should continue dating a woman who was from a strictly paedobaptist family even though he was a credo. The prevailing answer was that he should find a nice Baptist girl. Well, maybe a credobaptist church isn't the church for someone who believes in paedobaptism.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> You know I received believer's baptism by submersion like Jesus of Nazareth.



No you weren't . . . Jesus waited until the age of 30 to be baptized . . . did you? 

Plus, I seriously doubt that He was immersed. 
See here: http://www.biblelighthouse.com/sacraments/baptism-mode-affusion.htm#jesusbaptism


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Calvibaptist_
> Not to throw water on the fires of baptism, BUT.....
> 
> How would you guys feel if a credobaptist started going to your paedobaptistic churches and began trying to change them? Wouldn't it be better to find a paedobaptist church and go there?
> ...



Probably annoyed, but both sides have the luxury of "what saith the scriptures?" Anyway, the likelihood of a Paedo-Presbyterian changing is nill, WCF vows and all and the congregation, session, and presbytery holding him accountable.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Sep 29, 2005)

WHOOHOO!!!


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Calvibaptist_
> Not to throw water on the fires of baptism,



 nice word picture there! I like that.



> _Originally posted by Calvibaptist_
> BUT.....
> 
> How would you guys feel if a credobaptist started going to your paedobaptistic churches and began trying to change them?



I think this has been done in both directions. Usually, I think pastors of either side don't budge much. 

In any case, I'm not suggesting that a credo join a paedo church, and I'm not suggesting that a paedo join a credo church.

Rather, I was a credo too, just like the rest of my church. I've been going there 5 years. But now that the Lord has changed me in this way, I'm not going to just jump ship. I don't see that encouraged *anywhere* in Scripture. As long as I'm in this area in Texas, I plan to stay right where I am, and to pursue discussion in the context of unity. So far, the Lord is rewarding this approach.

But if I move to some other area of the country, I don't plan to *join* a credo church, now that I am paedo. That is an entirely different thing indeed. If I move elsewhere, I'll probably join a PCA church.



> _Originally posted by Calvibaptist_
> Wouldn't it be better to find a paedobaptist church and go there?



No, Scripture never condones jumping ship and breaking fellowship in these cases, as far as I am aware. Stay where the Lord has called you.



> _Originally posted by Calvibaptist_
> This is similar to the thread from the person wanting to know if he should continue dating a woman who was from a strictly paedobaptist family even though he was a credo. The prevailing answer was that he should find a nice Baptist girl.



No, this is entirely different. This is more like the question of what to do if two credobaptistic people were *already married*, and then the guy switched to paedobaptism. Of course they should stay together. Likewise, I should stay where I am.

But if I go to *join* another church (if I move somewhere else), then of course I should join a paedo church.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> More good news! It sounds as if the Lord is really using you to bless that church over there. I also want to say that I really admire you as you to stay and impart these truths instead of running off somewhere you might be more 'theologically' comfortable.



Thank you for the encouragement, Daniel! I really appreciate it.

Some of the moderators on this board, on the other hand, seem to think that I'm a "hypocritical . . . credobaptist in paedobaptist clothing" (per a related thread). . . So I really appreciate you putting in a good word for me.

In fact, I appreciate every encouraging word that has been offered in this thread. I'm glad to hear that the *pursuit* of doctrinal unity is important to a number of people on this board! Of course we would like for everyone to be in perfect agreement *today*, but that's just not the way it is. So it takes some hard work and a LOT of patience to make the unity goal of Ephesians 4 come true.

--- And that goal can sometimes be pursued much more effectively from *inside* a local church body, rather than from outside of it!

Again: Thank you, Daniel!




[Edited on 9-29-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by youthevang_
> Praise the Lord. Psalm singing, paedobaptism, what's next.



Sterile zombie-like confessional creed readings amongst the congregation. Oh and don't forget to take the bulletin board off the wall... That's for them crazy head-counting baptists. Than your Presbyterianized Baptist Church will be thoroughly Reformed.
:bigsmile:


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> WHOOHOO!!!



There goes another turncoat.
:bigsmile:


----------



## Poimen (Sep 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by poimen_
> ...



I think it would be wrong for you to leave now, since you might have an impact on those who would be willing to change their position. 

I know a dear old pastor (retired - in his 80s) who was a Baptist minister for many years but became convinced of infant baptism and sprinkling/ pouring. I believe it was over a number of years that he was able to persuade his congregation of the same truths and there was only one dissenter!


----------



## wsw201 (Sep 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Praise the Lord!
> 
> McKinney Bible Church has been thoroughly credobaptistic since its inception over 20 years ago. My pastor has always been staunchly credobaptistic.
> ...



Sounds like you have made quite an impression on your church!

So for clarification, I take it that if a family wants to join your church now they will accept their infant baptism? and if you want to have your childern baptized, other than believers baptism, you can have them baptized somewhere else and the pastor is okay with that?

Is McKinney Bible farely Calvinistic?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Sep 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> ...



Yeah, well, that's what they called the Confederates also.


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 29, 2005)

Presbyterian Gettin' Baptized
:bigsmile:


----------



## Calvibaptist (Sep 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Rather, I was a credo too, just like the rest of my church. I've been going there 5 years. But now that the Lord has changed me in this way, I'm not going to just jump ship. I don't see that encouraged *anywhere* in Scripture. As long as I'm in this area in Texas, I plan to stay right where I am, and to pursue discussion in the context of unity. So far, the Lord is rewarding this approach.



Sorry, maybe I assumed too much! I thought you had joined the church believing one way and were trying to change them. I do agree, in this instance, that you should stay and try to immerse (pun intended) yourself in the truth of Scripture with your current family of believers. (although, I would lean the other direction baptistically)

I am doing the same with the church I pastor. We never had a statement on the Doctrines of Grace, and it is only recently that I came to embrace them. I am (slowly) taking them down the path as we study the Scripture, rather than just abandoning them. I have had some abandon me though.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 29, 2005)

Ryan and I agree on nothing except Politics (broadly speaking). Nevertheless, almost everything he posts is funny!


----------



## Calvibaptist (Sep 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Rick Warren (not to bring up a sore subject) in his book Purpose Driven Church (not to bring up another sore subject) jokingly said one Sunday after they had baptized three hundred new members that he wished he wasn't Baptist so he could just get out the water hose and spray them all down.


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 29, 2005)

Yeah, you have to lift weights and freebase creatine to be a Baptist preacher... some of these _Baptizees_ aren't featherweights you know. We could take the easy way out like those hydrophobic denominations like Episcopalians and Presbyterians.
:bigsmile:


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 29, 2005)

[align=center]*Average Monthly Water Utility Bills for Churches from Select Denominations Across America*[/align]

Baptist 
$183.65

Calvary Chapel
$24.52

Church of God
$19.55

Episcopalian
$36.95

Pentecostal 
uses well-water

Presbyterian 
$27.65

Methodist
$26.45

Roman Catholic
$43.55

Southern Baptist
$483.55

Source: Department of Interior - Water Conservation Database Initiative


----------



## Presbyrino (Sep 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> So for clarification, I take it that if a family wants to join your church now they will accept their infant baptism? and if you want to have your childern baptized, other than believers baptism, you can have them baptized somewhere else and the pastor is okay with that?



 That was my same question. 

Would a Presbyterian or Reformed Church baptize the children of non-members?


----------



## Romans922 (Sep 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> ...



 on the Christ being immersed. And even if He was immersed, you couldn't prove it from Scripture (you would have to be an eye-witness. 

Christ wasn't baptized as we are commanded to be baptized, His was for a different purpose and a different type (part of His ministry and John's Baptism of repentance...which has no bearing on covenant baptism that we have).


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by sntijerina_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by wsw201_
> ...




Answer to first questions: 
Yes, if a family wants to join our church, and the kids were baptized as infants, our church will not require them to be rebaptized.
And yes, I'm planning to have my three little girls baptized fairly soon, and my pastor (while dissenting) is ok with that.

Answer to next question:
I don't know. There is a local PCA minister who is a friend of mine, and he is willing if the session approves. 

