Response to Grudem on Baptism and Church Membership :: Desiring God
Well I saw this and responded to someones question concerning it and here was my response.
I use to hold to Pipers view that the Baptism debate needs to take a back seat to Church membership. In fact, I had great admiration for the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland because they hold this view. But as of the last few years my convictions have sharpened a bit.
I have always held a view that a local congregation is not the whole body of Christ. Unity and Union are very important but Unity and Union are two different issues in my opinion. Union seems to have more of a connection to something than unity. When a union is entered into an attachment is achieved whereby others are put together as one. . Unity to me is a state or quality of being in accord or working harmoniously together. We all have Union with Christ as His body. But congregationally or denominationally we are like many members who may not be directly connected to each other. But we must be walking and working together in unity.
In our separate confessional standards we have a Union with each other because of our Head Christ Jesus. 1689ers and WCFers so to speak have unions in their confessions. It is convicton and confession that binds the confessors into a union though.
At this point there are a few issues that one goup must call the other out on. I do know Presbyterians and Baptists who accuse the other of sin if one does not line up with the convictions of the other. The Baptist is accused of the sin of anabaptism by some Presbyterian's along with the sin of not applying the seal of the covenant upon their children. These are not light issues as Piper does not address them. Some Baptist's accuse Presbyterian's of poor hermeneutics in their understanding of Covenant Theology and sinning by not following Christ's command that disciples must be baptised as repentant converts of Christ. Disciples can not be infants or church members in the Final Covenant because one must first exhibit cognizant confessional capabilities. Therefore the Presbyterian is knowingly admitting an unregenerate unforgiven Church membership that is not acknowledged in Jeremiah 31 or the New Covenant.
There are major differences that do not promote a denominational Union and would in fact be a place where division would be caused by doctrinal differences. At the same time I do believe we can walk in Unity. For we have much more in Common because of our confessional beliefs. The LBCF and WCF are very close to each other. For instance the Person and Work of Christ as laid out in our confessions is spot on, and both of our Confessions hold to a bi-covenantal structure. These are things we can walk in Unity concerning our faith and Practice. And our Union is truly with the Son of God.
I was a member in a RPCNA church when I was in my 20's. I have also been a PCA member. I joined the PCA with a promise to not cause any fuss over the issue of Baptism. And I didn't. I could never hold a position of authority in that Church because of my beliefs and my non adherence to the WCF. So another question for me to Piper would be.... Why in tarnations would you limit someone like R. C. Sproul, Pipa, Ryken, or any other good Presbyterian in a Baptist Church membership, or would you limit them? Would they be able to live out their convictions in good conscience in a 1689 confessional Church, or in your Reformed Baptist Church? If you are truly a 1689 Covenantal Baptist you couldn't. But if they dwelt amongst themselves they would not be limited in such a way. I would not let them perform their gifts of Elder in a Baptist Church or we would be in a compromised position to hold to our doctrine in my opinion. But at the same time I do hold them as Elders in the Church of Christ in their distinct Presbyterian Union. And I dearly respect them as Elders.
The differences are to great in my estimation.
Still desiring for the Consumation where all differences will be put aside by Him who will reveal His Perfection and Glory.
Randy
Sorry I should have put this in the baptism thread.
Well I saw this and responded to someones question concerning it and here was my response.
Piper says....
When I weigh the kind of imperfection involved in tolerating an invalid baptism because some of our members are deeply persuaded that it is biblically valid, over against the kind of imperfection involved in saying to a son or daughter of the living God, “You are excluded from the local church,” my biblical sense is that the latter is more unthinkable than the former. The local church is a visible expression of the invisible, universal, body of Christ. To exclude from it is virtually the same as excommunication. And no serious church takes excommunication as an invitation to attend the church down the street.
And he says...
Turning the tables, I would say that when a person looks a true and precious brother in the eye and says, “You may not join this church,” he is doing one of two things: Seriously diminishing our spiritual union in Christ, or seriously minimizing the importance of church membership. Very few, it seems to me, have really come to terms with the seriousness of excluding believers from membership in the local church. It is preemptive excommunication.
I use to hold to Pipers view that the Baptism debate needs to take a back seat to Church membership. In fact, I had great admiration for the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland because they hold this view. But as of the last few years my convictions have sharpened a bit.
I have always held a view that a local congregation is not the whole body of Christ. Unity and Union are very important but Unity and Union are two different issues in my opinion. Union seems to have more of a connection to something than unity. When a union is entered into an attachment is achieved whereby others are put together as one. . Unity to me is a state or quality of being in accord or working harmoniously together. We all have Union with Christ as His body. But congregationally or denominationally we are like many members who may not be directly connected to each other. But we must be walking and working together in unity.
In our separate confessional standards we have a Union with each other because of our Head Christ Jesus. 1689ers and WCFers so to speak have unions in their confessions. It is convicton and confession that binds the confessors into a union though.
At this point there are a few issues that one goup must call the other out on. I do know Presbyterians and Baptists who accuse the other of sin if one does not line up with the convictions of the other. The Baptist is accused of the sin of anabaptism by some Presbyterian's along with the sin of not applying the seal of the covenant upon their children. These are not light issues as Piper does not address them. Some Baptist's accuse Presbyterian's of poor hermeneutics in their understanding of Covenant Theology and sinning by not following Christ's command that disciples must be baptised as repentant converts of Christ. Disciples can not be infants or church members in the Final Covenant because one must first exhibit cognizant confessional capabilities. Therefore the Presbyterian is knowingly admitting an unregenerate unforgiven Church membership that is not acknowledged in Jeremiah 31 or the New Covenant.
There are major differences that do not promote a denominational Union and would in fact be a place where division would be caused by doctrinal differences. At the same time I do believe we can walk in Unity. For we have much more in Common because of our confessional beliefs. The LBCF and WCF are very close to each other. For instance the Person and Work of Christ as laid out in our confessions is spot on, and both of our Confessions hold to a bi-covenantal structure. These are things we can walk in Unity concerning our faith and Practice. And our Union is truly with the Son of God.
I was a member in a RPCNA church when I was in my 20's. I have also been a PCA member. I joined the PCA with a promise to not cause any fuss over the issue of Baptism. And I didn't. I could never hold a position of authority in that Church because of my beliefs and my non adherence to the WCF. So another question for me to Piper would be.... Why in tarnations would you limit someone like R. C. Sproul, Pipa, Ryken, or any other good Presbyterian in a Baptist Church membership, or would you limit them? Would they be able to live out their convictions in good conscience in a 1689 confessional Church, or in your Reformed Baptist Church? If you are truly a 1689 Covenantal Baptist you couldn't. But if they dwelt amongst themselves they would not be limited in such a way. I would not let them perform their gifts of Elder in a Baptist Church or we would be in a compromised position to hold to our doctrine in my opinion. But at the same time I do hold them as Elders in the Church of Christ in their distinct Presbyterian Union. And I dearly respect them as Elders.
The differences are to great in my estimation.
Still desiring for the Consumation where all differences will be put aside by Him who will reveal His Perfection and Glory.
Randy
Sorry I should have put this in the baptism thread.
Last edited: