Castle Church Discussion on Church Membership and Differing Views on Baptism

WEBCAST: Student Marty Slingerland, Heritage Netherlands Reformed Congregation, Grand Rapids

Sun, 11 May 2008 12:57:26 GMT

Sunday Afternoon 2:15 PM (Eastern Time) - Manna: Food for the Wilderness - Exodus 16:15 - (1) Quality Food; (2) Available Food; (3) Necessary Food.

As always, we appreciate any feedback that you may have. Feel free to contact us and let us know if you have been enjoying this service. We welcome you to listen in to the entire service!

Piper on Pragmatism, Pleasure, and Pride

Fri, 24 Aug 2007 10:35:35 GMT

John Piper warns against three P's: "The idolatry of pragmatism that ruins the church; the pleasure in unrighteousness that refuses to love the truth; and the pride of being strong that leads to destruction."

With regard to pride in particular, Piper writes:

1) Never let me be above criticism and correction. I invite you to give me constructive criticism whenever you see some attitude or words or actions that dishonor the Lord. 2) Stay close to the cross and never cease to be amazed and thankful that you are saved. People who are perpetually and thankfully amazed that God has saved them are not likely to be destroyed by pride.

Why Baptism, Lord's Supper and Church Membership Differences Exist

Thu, 23 Aug 2007 07:26:59 GMT

Lig Duncan has promised us to write more on the reasons why this debate is not an easy one to resolve. His statement got me thinking, and whilst I am still resisting the temptation to state who I agree with, it has rattled around my brain long enough for me to want to have a go at explaining why these discussions are almost inevitable.

To me the whole issue is about something else altogether. It is really about authority. Different understandings of how to run a local church make these differences almost inevitable. If you believe that a church is run by its congregation then you will be more careful about who you allow to become a member. Churches have allowed flexibility in the view of baptism in their members before, and found that over time the church has switched sides on the issue of paedobaptism vs credobaptism. It is interesting that the congregation of John Piper's church have so far refused to allow him to follow his convictions on this issue. In fact it is more surprising in a way that Piper feels the way he does given that he has a congregational form of church government, at least on paper.

If your church is instead run by the local elders, and the congregation can only show their dissent by speaking to their leaders or eventually by leaving I can imagine that leaders may be more relaxed about allowing members to have a different viewpoint, presumably whilst insisting that future leaders will have a similar perspective to the existing leaders.

There are also differences about how the local church is seen, and how tightly defined doctrinally our church memberships should be. I think that one thing we all agree on is that there are genuine Christians who differ from us theologically. I for one have a very loose definition of a Christian. When the bible says that "if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." (Romans 10:9) who am I to add further conditions?

However, I do believe that faith in Christ should be accompanied with trust in his word and a humble submission to it. Thus, sometimes I find the boundaries of precisely who is saved and who is not hard to define. In fact I do not feel that it is my job to say definitely that an individual is a genuine Christian or not. It is because of this grey area that many will place a further level of limits on church membership. Thus a local church will usually define what it thinks is a Christian in good standing a little more tightly than the lowest possible denominator of professed faith in Christ. This makes sense not least because it would exclude someone living in blatant sin whilst claiming to be a Christian. There are surely few churches that would allow membership to everyone who claims to be a Christian.

But for many the local church is not simply a collection of everyone we believe to be saved and in a good standing before God. For most churches there are secondary doctrines used as identification markers. As a result some will define their membership requirements to include agreement with some of these doctrines. This is to protect the doctrinal integrity of the local church and becomes more important if the congregation is the place authority rests in the life of the church.

Since many baptist churches in particular take a valid believers baptism to be the gateway to church membership, it is little wonder that many of them would deny membership to the unbaptised. Since many paedobaptist churches will recognise either believer or infant baptism as valid it is no wonder that they allow people who hold to both perspectives to become members.

Similar issues arise about the Lord's supper. People have differing perspectives about who should be allowed to partake. In a large church it can be next to impossible to manage a communion service to be in any way closed and so it often becomes a free for all. The issue of who can take the Lord's Supper then becomes an irrelevance. In smaller churches it is frequent for the leaders to believe that we should take some care about who we administer the Supper to. If Lord's supper is seen as a meal for church members rather than any professor is it any wonder that some get to the position that those who do not qualify for membership in a local church should not share the Supper with that church?

So, in short, I believe that these kinds of decisions should be taken by the local church's leadership teams. I would not presume to tell them how they should act. I respect their right to take differing opinions and to change those opinions as both Grudem and Piper have done.

As Duncan was insinuating, for those who truly believe in the truth of the Bible and the importance of doctrine it is no surprise given out fallibility that we have different doctrinal positions and different opinions about how to act in the local church in light of those differences. Eccumenicalism hides our differences in order to pretend we are one. True biblical unity acknowledges our differences, respecting them, and goes on to partner for the sake of the gospel. We may find that we can partner only to a certain extent with some since to go further would require us to compromise our convictions, which although secondary, we should not be forced to give up. Thus a complex web of partnerships will emerge some closer than others. It is not wrong for us to agree to partner in some ways but not in others with those who we differ on many issues.