(I am not exactly an "outsider" to his church, though . . . I am there with him and 2 or 3 of the elders every Friday morning at the PCA men's Bible study, and my wife and I go to Bible study at his house every Sunday evening . . . in fact, we plan to start attending the church on Sunday nights, once their new building is built and they start having Sunday evening services.)

I hope the session approves him to baptize my little girls. If not, then I will have to figure out plan B.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> Is McKinney Bible farely Calvinistic?




You bet your boots they are!


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> on the Christ being immersed. And even if He was immersed, you couldn't prove it from Scripture (you would have to be an eye-witness.
> 
> Christ wasn't baptized as we are commanded to be baptized, His was for a different purpose and a different type (part of His ministry and John's Baptism of repentance...which has no bearing on covenant baptism that we have).



I forget--

Because of the lack of a clear Scriptural enunciation that Jesus was in fact baptized by submersion _when he went down to the River Jordan_ to get baptized, we must make the default inference that John the Baptist jerry-rigged a sprinkler system (perhaps based on Roman aqueduct technology) and gave Jesus a good sprinkling in the vicinity of the river... 
:bigsmile:

To say, Christ's baptism is disconnected from our baptism is absurd. I don't even think most Presbyterians will say that.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Calvibaptist_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> ...



 No problem, my brother! I am glad to hear we are in agreement!



> _Originally posted by Calvibaptist_
> I am doing the same with the church I pastor. We never had a statement on the Doctrines of Grace, and it is only recently that I came to embrace them. I am (slowly) taking them down the path as we study the Scripture, rather than just abandoning them. I have had some abandon me though.



Congratulations on what you are doing. Keep up the great work! And do not be discouraged! God is Sovereign!!!


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Romans922_
> ...



No, I think John probably had a big hyssop branch, dipped it in the water, and then baptized his subjects with a good shower . . . remeniscent of the blood sprinkling in Exodus 24:8.




> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> To say, Christ's baptism is disconnected from our baptism is absurd. I don't even think most Presbyterians will say that.



Well, Jesus was not baptized as an infant; there's one disconnect.
And He wasn't even baptized as a young adult; there's another disconnect. 

In other words, I'm pretty sure He was a "believer" long before the age of 30 . . . if you don't mind me being a little sarcastic.

No one but Jesus had to wait until the age of 30 to receive baptism (even baptists don't make kids wait until they are that old).

I think Jesus was baptized at the age of 30 as part of his priestly ordination. Did you read the article link I posted above?




[Edited on 9-29-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## john_Mark (Sep 29, 2005)

Joseph, 

Congrats! They are almost real Christians. Keep working on them!


----------



## Romans922 (Sep 29, 2005)

That is cool! 

Does this have anything to do with what Piper did at his church?


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> No one but Jesus had to wait until the age of 30 to receive baptism (even baptists don't make kids wait until they are that old). I think Jesus was baptized at the age of 30 as part of his priestly ordination.



Thirty was the age of manhood in ancient Israel. You're _ignoratio elenchi_ ("missing the point") about what we credo-baptists believe about believer's baptism: it is not about baptism's _immediately taking place after confession_, but that it comes following confession. Considering Jesus was not baptized as an infant is a monkeywrench alone in the dogmatic _clearly Scriptural_ arguments for paedo-baptistism.


----------



## Dan.... (Sep 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by sntijerina_
> ...



If the visiting elder does baptize your children, would the children be considered members of the church (i.e., non-communicant members) ?


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> If the visiting elder does baptize your children, would the children be considered members of the church (i.e., non-communicant members) ?



My church does not have "membership", per se.

However, once my daughters make a profession of faith, they will be permitted to partake of the Lord's Supper without being rebaptized.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Dan...._
> ...



Joseph,
What kind of membership do they have?


----------



## pastorway (Sep 29, 2005)

I have an honest question. In light of what you say here:



> I don't know. There is a local PCA minister who is a friend of mine, and he is willing if the session approves.
> 
> (I am not exactly an "outsider" to his church, though . . . I am there with him and 2 or 3 of the elders every Friday morning at the PCA men's Bible study, and my wife and I go to Bible study at his house every Sunday evening . . . in fact, we plan to start attending the church on Sunday nights, once their new building is built and they start having Sunday evening services.)



why will you not join the PCA church? You are there for Bible studies and worship services, you agree with them theologically, and they are more sound than where you are (based on what you say about the churches view on membership and other topics). What is keeping you from joining this church?

I also admit that I tend to not understand people who attend one church in the morning and another in the evening. Even if your "morning" church does not have evening services there are things you could do to fellowship with and minster to the other members of your local body. I just don't get going to 2 churches? 

Phillip


----------



## Romans922 (Sep 29, 2005)

Most baptists would probably join pca because of the government. (i am just guessing though).


----------



## LawrenceU (Sep 29, 2005)

Ditto to Phillip's post. This congregation hopping is not healthy in the least. It is one more sign of our consumeristic modern America.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> Thirty was the age of manhood in ancient Israel. You're _ignoratio elenchi_ ("missing the point") about what we credo-baptists believe about believer's baptism: it is not about baptism's _immediately taking place after confession_, but that it comes following confession. Considering Jesus was not baptized as an infant is a monkeywrench alone in the dogmatic _clearly Scriptural_ arguments for paedo-baptistism.



Bar-mitzvah's at 30? Huh?


----------



## turmeric (Sep 30, 2005)

Oh, no! The Baptism Mosh Pit! (runs screaming into the distance)


----------



## Steve Owen (Sep 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> Most baptists would probably join pca because of the government. (i am just guessing though).



You're joking, right?
Based upon Church history and what I've read here, I would avoid Presbyterian Church government like the plague on principle.

Martin


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LawrenceU_
> This congregation hopping is not healthy in the least.



Lawrence, I was just thinking more about this statement of yours.

Ironically, I have stayed at MBC for the explicit reason that I wish to *avoid* what I call "church hopping". I despise church hopping. 

"Church hopping" is what I call it when a person can't seem to stay at his church, but keeps leaving churches behind, and going to new ones. A year here, a year there, a couple of years here, etc. That's the way I grew up, and I hate it. I think it is wrong to be switching churches every few years. Even with all the problems in Corinth, Paul *never* suggested that the orthodox people leave the church behind to join another, or to start another. I am dogmatically choosing NOT to "church hop", but rather to remain at MBC, just as active as I've ever been.

I would definitely consider it "church hopping" to leave MBC and join another church.

But, ironically, you have suggested that I do just that, and then in the same breath, you chide me for "congregation hopping"! Good grief. If I were to take *your* advice, *then* I would be "congregation hopping". 

So there appears to be something inconsistent with your advice, unless I have just not understood you.




[Edited on 9-30-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> I have an honest question. In light of what you say here:
> 
> <snip>
> ...



Philip, 

Thank you for your kind and thoughtful questions. I appreciate your willingness to voice your differences with grace, without immediately saying that I'm doing something "very unhealthy" or "consumeristic". At the very least, you are giving me a chance to respond to your questions *before* saying such things, and for this I am grateful!

There are a number of reasons why I am doing what I'm doing:

1) I think it would be morally *wrong* to leave McKinney Bible Church. I love the church, I love the pastor, I love the people, and I've been going there for about 5 years. And I'm very active there. We go on Sunday mornings and Wednesday nights. And I go to the MBC men's Bible study on Monday mornings. My pastor does not want me to leave, and the PCA pastor agrees that I am doing the right thing, and that it would be wrong to leave my current church. In fact, a pastor on the PuritanBoard, Pastor Daniel Kok, agrees with me here. Leaving MBC is not an option.

2) As I alluded to above, I am just as active at MBC as ever. I go to 2 services a week, plus the MBC men's Bible study. I have not taken away from MBC fellowship. I have merely *added* a couple of additional Bible studies to my week: the PCA men's Bible study on Fridays, and a Sunday evening Bible study as well. What exactly is wrong with this?

3) You are correct . . . If I am going to add a couple Bible studies, I could probably do it at MBC, instead of adding a couple PCA Bible studies. But as I have pointed out before, I want to know my Calvinistic brothers and sisters in the McKinney area. And just to reiterate, I have remained just as active at MBC as ever. So what's the problem? Am you getting after me for trying to have fellowship with _too many_ Christians? What could possibly be unhealthy about that?

4) I disagree with you that the PCA church is "more sound" than MBC across the board. I do believe the PCA church is more orthodox regarding baptism (which, ironically, happens to be one place where you think MBC is more orthodox!). But I think MBC is more sound regarding membership. I'm not sure I understand what good having a membership roll is supposed to do for a church. And there are a number of important issues where the two churches are frankly identical:
* Both churches expositionally preach through entire books of the Bible.
* Both churches are Calvinistic.
* Both churches believe in taking the Lord's Supper every week.
* The pastors of both churches agree that it would be wrong for me to abandon MBC.

And when it comes to missions, I think MBC is *by far* more sound than the PCA denomination. MBC spends over a third of its money on missions every year. In fact, over a year ago, we sent a missionary down to preach the Gospel in Mexico. And we did not make him go out an try to "raise money" for his work (how Scriptural would that be?). Rather, the MBC body is footing 100% of the bill. We are totally supporting that missionary family. And that is the way I think it should be.

Nevertheless, I think the PCA is more sound, in that it is denominational, rather than being a standalone church. (Again, is this a place where you think MBC is more sound?) 


What exactly is your problem with people who want fellowship with multiple like-minded Christians in their area? Why is that difficult to understand? Each church has some differences. But overall, they are like-minded in many key issues, such as Calvinism, expositional preaching, the Lord's Supper, unified agreement that a person should *not* abandon a church over baptismal differences, etc. 

I have a better question: Why _shouldn't_ I reach out to get to know the PCA Christians in McKinney better? If I am keeping just as active at MBC as ever, then what is the problem?


----------



## LawrenceU (Sep 30, 2005)

Joseph, come on. Look at the context of my statement. I will rephrase my concern. I'll not use the term 'church hopping'. Let us call it 'cafeteria church going'. The person says, 'Oh, I'll just sample a bit here, and I'll take a bit of what that church has to offer. And, of course I must have a dab of that.'

It breeds distrust amont members. It causes a lack of genuine fellowship. And, perhaps worst of all smacks of rebellion to proper Biblical authority.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LawrenceU_
> Ditto to Phillip's post. This congregation hopping is not healthy in the least. It is one more sign of our consumeristic modern America.



Please help me understand how you are able to make such judgments, and hurl such epithets, without even finding out more about my situation first?

Why do you think you are justified in calling me "consumeristic" and a product of "modern America"? I am offended, and would very much appreciate an apology from you.

I am going to the PCA church for a couple Bible studies because I want to know my Calvinistic brothers and sisters in McKinney better. I've been going to MBC for 5 years, and yet there are Christians just down the street who likewise believe in the doctrines of grace, expositional preaching, weekly communion, etc. I have remained just as active as ever at MBC. I have just *added* a couple of PCA Bible studies to my week. What could possibly be "not healthy in the least" about that???

You should have heard my conversation with my wife a few months ago. I said, "We have like-minded brothers and sisters in Christ right here in the McKinney area, and we don't even know them. Let's get to know them!" --- But you would rather call me unhealthy and "consumeristic"? I am offended. Please take that back.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LawrenceU_
> Joseph, come on. Look at the context of my statement. I will rephrase my concern. I'll not use the term 'church hopping'. Let us call it 'cafeteria church going'. The person says, 'Oh, I'll just sample a bit here, and I'll take a bit of what that church has to offer. And, of course I must have a dab of that.'
> 
> It breeds distrust amont members. It causes a lack of genuine fellowship. And, perhaps worst of all smacks of rebellion to proper Biblical authority.



Please explain what you have said here.

What "distrust among members" has been breeded?

What "lack of genuine fellowship" has been caused? (On the contrary, I would argue that we have greatly *gained* in genuine fellowship!!! MBC fellowship has not declined. But we have added rewarding and meaningful fellowship with our dear brothers in Christ just down the street.)

And I would most like to hear you justify your accusation that I am in "rebellion to proper Biblical authority". How can you justify such a hurtful statement? How does adding a couple of PCA Bible studies to one's week suddenly throw a person into "rebellion"? I would love to hear you explain that. --- Interestingly enough, the PCA pastor *agrees* with me that I should not leave MBC. So if I did leave MBC and started attending the PCA church, following your advice, THEN I would be going against the authority of BOTH pastors! Yikes!



[Edited on 9-30-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> That is cool!
> 
> Does this have anything to do with what Piper did at his church?



Not directly. But it may have had some influence. I told my pastor about what Piper did at his church. And I also told him about the Free Presbyterian Church, which welcomes both baptists and paedobaptists.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by john_Mark_
> Joseph,
> 
> Congrats! They are almost real Christians. Keep working on them!



I will!!!


----------



## BrianBowman (Sep 30, 2005)

Joseph,

I love you in Christ, but should be very careful about comparative statements like the following:



> And when it comes to missions, I think MBC is *by far* more sound than the PCA denomination. MBC spends over a third of its money on missions every year. In fact, over a year ago, we sent a missionary down to preach the Gospel in Mexico. And we did not make him go out an try to "raise money" for his work (how Scriptural would that be?). Rather, the MBC body is footing 100% of the bill. We are totally supporting that missionary family. And that is the way I think it should be.



As wonderful as the kind of missionary sending support that you describe at MBC is, the PCA through both Mission to The World and Mission to North America is engaged in a very effective Church planting effort worldwide. I understand that our local PCA Church has a missions budget that is very close to one you describe at MBC. Missions is very dear to my heart. My wife Anne spent 8 years in Poland and a year or so in Iceland as a missionary, with a much more "Bible Church" organization than the PCA would be considered. She also spent 7 more years as the secretary to the Director of Missions for a similar organization. We have sacrificially supported a number of Missionaries and certainly share the warmth and joy of knowing them and their work personally.

I just don't thaik that making a relative comparision between the soundness of these Missionary sending efforts is wise or edifying.

[Edited on 9-30-2005 by BrianBowman]


----------



## LawrenceU (Sep 30, 2005)

(Brief, I'm just out the door for work.) Joseph, if you are offended personally then I apologise for that. I'm not aiming directly at you. I will not however retract my comments or the conclusions I've drawn. I'm addressing something that I see as a growing situation in the Body of Christ. (If you can't handle that then toughen up the ol' hide.)

This type of activity breeding distrust among members is something that I've seen occur in congregations. When people begin attending other fellowships functions on a regular basis and in essence become exofficio members relationally, it causes their original yokemen to doubt their sincerity to the mission of the fellowship. 

There are two main types of fellowship within the Body. First is the catholic fellowship of the saints. It exists among all Christians. Second is the Covenanted fellowship among a congregation. It is that fellowship that may, and usually is, damaged by 'cafeteria church going.' Lest you say I care little for the catholic fellowship of the saints you should know that I spent several years as the Director of a ministry that held that as its primary mission. It also allowed me to see that when people begin to develop significant 'memberlike' reltaionships beyond their home congregation it always leads to trouble. I've seen it happen dozens of times. I've observed both from without and from within. 

How can such actions be considered consumeristic? Perhaps I have misunderstood you, but all too often I've seen folks do the same thing because they 'like this better over there', or 'we like you ________ better than our home church so that is why we come.'

How can such action become rebellion? Simply. Either you will follow one set of leadership or the other eventually. 

Joseph, I have no personal axe to grind with you. I'm speaking as a pastor who over several years has seen similar situations blow up in the face of the man doing it. It also has always hurt them and several others. I've seen enough carnage in the Body. When I see something that has brought it about in the past then I mention it.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 30, 2005)

Thread split

Membersip (Revisited)


----------



## kceaster (Sep 30, 2005)

I find it completely illogical that one should only attend one church all the time. Even pastors preach at other churches.

