# baptist churches allowing pedobaptist into membership?



## thistle93 (Feb 7, 2011)

Hi! I am seeing a trend in some baptist churches that they are allowing those baptized as infants to become members of the church as long as they do not teach against the baptist position. Have you seen this? What are your thoughts on the issue? I have mixed emotion about it. I think it essential for Christians and churches to take a stance on baptism and to hold a conviction about how and when it is administered but I also think God is grieved over the division among Christians over baptism, because it often seems to be a source separation in church fellowship. 

Would the majority of Presbyterian churches allow a Baptist to become a member of their church as long as they did not teach against the the practice of the infant baptism? Would they be looked down upon if they decided not to have their infant baptized? The reason I ask this is because, putting the baptism issue aside, there are a lot of baptist who have more in common with their presbyterian brothers/sisters then their baptist brothers/sisters. 

Look forward to hearing some comments from both Baptists and Presbyterians. 

For His Glory-
Matthew


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Feb 7, 2011)

Baptists can be members in Presbyterian churches, but most would not allow them to hold office.


----------



## rbcbob (Feb 7, 2011)

We have enjoyed long term fellowship with paedobaptist brethren in our church but we could not allow them to become members. They fully understood this and was no hindrance to worshipping and fellowshiping together. In our understanding, baptism is not a secondary or tertiary doctrine. Our ecclesiology has been hammered out over four centuries and at cost to saints of antiquity.


----------



## Marrow Man (Feb 7, 2011)

This would not be true of all Presbyterian denominations, but upon examination by the Session, a Baptist could become a member (but not an officer) provided he did not teach contrary to the Standards. However, there might be a problem (at least in some churches), if he had a family and did not present a newborn child to be baptized.


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 7, 2011)

There are a lot of baptistic churches that will do this. I believe that the Evangelical Free denomination allows for latitude on this issue and doesn't think it is worth dividing over. Many Bible churches do as well. But you will not find it among Baptist churches that are committed to Baptist ecclesiology, as rbcbob notes. 

My understanding is that there is no issue with Baptists joining the PCA. There may be more "trouble" in the OPC and elsewhere. If I remember the conversation correctly, I was once told by an OPC pastor that after a season of teaching on the issue, the session would eventually withhold the Lord's Supper from a family that continued to refuse to have their children baptized.


----------



## Marrow Man (Feb 7, 2011)

Pilgrim said:


> My understanding is that there is no issue with Baptists joining the PCA. There may be more "trouble" in the OPC and elsewhere.



In the ARP, they are sometimes affectionately called BARPs.


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 7, 2011)

My understanding is that most if not all Southern Baptist associations will not permit a church to join that does not make immersion a prerequisite to church membership. I know of a case like this in my area, where a Reformed Baptist congregation wanted to join the association (which is how a church affiliates with the SBC) but would not have been permitted to become a member unless they changed their bylaws to restrict membership to those who had been immersed. 

A few years ago there was considerable controversy over a large Southern Baptist church in Oklahoma that, like Bethlehem Baptist in Minneapolis, was considering switching to an open membership policy that would not have required immersion. Like Bethlehem they eventually decided not to go that route. Had that church changed their policy, no doubt there would have been an effort to remove them from the association if they were not going to take that step themselves.


----------



## Marrow Man (Feb 7, 2011)

Chris, when I was in Mississippi, I got to know a local Baptist pastor who was reformed, and his church followed what he called "The Bunyan model" (allowing those who were baptized as infants to join on profession of faith w/o requiring them to be "re-baptized"). They were the only church in the area that did it, and they were effectively cut off from the other Baptist churches in the area; most SBC churches didn't like them because they were reformed, and those that were reformed didn't like them because of the baptism model.


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 7, 2011)

I know of some Bible churches that will allow for latitude on the mode of baptism for those wishing to join but will not accept infant baptism. Others go the Bunyan route as Tim notes. And there are some churches that have no formal membership at all. 

My understanding is that Bunyan saw a profession of faith (and not baptism) as the "door" to church membership. It was a position that was very controversial then and remains so today, and not just among Baptists. For example, no paedobaptist congregation that takes doctrine seriously will allow the unbaptized into membership, or to the Lord's Supper for that matter. (My guess is that a majority of Baptist churches today practice open communion in which a profession of faith is the only prerequisite for coming to the table.) 

I can appreciate a view that allows for latitude on the mode of baptism, but a view that basically assigns no importance to baptism whatsoever when it comes to church fellowship is less tenable In my humble opinion.

---------- Post added at 07:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:34 PM ----------




Marrow Man said:


> Chris, when I was in Mississippi, I got to know a local Baptist pastor who was reformed, and his church followed what he called "The Bunyan model" (allowing those who were baptized as infants to join on profession of faith w/o requiring them to be "re-baptized"). They were the only church in the area that did it, and they were effectively cut off from the other Baptist churches in the area; most SBC churches didn't like them because they were reformed, and those that were reformed didn't like them because of the baptism model.



That is not surprising. What part of Mississippi were you in?


----------



## Marrow Man (Feb 7, 2011)

Pilgrim said:


> That is not surprising. What part of Mississippi were you in?



Northern Mississippi, New Albany/Tupelo area.


----------



## Herald (Feb 7, 2011)

rbcbob said:


> We have enjoyed long term fellowship with paedobaptist brethren in our church but we could not allow them to become members. They fully understood this and was no hindrance to worshipping and fellowshiping together. In our understanding, baptism is not a secondary or tertiary doctrine. Our ecclesiology has been hammered out over four centuries and at cost to saints of antiquity.


 

Bob, I agree. If we truly believe in our ecclesiology we will not shrink from our conviction.


----------



## Jack K (Feb 7, 2011)

What sort of baptism the church requires for membership is only part of the equation. There's also the matter of what doctrines the candidate for membership must affirm.

At the Baptist church where I worship, the first step to membership is for the applicant to affirm the church's entire statement of faith. And that statement, of course, includes a clause on baptism. So a committed paedo-baptist could not in good conscience even apply for membership, because that would involve affirming the Baptist position. In theory, even if he personally agreed for the sake of fellowship to be immersed as a believer, if he still believed infant baptism _should_ be valid he ought not to apply for membership.

I've heard of this being the case in more Baptist churches. Whereas in probably the majority of Presbyterian/Reformed churches, the doctrines a member has to affirm are brief and say nothing about baptism. Officers have to affirm long confessions, but a plain member can be a committed Baptist and still answer "yes" to the membership questions.


----------



## lynnie (Feb 7, 2011)

My church is Baptist in that they do not baptize babies and would probably give Grudem's ST or Piper to somebody wanting more imput, but they state this as a secondary doctrine, not an essential of the faith. So anybody paedo is not required to be rebaptized for membership. We have a number of former Presbyterians.

My pastor went to WTS and is Covenantal- amil, and once you study in a place like WTS and understand the paedo position, it is really hard to take a stand that such persons must be rebaptized, even if you are Credo. We are not in a any denomination, much as it might be nice to be, but I think this is the right position. I am very uneasy with the likes of Dever and the way he said he could never go to any paedo church, and equally uneasy with paedos who would adamantly refuse to fellowship with credos on a Sunday morning. 

Back in both my former PCAs we had a few Baptists, and they were free to be full members but not elders.


----------