I hope that makes some sense, although I am sure that Lig will do a better job of explaining it!

Storms on Dever

Thu, 23 Aug 2007 03:28:23 GMT

Sam Storms:

If you haven't yet read Believer's Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ, edited by Thomas R. Schreiner and Shawn D. Wright (B & H Academic), you are missing out on what is, in my opinion, the finest and most persuasive case for credo-baptism yet written. One need not agree with every point of interpretation in this book to recognize the remarkable accomplishment of these authors (contributing to the book, in addition to the editors, are Andreas Kostenberger, Robert Stein, Stephen Wellum [his chapter on "Baptism and the Relationship between the Covenants" is alone worth the price of the book], Steven McKinion, Jonathan Rainbow, Duane Garrett, Ardel Caneday, and Mark Dever).

I mention this book not only to encourage you to read it but also because of the excellent chapter by Mark Dever concerning how baptism is practiced in the context of the local church. One thing you can be assured of, Mark is never boring! His insights are penetrating and, most of the time, persuasive. When one hears that we evangelicals lack a credible ecclesiology, I immediately point to Mark Dever and his voluminous writings on the subject. No one is more serious about the centrality of the local church in God's kingdom purposes than is Mark. I highly recommend all his books on the subject. No, you won't agree with him on every point, but you will be challenged, instructed, and encouraged in a way that I find rare in the evangelical world today.Sam goes on to repost his disagreements about Dever's point that paedobaptists occasionally may partake of the Lord's Supper at a Baptist Church. But I draw your attention again to Sam's commendation of Mark's writing on ecclesiology:

Even though I end up differing with Mark on this point, I have probably learned more from him on the nature of local church life than any other author. And I look forward to learning even more as this dialogue continues.

I agree with Sam's comments here, especially regarding the book on Believer's Baptism. I'll have more to say about Wellum's chapter by the end of the week (Lord willing).

Thoughts on the baptism/communion issue

Tue, 21 Aug 2007 01:45:31 GMT

Let’s think this through for a moment. There are a few things in all of this that have not been made very clear. What is the sign of the New Covenant (think carefully before you answer)? Let’s say for the moment that communion is the sign of the New Covenant then one must ask what signals entrance into this New Covenant. Most evangelicals understand that it is through faith in Jesus Christ and repentance from sin which ushers one into Christ thus making one His disciple. The sign that one has been made a disciple is baptism. Therefore should the sign of confessional (i.e., credo) baptism signal that one is ready for the communion table (and nothing else)? This seems to be the nexus of the debate that is swirling around blogville. What do you think and how would you answer?

Historical Reflections on Baptism and Church Membership

Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:16:13 GMT

Aaron Menikoff: "Maybe it [is] simply worth noting that there is a long history, first in England, then in the States, of Baptists addressing the question of whether the unbaptized should be accepted into the membership of Baptist churches." He's written a couple of blog posts (part 1, part 2) offering Historical Reflections on Baptism and Church Membership.

Lig Duncan Speaks Up for Paedobaptists

Sat, 18 Aug 2007 04:05:29 GMT

Lig has written about his main reasons for believing in paedobaptism. What he hasn't said is whether he thinks he should be allowed to become a member in a baptist church if he wanted to, or whether a baptist would be free to join his church. Here are Lig's arguements for christening babies:-

1. God, in both the Old and New Testaments, explicitly makes a promise to believers and to their children (Genesis 17:7; Acts 2:39).

2. God, in both the Old and New Testaments, explicitly attaches specific signs (respectively, circumcision [Genesis 17:10] and baptism [Acts 2:38, cf. Colossians 2:11-12], to this promise that he gives to believers and their children.

3. Therefore, since God has given an explicit promise to believers and their children, in the New Testament, and attached a sign to this promise, and enjoined us (in the new covenant) to administer that sign [baptism, Matthew 28:19-20], then we should give the sign of the promise he has made to believers and their children, to believers and their children, in humble obedience to biblical command and example. QED.

Just in case those arguments are causing any good baptists out there to wobble in their convictions, Justin Taylor has constructed a quick reply to Lig though he is planning a fuller one soon. He said -

. . . as a credobaptist, I think that Peter's command and promise says more than the paedobaptists want it to say. It reads:
38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”
Note the portion I've italicized. "You," "your children," and "all who are far off" are all on the same level. In other words, (1) the condition and the command (repent and be baptized) as well as (2) the promise (you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit) are designed not only for you and your kids, but also for all people . , ,

Baptism and Church Membership - A Reference to the Red Herring

Sat, 18 Aug 2007 04:05:15 GMT

In reference to my post on baptism / church membership yesterday, a commenter asked for some kind of proof that those against the idea of opening church membership to convinced, saved paedobaptists fall back on the red herring of “What Might Happen If...” I think there have been many such instances, but here is one from print from my friend Mark Dever. Contextually, he is including paedobaptists in his category of “unbaptized.”

“When a noncongregational style of government is adopted, the acceptance 0f the unbaptized into membership may seem initially without effect. But a subtle indifference to doctrine may be communicated. Furthermore the bulk of members may come to hold the allowed exception, and the teaching ministry of the church on this—and other—points may begin to stray. Such a tendency would not be unprecedented in the history of once great evangelical churches.”