I am by no means denigrating church membership. But we shouldn't go the end of not availing ourselves of opportunities to worship with those of like precious faith.

I think it is very individualistic for us to think that we must only attend the church we're membered with. I am by no means advocating that we do not regularly attend the church of which we are membered. But that doesn't mean we can't go to each other's Bible studies, prayer meetings, psalm/hymn sings, etc.

It is clear that Joseph is a regular attender at his reforming baptist church. Why should we think it odd that he is loyal to them? Did God put him there? Is he there against the will of God? The Bible does not speak to such things, and we should not accuse our brother of acting unbiblically (for that is really the accusation).

We need to get out of this mindset that we have hermetically sealed bodies that our members dare not stray from. Or if they are a pollutant, they need to leave, or if they don't seem like they're getting it exactly like we're giving it to them, they should push on. Unless they're seditious, they're not doing anything contrary to the Bible.

But we are so sensitive to these things that we think that they are like a wanton woman seeking another than her own when they are just going to a Bible study or a prayer meeting. We should never think so small. And we should be like Paul in our attitude towards those who are laboring with us in the gospel, even if they're not preaching exactly like us, or they're preaching against us. As long as Christ is preached and the gospel goes forth, why should we keep any of our flock from eating in another of the Lord's pastures?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BrianBowman_
> Joseph,
> 
> I love you in Christ, but should be very careful about comparative statements like the following:
> ...




Brian,

Thank you for your kind correction. I went overboard, and I was wrong. Please forgive me.

I love PCA missions, and I should not have said what I did . . . it sounded denigrating, and I should have chosen my words much more carefully.

I don't believe it is biblical to make a missionary go out on his own to ask for tons of money. Rather, I think the local church (or churches) should support him. So I do differ with the PCA on this one point.

But I did not intend to put down PCA missions in general. I think the PCA missions are AWESOME in almost all points. I should not have put them down as I did, just because of one minor disagreement.

Please accept my apologies.

In Christ,
Joseph


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LawrenceU_
> How can such action become rebellion? Simply. Either you will follow one set of leadership or the other eventually.



My primary allegiance is to my pastor at MBC. And the PCA pastor seems to agree with me that it should be that way. He does not think I should leave MBC. So I think the leadership question has already been taken care of ahead of time.



> _Originally posted by LawrenceU_
> 
> Joseph, I have no personal axe to grind with you. I'm speaking as a pastor who over several years has seen similar situations blow up in the face of the man doing it. It also has always hurt them and several others. I've seen enough carnage in the Body. When I see something that has brought it about in the past then I mention it.



Lawrence, 
Thank you for taking the time to elaborate, and to explain to me why you said the things that you did. I disagree with your belief that it always has to turn out badly, but I highly respect the fact that you are a pastor, and have personally witnessed it turn out badly before. I need to take that to heart, and I need to carefully watch myself, to guard against such things.

Thank you for your input. I am not offended. No hard feelings.

Your brother in Christ,
Joseph


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> I find it completely illogical that one should only attend one church all the time. Even pastors preach at other churches.
> 
> I am by no means denigrating church membership. But we shouldn't go the end of not availing ourselves of opportunities to worship with those of like precious faith.
> ...






Well said, Kevin! Thank you very much for your post!!!

I think you are 100% correct!


----------



## gwine (Sep 30, 2005)

But doesn't attending services a both churches (regardless of what you call them) take time? If your church has 150 members then how much time do you have to spend with an individual family? Let's say you wanted to maintain close contact with 3 families in your church every week or two. Then I am wondering how you juggle all the other responsibilities in life (mowing lawns, grocery shopping, cleaning the house, cooking, your job), not to mention sleeping, and have time to fellowship with another church.

At our church we had difficulty getting 4 couples together 4 times a year for what we called Diner's Club, so I am more than curious how you do it. Not condemning, just curious.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 30, 2005)

Would not this fall under the "forsaking" of gathering? If your local church is meeting twice on the Lords day and you are not providentially hindered, wouldn't this be sinful?


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Would not this fall under the "forsaking" of gathering? If your local church is meeting twice on the Lords day and you are not providentially hindered, wouldn't this be sinful?



Yes, it probably would be sinful in that case.

But the MBC church does not meet on Sunday nights. It meets on Sunday mornings, and I am there with my family. It also meets on Wednesday nights, and I am there with my family. I also meet with the MBC men's Bible study on Monday mornings at 6:00am.

So when I attend PCA Bible studies on Sunday nights, I'm not "forsaking" anything.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



I would agree.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> But doesn't attending services a both churches (regardless of what you call them) take time? If your church has 150 members then how much time do you have to spend with an individual family? Let's say you wanted to maintain close contact with 3 families in your church every week or two. Then I am wondering how you juggle all the other responsibilities in life (mowing lawns, grocery shopping, cleaning the house, cooking, your job), not to mention sleeping, and have time to fellowship with another church.
> 
> At our church we had difficulty getting 4 couples together 4 times a year for what we called Diner's Club, so I am more than curious how you do it. Not condemning, just curious.



Very good question!

I go to the PCA men's Bible study on Friday mornings at 6:30am. But we generally don't have anybody over to our house at that time on Fridays, so I don't think there is a problem there.

Usually when we have MBC families over to our home, it is on a Thursday, Friday, or Saturday evening. Rarely (if ever) has it been on a Sunday evening. Thus, I don't think the PCA Bible study on Sunday evening is a problem, either.

So, we still have Thursday, Friday, and Saturday evenings open for having people over to our house, just as always.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 30, 2005)

. . . and, for what it's worth, my pastor at MBC has told me in the past that my family has been really good at fellowshipping with others in the MBC body . . . having them over to our home, and things like that.


In fact, just three days ago, I went out to lunch with two MBC friends of mine.

I definitely think keeping close ties in the local church body is important!


In time, I hope to invite multiple families to our home simultaneously . . . one couple from MBC, and one couple from the PCA church. They are very like-minded in many ways, they worship in the same town, and yet they don't know one another. I want these two excellent groups of Christians to get to know each other!


----------



## gwine (Sep 30, 2005)

Wow. 

As an introvert I cannot imagine such gatherings so often.


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Ryan and I agree on nothing except Politics (broadly speaking). Nevertheless, almost everything he posts is funny!



This is probably why no one takes me _seriously_ when I try to be _serious_.


----------



## pastorway (Sep 30, 2005)

I admit that I am really shocked at how the posts by Lawrence have been responded to - I see no accusations or judgments, just sound warnings about the dangers of what is going on. I agree with all that he has posted.

I really think his posts were over-reacted to and several accusations were hurled back at him that are unfounded.

I am really beginning to despise internet conversations...........perhaps we should use videophons or webcams so that we can convey tone, expressions, and GENUINE CONCERN when we post.

Phillip


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> I admit that I am really shocked at how the posts by Lawrence have been responded to - I see no accusations or judgments, just sound warnings about the dangers of what is going on. I agree with all that he has posted.
> 
> I really think his posts were over-reacted to and several accusations were hurled back at him that are unfounded.
> ...



Phillip,
I agree. Dialoging has a level of ambiguosity; may times it can be misread. This is where the smileys come in handy.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> I agree. Dialoging has a level of ambiguosity; may times it can be misread. This is where the smileys come in handy.



Good point . . . In that case, I need to catch up . . .  :bigsmile:


----------



## Herald (Sep 30, 2005)

*Why the division?*

WCF and Baptist practice aside...why is this topic so devisive? It seems that the credo/paedo debate elevates baptism to a stature it does not deserve. I am not pulling a "Rodney King" (Can we all just get along?) here. Is it possible for Calvinistic credo's and Calvinistic paedo's to celebrate our mutual unity? There is much that we do agree on. Doctrinal distinctives are a way of life within the church. Both sides have crafted ad hominem to an artform. When do we agree to disagree?


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> WCF and Baptist practice aside...why is this topic so devisive? It seems that the credo/paedo debate elevates baptism to a stature it does not deserve. I am not pulling a "Rodney King" (Can we all just get along?) here. Is it possible for Calvinistic credo's and Calvinistic paedo's to celebrate our mutual unity? There is much that we do agree on. Doctrinal distinctives are a way of life within the church. Both sides have crafted ad hominem to an artform. When do we agree to disagree?






That's why my church (McKinney Bible Church) has offered the right hand of fellowship to Christians who do not share their baptismal views. Paedobaptists like me are welcome at MBC.

And then there is the Free Presbyterian Church. It welcomes both Paedos and Credos.

And as far as I know, even most Presbyterian churches welcome baptists parishoners (though not baptist elders, thankfully). The local PCA church in my area has baptist parishoners in good standing.

In general, I think the only groups who _really_ make such a big deal (as far as parishoners are concerned) are credobaptist churches. But I could be wrong.




[Edited on 9-30-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> WCF and Baptist practice aside...why is this topic so devisive? It seems that the credo/paedo debate elevates baptism to a stature it does not deserve. I am not pulling a "Rodney King" (Can we all just get along?) here. Is it possible for Calvinistic credo's and Calvinistic paedo's to celebrate our mutual unity? There is much that we do agree on. Doctrinal distinctives are a way of life within the church. Both sides have crafted ad hominem to an artform. When do we agree to disagree?



Bill,
Stay out of this! 

No really, we are a discussion list; that is what we do here. I agree, ad homs are not allowed. 

Thanks for the exhortation and rebuke! :bigsmile:


----------



## Herald (Sep 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by gwine_
> ...



Joe - I appreciate the tone of your reply. As soon as I read it I found the "But" word leaving my lips. I have found that whenever "But" is uttered it tends to disolve unity among saints. 

I don't expect a credo church to turn paedo or vice versa. That is not right thinking in my book. I also don't know if your church has a formal statement on membership being linked to credo. Apparently Bethlehem Baptist Church is debating this change to their doctrinal statement. Our church clearly states that membership requires believers baptism. So a question to ask is, "Does our unity mean that we need to drop our doctrinal distinctives?" Another question is, "Do we limit membership to saints that disagree with our formal position on baptism?"  The hard-liner in me is ready with a quick answer. But I am willing to prayerfully consider the matter.


----------



## Herald (Sep 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> ...



Scott - tryin hard to "play nice."  Work has had me busy the past few weeks so I have not been as active on the boards as I would like. Nice to hear from you.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> 
> Joe - I appreciate the tone of your reply. As soon as I read it I found the "But" word leaving my lips. I have found that whenever "But" is uttered it tends to disolve unity among saints.
> 
> I don't expect a credo church to turn paedo or vice versa. That is not right thinking in my book.



I don't expect it to happen overnight. But the first important stride has been made. And I am thankful to know that it has happened before, elsewhere. There is a certain church (of which we do not speak) that is in Moscow, Idaho. And regardless of what anyone thinks of the pastor (of whom we do not speak), the fact remains that his church was totally credobaptistic a few years ago (with a church doctrinal statement and all!), but is now predominantly paedobaptistic. 

Strictly regarding baptism, I would like to see the same thing happen at my church.



> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> 
> I also don't know if your church has a formal statement on membership being linked to credo.



Nope. And I believe that made my church's recent shift much easier. They weren't tied down with an unbiblical view of baptism written in stone in the church's doctrinal statement, so it made it easier to shift in the direction of a more Biblical view.



> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> Apparently Bethlehem Baptist Church is debating this change to their doctrinal statement. Our church clearly states that membership requires believers baptism. So a question to ask is, "Does our unity mean that we need to drop our doctrinal distinctives?" Another question is, "Do we limit membership to saints that disagree with our formal position on baptism?"  The hard-liner in me is ready with a quick answer. *But I am willing to prayerfully consider the matter*.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by PastorSean_
> This is fun!



I agree.


----------



## Herald (Sep 30, 2005)

> 4. We have several credobaptist families who are members of our church--all that is required for membership is a credible profession of faith, of course--and although the men cannot hold office and we warn them regularly that to refuse the covenant sign for their children is a most grievous sin, the dialogue continues peacefully and they are important members of the church who bless and edify the whole congregation with their gifts.



Grievous sin? I suppose that is a PCA position. I am not sure we would say the same thing about a paedo family in our midst. The church leadership would certainly disagree with them. As with your church, we would not allow them to hold office. I am pleased to hear that they are "important members of the church who bless and edify the whole congregation with their gifts." 

I do have a question for you. If they are perpetually commiting a "grievous sin" by rejecting paedo-baptism, would not that be a sin warranting church discipline? The word "grievous" is strong. If a person is engaged in willful sin (which is how I would interpret "grievous sin"), should not church discipline be administered? Just asking. Not accusing anyone of anything.

[Edited on 9-30-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 30, 2005)

"Grevious sin!!!"
:bigsmile:

This credo-baptist says bah-humbug! Jesus never had an infant baptism! End of story!


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> 
> 
> > 4. We have several credobaptist families who are members of our church--all that is required for membership is a credible profession of faith, of course--and although the men cannot hold office and we warn them regularly that to refuse the covenant sign for their children is a most grievous sin, the dialogue continues peacefully and they are important members of the church who bless and edify the whole congregation with their gifts.
> ...



Bill,

For the record: does your church allow believers who have never been immersed, and/or who have never been baptized as adults after a profession of faith to become members and take communion?

I ask because the vast majority of baptist churches (Phillip's church being one of the exceptions) refuse to allow that, being much less charitable than any PCA church. In fact, that was the whole impetus behind the John Piper announcement - there were sores of men who have preached in his pulpit who would have been prohibited from joining. That is the case still with Alistair Begg's church still. Sinclair Ferguson can preach, just not join. And a sweet 80+ year old widow who has been a Christian her whole life, the wife of an elder, and who has 3 generations of believers following her was required to be rebaptized, immersed at her old age, so that she could join the church.

You' don't want to play the charity game with baptism and membership. Baptists (in general) lose very badly at that.


----------



## Herald (Sep 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> ...



Fred -

I'm afraid you may be inferring an intent that I did not mean. The topic of baptism aside, I was concerned by the term "grievous sin." I do not doubt that some Baptist churches may feel the same way towards those who have not been baptized, or who are baptized in a manner not usually accepted by Baptists. I am not naive enough to think that all our doctrinal differences are trivial and should be whisked away without discussion. But there are some doctrinal rifts that have withstood centuries of debate. They are still alive and well. Baptism is one such doctrinal area.

Individual fellowships will continue to go back and forth on this issue. I am not sure any real ground is being gained (or lost) by either side. It just seems to be that artillery is lobbed by both sides and real people are caught in the crossfire. Fred, I am a Baptist. My conviction is credo (as though that is shock to anyone!). If a paedo brother or sister came to our church, I would welcome them in love. As it stands now, they would be required to be baptized in order to join our church. If they were never baptized they would have to be baptized in order to join. Yes, Piper's church is debating the former. When I first heard of Piper's leaning on the issue, it got my gander up. The good Baptist in me was ready to fluster and bark. But I have allowed my fuming to subside and have chosen to deliberately look at the issue from all sides. 

For me the issue is not one of credo vs. paedo. For many of us on this board, our personal position has been staked out and is unlikely to change. I am more impacted on the ecclesiastical level. Should we admit a believer as a member if they were paedo-baptized? Should we confirm a member who has never been baptized? Should we recoginize the baptism of those who were originally baptized in a church with sharp theological differences that ours? Fred, my church requires baptism by immersion by all candidates for membership. Is that right? Up until recently it was not on the top of my list for consideration. I am willing to prayerfully look at the matter individually and with the fellow elders in my church. This consideration is not about credo vs. paedo (that position is firm), it is about baptism's effect on church membership.

One of my desires is to tone down the rhetoric. Not that anyone here has been less than civil or charitable. But I, like so many others, can get wrapped up with the desire to be heard instead of listening. It is a bad tendency of mine and I am trying to work on it. In the end, the truth...in love...is my desire.





[Edited on 10-1-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 30, 2005)

Bill,

I appreciate your comments. I am a convinced paedobaptist and a Presbyterian, and perhaps you have gleaned that I think there is much common ground and common work to be done by Baptists and Presbyterians. I trust that my posts, as well as Phillip and Lawrence, can vouch for that.

My point was that there is nothing wrong with taking a firm stand and then applying pastoral wisdom. There is often hardly a case where the "perfect" solution can be crafted. There will often be a problem to be worked out. I happen to believe that denying baptism to covenant children is a grave sin. I also think it is a graver sin to make the doors of the church narrower than those of the Kingdom. If Jesus says, "This one is Mine" then he can join my church. He may never be able to be an officer, or teach; he may be subject to pastoral discipline (read: exhortation, admonishment); he will likely have to face being publicly told that he is wrong, and being unbiblical on that point. But I think he can join.


----------



## Herald (Sep 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Bill,
> 
> I appreciate your comments. I am a convinced paedobaptist and a Presbyterian, and perhaps you have gleaned that I think there is much common ground and common work to be done by Baptists and Presbyterians. I trust that my posts, as well as Phillip and Lawrence, can vouch for that.
> ...



Fred - I am thankful for your kind words. Our different positions on baptism are not a source of conflict for me. Unless I am misinterpreting your words, they are not a source of conflict for you either. We're both pretty comfortable in our baptismal skin! My prayer is that both sides will lavishly display the love of Christ to the saints, regardless of which side of the baptism issue we hold.


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 30, 2005)

*Redneck Baptism*



> Before performing a baptism, the preacher approached the young father and said solemnly, "Baptism is a serious step. Are you prepared for it?"
> 
> "I think so," the man replied. "My wife has made appetizers and we have a caterer coming to provide plenty of cookies and cakes for all of our guests."
> 
> ...


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Sep 30, 2005)

*this is one reason why this user likes the Free Church.... we take both credo and paedo and have the occassional theological discussion - 8 CDs in length*

I'm the minority at my church. I think only one more person at my church is still credo. Everyone else (including my pastor) is paedo.  This thread is helpful, but for some odd reason or another, I don't have this issue high on my list of priorities to 'work out'.....


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 30, 2005)

The reason I say the middle of the road won't work is that it will inevitably leads toward acceptance of one over the other. Credo-baptists going the middle road inevitably leads to full acceptance of paedo-baptism.

Paraphrasing old Lincoln:


> A house divided against itself cannot stand.
> 
> I believe this _church_ cannot endure, permanently half _paedobaptist_ and _credo-baptist_.
> 
> ...


----------



## LawrenceU (Sep 30, 2005)

Stop the presses!! Ryan quotes Lincoln in support of a held position!


----------



## biblelighthouse (Oct 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> Credo-baptists going the middle road inevitably leads to full acceptance of paedo-baptism.



Praise God . . . I hope you are right!!! Then there really IS hope for my church . . . It looks like God's promise to eventually bring all believers into the unity of Biblical faith CAN be trusted! 



Here's to all credo churches who got a little extra dose of sanctification and went paedo . . . 


(Well, Ryan . . . you can't say you didn't ask for it!)


----------



## gwine (Oct 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by OS_X_
> *this is one reason why this user likes the Free Church.... we take both credo and paedo and have the occassional theological discussion - 8 CDs in length*
> 
> I'm the minority at my church. I think only one more person at my church is still credo. Everyone else (including my pastor) is paedo.  This thread is helpful, but for some odd reason or another, I don't have this issue high on my list of priorities to 'work out'.....



It would be correct for you to say that about the Free Church that you attend. We attended River Hills Community Church (EFCA) for 4 years and it was and still is credo only. The pastor there was not pleased that we switched to and joined the OPC (although in fairness there were other issues in the whole affair.)


----------



## Puritanhead (Oct 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> ...



Why not just goto an already paedo-baptist church -- instead of instigating such change?


----------



## Herald (Oct 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> ...



See? This was my earlier point. I have this vision of the credo-paedo positions. Both sides are a few hundred yards apart, bunkered down. There is barbed wire rolled out in front of their bunkers. Artillery is ready. Rifles are leaned over the trenches looking for the first sign of the enemy. I know...rather dramatic illustration, but it kind of makes my point. There is this apparent glee when a church goes paedo or when a credo church rebuffs the attempt. I suppose I am overly sensitive to the whole issue. I can only speak for myself, but the tone of the debate seems to highlight our differences in doctrine and diminish our unity in Christ.

[Edited on 10-1-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]


----------



## Steve Owen (Oct 1, 2005)

Joseph,
You wrote:-


> Praise God . . . I hope you are right!!! Then there really IS hope for my church . . . It looks like God's promise to eventually bring all believers into the unity of Biblical faith CAN be trusted!



If your church does not change, do you consider it to be without hope? Is it outside the Biblical faith?

Just wondering,

Martin

[Edited on 10-1-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## Puritanhead (Oct 1, 2005)

I've been tongue-in-cheek for the most part in this debate, but I will put my serious hat on for a minute.

You know I have had fellowship with Presbyterians and congregational paedobaptists, and have enjoyed some substantive _sovereign grace_ sermons in their churches as a visitor, and I know what to expect doctrinally as per the WCF. I haven't shyed from announcing my credo-baptist and congregational roots in after-the-service church activities. I count Presbyterians among my friends. I would certainly welcome any Christian at my church irrespective of their denominational roots.

However, something just strikes me as inherently wrong trying to undermine a church's baptismal doctrine and having a covert desire for it to go entirely paedo-baptist, and working behind the scenes or in stealth to see it accomplished. It's disingenious. Will the crypto-paedobaptists be as emboldened to speak their mind in their credo-baptist church amongst the congregation as they are to members of the Puritanboard. If being a credo-baptist is _so far from the unity of the Biblical faith_ than perhaps one should find an exclusively _paedo-baptist_ home.


----------



## LawrenceU (Oct 1, 2005)

> However, something just strikes me as inherently wrong trying to undermine a church's baptismal doctrine and having a covert desire for it to go entirely paedo-baptist, and working behind the scenes or in stealth to see it accomplished. It's disingenious. Will the crypto-paedobaptists be as emboldened to speak their mind in their credo-baptist church amongst the congregation as they are to members of the Puritanboard. If being a credo-baptist is so far from the unity of the Biblical faith than perhaps one should find an exclusively paedo-baptist home.



Hear, hear!

Well said, Ryan.


----------



## Herald (Oct 1, 2005)

> However, something just strikes me as inherently wrong trying to undermine a church's baptismal doctrine and having a covert desire for it to go entirely paedo-baptist, and working behind the scenes or in stealth to see it accomplished. It's disingenious. Will the crypto-paedobaptists be as emboldened to speak their mind in their credo-baptist church amongst the congregation as they are to members of the Puritanboard. If being a credo-baptist is so far from the unity of the Biblical faith than perhaps one should find an exclusively paedo-baptist home.



Ryan, I agree. But if a credo church leadership does not know their own position well, they have no one but themselves to blame if their church goes paedo. I can't speak for Joe's church. Apparently his pastor is open to discussing it. In my humble opinion it is weak credo church leadership that cannot defend their position biblically. Most of the credo churches that I know will not budge on this issue, inasmuch as they consider it to be biblically correct.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Oct 1, 2005)

Hey Joseph,

That is wonderful to hear, just saw your post. For the record our church is a reformed PCA church and they do have baptistic members, though of course the same cannot hold eldership or leader positions. The church is one of the strongest I've seen bearing witness to the Gospel in much outreach evangelism and via the baptism of believers children. It blows the false perception of a reformed church that has weak evangelism completely out of the water. The strength lies in the well balanced dual witness of the Gospel to the children and outreach to the lost, I've never seen anything like it.

The service for the baptism of believers children is a powerful Gospel, it brought tears to my eyes. Just listening to it refreshed my soul and gave me strength. They don't push anyone not ready or convinced that are members, yet gently and openly bear witness of the Gospel found within baptism and infant baptism. I've found it, much to the chagrin of my former harsher efforts, the best way to offer it to people. That way your not forcing it upon them but simply offering them the information to think about.

The Lord blessed my wife with an opportunity just the other day to share the Gospel over the subject of infant baptism per our own children with a Roman Catholic friend who had their children baptized within the RCC (explaning the difference and the Gospel therein as opposed to Rome's view). She did so gently though.

That is good to hear Joseph!

Grace and peace,

Larry


----------



## Puritanhead (Oct 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> Ryan, I agree. But if a credo church leadership does not know their own position well, they have no one but themselves to blame if their church goes paedo. I can't speak for Joe's church. Apparently his pastor is open to discussing it. In my humble opinion it is weak credo church leadership that cannot defend their position biblically. Most of the credo churches that I know will not budge on this issue, inasmuch as they consider it to be biblically correct.



Well I'm not one to demean someone's church... but if that particular church doesn't even have membership organization than church polity is something not taken seriously either. I hope in the chaotic ecclesiology and doctrinal malaise they can get through their do-it-yourself, buffet theology, but odds are they will fall apart. 



> "Can two walk together least they be agreed?" -Amos 3:3


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> 
> 
> > However, something just strikes me as inherently wrong trying to undermine a church's baptismal doctrine and having a covert desire for it to go entirely paedo-baptist, and working behind the scenes or in stealth to see it accomplished. It's disingenious. Will the crypto-paedobaptists be as emboldened to speak their mind in their credo-baptist church amongst the congregation as they are to members of the Puritanboard. If being a credo-baptist is so far from the unity of the Biblical faith than perhaps one should find an exclusively paedo-baptist home.
> ...



Bill and Ryan,

I would respectfully posit that the real source of the problem is not individual members, but rather the lack of clarity on the subject by the church itself. It really does not matter - in the final instance - how many people are paedo or credo, or what the "understanding" of the church is, or what is the "way we have always done it." What matters is taking a clear stand - it is called being creedal or confessional on the point in question. Not taking a stand invites this type of issue.

The credos at a church (or for that matter the paedos) have no inherent right to have deference to their position unless it is confessed as such. Confessions are a boundary for discipline, among other things. This is one practical instance in which the need for Confessions is shown.

Far better to be crystal clear on what you believe (confessing it) and to be charitable in its application and exclusion (as I would posit) than to pretend that something is not important, be shocked when someone takes you up on that pretension, and then be offended when your underlying position is lost. That is called duplicity, and it applies to both paedos and credos alike.


----------



## Herald (Oct 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> ...



Fred -  I agree. The point of my rejoinder to Ryan has all to do with the fact that churches need to know what they believe. I concur that if a credo/paedo church is challenged on its baptismal position, it ought to know where it stands or it risks looking foolish and dishonoring the Lord. Baptist churches (by their very nature) are fiercely independent. But that does not mean we are not creedal. 

Each church should seek out what it believes on this issue. It is not trivial. But it also is not an offensive doctrine. The church should not use it as a battering ram in order to bludgeon members into submission. May I bullet point my position for the sake of brevity?

1. Each church should know what it believes regarding baptism.
2. Each church should know why it holds to its baptismal position.
3. Each church should incorporate its baptismal position into its doctrinal statement.
4. Church officers need to be in agreement with this doctrine (baptism) as well as the rest of the church's doctrinal positions.
5. Members should know their churches position and have access to the biblical support from church leadership.
6. Considering the recent developments on this issue (i.e. John Piper), churches should take up the challenge to determine their position on previous baptism by candidates for membership.
7. There is no room for fence sitting. A position must be determined. We ignore the issue to our peril.
8. For those within our fellowship who disagree with the official church position, they should be admonished to heed scripture on the matter. They should not be castigated or maligned. They are brothers and sisters in Christ.
9. Churches of different positions (namely credo vs. paedo) should seek unity in areas of weight, such as the gospel. Our differences are unavoidable, but so are our areas of agreement (which are many).
10. Maintain an open enough mind that we are willing to search the scriptures when challenged. 





[Edited on 10-2-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Oct 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> 1. Each church should know what it believes regarding baptism.
> 2. Each church should know why it holds to its baptismal position.
> 3. Each church should incorporate its baptismal position into its doctrinal statement.
> ...




FYI: McKinney Bible Church pretty much fits everything you've written above, with the exception of #3. And my pastor is glad that a strict credobaptistic stance is not outlined in an official "MBC creed". If it _were_ that way, then it would be a lot tougher to make paedobaptistic allowances as the elders have done in this case. And I myself am very glad and thankful that the elders *have* been able to move the church in an ever-more-Biblical direction! Who knows what more the Lord will accomplish at MBC in another year or two? Praise Him!


----------



## pastorway (Oct 2, 2005)

so how would you feel if the PCA church where you attend in the evening began to switch to a credo view due to the influence of credo members?

Seriously.

Would you be happy and praising God?

Phillip


----------



## Puritanhead (Oct 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> so how would you feel if the PCA church where you attend in the evening began to switch to a credo view due to the influence of credo members?
> 
> Seriously.
> ...


----------



## Puritanhead (Oct 2, 2005)

To all that take interest,

I acquiesce with Bill Brown's point that "Churches of different positions (namely credo vs. paedo) should seek unity in areas of weight, such as the gospel. Our differences are unavoidable, but so are our areas of agreement (which are many)." Though, I don't know why rejoinders have to be so overly personalized at me, as if I disagree with "the fact that churches need to know what they believe." It's a point well made however. But, we often find ourselves arguing from presumption or misreading emphasis. 

I believe there are respectable advocates of paedo-baptism. While I will probably always be a _stubborn_ credo-baptist, unless God wills that I change into a _regular_ credo-baptist.  I have been eye-balling several Prebyterian-dominated seminaries as a future forum for my education"¦ A Presbyterian pastor friend of mine, Ben House wrote:


> It may be a bit too much of a stereotype, but in the 1800s and early 1900s, Episcopalians controlled the money in the nation, _Presbyterians controlled the scholarship_, and Baptists and Methodists controlled the numbers, that is, the majority of the Protestants. Baptist theologians like James P. Boyce received their theological training from the Princeton theologians like the Hodges and the Alexanders. Other theologians looked to Presbyterians and admired their scholarship.



That I esteem Presbyterians for their scholarship ought to be illustrative of fact that I am not some prejudiced partisan. I think everyone needs be light-hearted on these doctrinal disputes, and at the same time be willing to draw their line in the sand. I can be tongue-in-cheek and joke on something. I won't get bent out of shape at a paedo-baptist saying, "Now they're closer to being _real Christians_" as I heard earlier. Us Reformed theologians can reflect on the doctrines that unify us and need not get embittered over this. It doesn't bother me to agree to disagree on the matter, and put something on the shelf, though I will not make a doctrinal compromise in the interest of reconciliation. In my humble opinion Churches that straddle the fence on baptism do so to their peril, and Mr. Brown has made some astute statements.



> _Originally quoted by fredtgreco_
> better to be crystal clear on what you believe (confessing it) and to be charitable in its application and exclusion (as I would posit) than to pretend that something is not important, be shocked when someone takes you up on that pretension, and then be offended when your underlying position is lost. That is called duplicity, and it applies to both paedos and credos alike.





This could have just as easily have been generally addressed. Duplicity is not a peculiar trait to adherents of either baptismal view"”that much is to be acknowledged. I just see similar circumstances to these playing themselves out at other churches. More often than not, it starts with a nominally credo-baptist church where a few people posit the idea that baptism doesn't matter... _let us embrace unity_ and _let us be tolerant!_ is the cry! Nonetheless, it's more often the paedo-baptists that long for the Hegelian dialectical game to devour credo-baptist churches one by one. The middle-of-the-road position logically leads to a paedo-baptist synthesis. Paedo-baptists may think they have found our Achilles´ Heel, but thankfully there are plenty of stubborn credo-baptists out there like myself. On the Puritanboard, on occasion, I have seen some unnamed doctrinaire WCF adherents rejoice at credo-baptist churches embracing this sort of wish-washy pragmatism and making _paedobaptism_ drifts or accepting standards of personal "conscience." Of course, they themselves do not want to be in that church. Even some Presbyterian personal friends of mine have tried to pull me into the mindset that baptism doesn't really matter, and I should consider the Free Presbyterian position. However, I have come to see more clearly where credo-baptism's future lies by taking the _middle of the road way_ in any congregation, and I think it should be eschewed now. This is not a question of how non-prejudicial or accepting I am of "infant baptism" advocates, or my being interested in "unity" or "tolerance" as some of my friends would make it out to be. 

While I'm not privy to all the circumstances here, I think for anyone to labor in secret to change the church's baptismal doctrine and not be confessional, fully open and honest about their doctrinal convictions is being duplicitous. I will leave it up to them to do self-examination. Churches are built on trust and open confession... not rail-splitting by packs of partisans covertly roaming around looking to foist their novel new doctrinal views on the congregation through behind-the-scenes scheming, sophistry and chicanery. Admittedly, some churches fight over stupid things and even split up over the color of the new carpet or whether or not they get an organ or piano. Churches that are straddling the fence on an issue are not always open. As Mr. Brown has rightly said, "There is no room for fence sitting. A position must be determined. We ignore the issue to our peril." In my humble opinion Continually fomenting a doctrinal divide by unabated duplicity and scheming is cause for church discipline, which should perhaps come only after an attempt at confrontation and an appeal for honest confession is made. Duplicity and scheming are probably commonplace in churches straddling the fence, whether anyone else wants to admit it or not.

Finally, it should go without saying that many laity on both sides get defiant and dogmatic in defense of their baptismal position and frankly haven't thought reflectively why they hold their particular position. I've seen it at my Christian colleges, from both credo- and paedo- baptists. I see it in those retorts by paedo-baptist laity who figure it a fatal concession to admit Jesus was ever baptized in the River Jordan"”so they deny it in a knee-jerk reaction. I've seen how the typical Arminian ("age of accountability") theological inferences utilized to defend credo-baptism caused many new Reformed converts to give up on credo-baptism in sort of a reactionary manner without much forethought. I think if some laity would take time for reflective study; make some effort at introspection about why they believe what they believe; and exercise some humility to admit they do not really know exactly why they believe what they believe (besides it being tradition) than they can go "search the Scriptures..." and also look to the wisdom of more learned theologians to gain clarity on important doctrinal matters. 

Debate isn't necessarily bad. As Edmund Burke says, "He that struggles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper." Reading scholarly arguments for both positions and prayerfully considering your position can be very helpful.

I´ve never considered myself a theological worthy who cares to reinvent the wheel and will not attempt to offer the perennial credo-baptist argument on an online forum. There are plenty of good books on the subject. I never cared to beguile and out argue Arminians online either, though apologetics is worth studying. I think Pastor Way´s article on "keyboard theologians" is worth reflecting upon before we go back to henpecking. I think this thread is past its´ half-life. 

I admit when I say Jesus is a credo-baptist that I am being tongue-in-cheek and it is not much of a substantive argument, but I am not going for substance and persuasion: I am aiming at humor.
:bigsmile:

In Him,
Ryan

P.S. Baptism is not a trivial, inconsequential doctrine.

[Edited on 10-2-2005 by Puritanhead]

[Edited on 10-3-2005 by Puritanhead]


----------



## Herald (Oct 2, 2005)

Ryan....

  

And by the way...I am not "Mr. Brown." I am "Bill." To echo an eminent theologian, "Crush" from "Finding Nemo"...."Dude, Mr. Turtle is my father!"


----------



## Puritanhead (Oct 2, 2005)

Okay Bill...
:bigsmile:


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 2, 2005)

Good post Ryan. As a paedo, I respect credos who take a position, know what they believe and _why_ they believe it. To waffle is to be carried about by every wind of doctrine. This is not to say that one can not change his mind, but for sure, we should be firmly planted. The creeds help us to do that.


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



This post Joshua sets forth to prove his statement from another thread true:



> _Originally posted by joshua_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 2, 2005)




----------



## Puritanhead (Oct 2, 2005)

I'll shut up now...


----------



## biblelighthouse (Oct 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> so how would you feel if the PCA church where you attend in the evening began to switch to a credo view due to the influence of credo members?
> 
> Seriously.
> ...




I get very upset anytime I see doctrinal error spread in a church. So no, I would not be happy at all to see a paedo church drift credo. (But honestly, how often have you really heard of that happening?)

I had not really thought about it before, but Ryan may have made a good point that the "_middle-of-the-road position logically leads to a paedo-baptist synthesis_. " --- I'm not sure if he is correct, but I certainly hope so! It is very encouraging to consider that God is keeping the paedo churches paedo, while gently and slowly moving more and more baptist churches to change to paedo. --- Perhaps this is a case of the Spirit moving us all towards true doctrinal unity & purity! (cf. Ephesians 4)

I know that you and Ryan both vehemently disagree with everything I said in the 2 paragraphs above. That is no surprise. But you asked how I feel on the subject, and I honestly gave my answer.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Oct 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> However, something just strikes me as inherently wrong trying to undermine a church's baptismal doctrine and having a covert desire for it to go entirely paedo-baptist, and working behind the scenes or in stealth to see it accomplished. It's disingenious. Will the crypto-paedobaptists be as emboldened to speak their mind in their credo-baptist church amongst the congregation as they are to members of the Puritanboard.



Towards whom are you hurling these epithets? Towards me???

Who says that my desire is "covert"? Who says that I'm just "working behind the scenes"? Who says I don't speak my mind in my credobaptist church, "amongst the congregation"?

For your information, my paedobaptismal stand is no secret at my church. I have openly conversed and emailed with a number of of the McKinney Bible Church parishoners. In fact, the elders were virtually the *first* I talked to about this.

My desire is not covert. I am speaking my mind openly in my church, among the congregation.

In fact, when I actually get my girls baptized in the near future, I plan to invite EVERYONE at my church to be there when they are baptized. I know most probably won't come, but I want them all to feel welcome.

They are my brothers & sisters and Christ, and I love them dearly. And I am certainly not working in "stealth" mode, as a paedobaptist in credobaptist clothing, or whatever. My stance is clear and open. 

Baptism is important. But it is NOT worth division! I believe it is morally wrong to leave a church _only_ because of baptismal differences.


----------



## Herald (Oct 2, 2005)

In finaly analysis there are two issues at play...

1. Joe's specific situation with McKinney Bible Church.

2. The issue of credo/paedo and the division it has caused in the body of Christ.

I have taken the time to listen to McKinney Bible Church's sermons re: credo vs. paedo. They are available online at Joe's church. Based on what I have heard, Joe is going to be waiting a long time for the church to change its position (In my humble opinion). I have to believe Joe, that he has been above board in his communication with the elders of his church. So long as the elders are open to continued dialog, I am not sure Joe is doing anything improper. But I still have some concern about Joe wanting to see his church embrace paedo. I can only answer for myself. If I were in Joe's shoes, I would seek to align myself with a church with whom I share doctrinal unity. Joe, the only true criticism I have of your posts is your apparent glee that your church even has the slightest possibility of going paedo. Personaly I believe that glee would be better left unstated. It is preaching to the choir for other paedos and certainly inflames credos. 

Of more interest to me is how we can identify and encourage the unity that does exist between us. In fact, I believe that is cause for a new thread. "The unity that exists between Presbyterians and Baptists." I think it is about time that we find unity in the essentials and stand shoulder to shoulder for the gospel. I am not impuning anyone for not doing so. I am just encouraging both camps to expand on that unity for the cause of Christ.





[Edited on 10-3-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]


----------



## Puritanhead (Oct 2, 2005)

I have nothing else to say on the matter.


----------



## pastorway (Oct 3, 2005)

> Joe, the only true criticism I have of your posts is your apparent glee that your church even has the slightest possibility of going paedo. Personaly I believe that glee would be better left unstated. It is preaching the choir for other paedos and certainly inflames credos.



BINGO!

I think we are done here......


----------