Mark Dever, “Baptism in the Context of the Local Church” from “Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ” p. 342

kerux noemata - the blog of pastor paul w. martin
thanks for reading!

Baptism and Church Membership - Would RC Sproul Be Permitted to Receive Communion at Capitol Hill Baptist Church?

Sat, 18 Aug 2007 04:05:12 GMT

If I understand this quote correctly from the recently released “Believer’s Baptism” (edited by Tom Schreiner and Shawn Wright), Mark Dever creates a category for allowing temporary full fellowship in his Baptist church with a paedobaptist brother or sister:

“Questions of visitors coming occasionally to the table may be separated from the question of Christians regularly coming as members under the care and guidance of that particular congregation. Such occasional communion may be considered as similar to occasional pulpit fellowship, or other kinds of Christian cooperation between congregations that may not agree on secondary matters but that would agree on the primary issue of the gospel. On the issue of pulpit fellowship with those who have not been baptized as believers, see Dagg, Church Order, 286—298. Dagg concluded that it was not inconsistent for a Baptist congregation to allow someone to preach to it and yet for the congregation to deny that same paedobaptist minister membership in their Baptist congregation.”

Mark Dever, “Baptism in the Context of the Local Church” from “Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ” footnote 16. p. 341.

I can see both the wisdom and the Christian charity in this and appreciate that it is one way of dealing with the question of how to treat our paedobaptist brothers and sisters when we worship God together.

kerux noemata - the blog of pastor paul w. martin
thanks for reading!

John Bunyan and the Grudem & Dever vs Piper Baptism Debate

Fri, 17 Aug 2007 03:05:27 GMT

John Bunyan has been brought in to butress Piper's posisiton which had suffered from the declaration of Dever for the other side. This remains a very good natured discussion, and demonstrates clearly the ability to be united around the gospel but disagree on secondary issues. Aaron Menikoff of the 9Marks Blog begins his post as follows -

Maybe it simply worth noting that there is a long history, first in England, then in the States, of Baptists addressing the question of whether the unbaptized should be accepted into the membership of Baptist churches. To put it in a less sterile way, should the church really be split over a difference in baptism?

The most famous account, and one that Mark has lectured on in academic circles, involved the famous tinker from Bedford, John Bunyan. The author of Pilgrim’s Progress defended his practice of allowing the paedo-baptists to join Bedford Baptist Church in Differences about Water Baptism No Bar to Communion (1673). Bunyan offered ten reasons to allow the unbaptized into membership . . .

Riddelbarger Reviews Hannegraaf

Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:47:41 GMT

Here

Dialogue with CT's Ted Olsen Regarding the Two Kingdoms

Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:47:34 GMT

Ted Olsen wrote to ask about my response to his initial post (confusing enough yet?) on "Jack Bauer and the Kingdom of God." This led to a helpful exchange which he has posted on the CT Liveblog site and which I'm also posting here.

---

Ted Olsen

There has been some online discussion of my earlier blog post on plans to rescue the South Korean Christian aid workers being held hostage by the Taliban. I was particularly troubled by word that the Afghan government wanted to seize the families of Taliban members holding the hostages "as a way of applying pressure." Read that blog post, then read a conversation I've been having with R. Scott Clark, associate pastor of Oceanside United Reformed Church and associate professor of historical and systematic theology at Westminster Seminary California. He'll be posting the exchange on his site, The Heidelblog, too.

[Ted quotes my original post which is linked above, so I omit it here]

Ted's First Response

Thanks for your comments about my blog post. I think you'll be interested in an earlier article I wrote that makes some similar points that you're making.

But what I find interesting is that you missed the point that I was talking about the church rather than the government. The hostages are Christian aid workers. Should we automatically assume that it is the duty of the government to save Christian aid workers and missionaries when they fall into persecution? If we go into dangerous places to fulfill our Great Commission mandate, should we look to Caesar when Jesus' promise of persecution is fulfilled?
I do think that it is the church should proclaim justice to the civil magistrate, and that Christians should speak against the government taking innocent people hostage, just as I believe that Christians should speak against the government enabling the killing of the innocent unborn. I also think that the church, and Christians in democratic societies, should speak on behalf of their persecuted brothers and sisters around the world. But I think our witness is damaged when the government takes innocent people hostage in an effort to rescue us from kidnappers.

Do you disagree?

Clark responds:

Hi Ted,

Since you wrote, I've re-read the post a few times to make sure I didn't miss something. I understood that you were talking about "the church" (more on that in a second) but that's why I was criticizing your post. I should have been clearer. I was writing too fast when I should have been working toward meeting a deadline.

Two things. When I say "church" I mean the visible, institutional church. Where you say "church," I would say "Christians." I understand the Kingdom to be the visible church and I understand it's ministry to be wholly spiritual, i.e., to be concerned with Word and sacrament.

Christians can speak to all sorts of things, but not in the name of the church, per se.

I wasn't commenting on what the governments in the US, Korea, or Afghanistan should or shouldn't do.
I agree with you that Christians shouldn't have put the respective governments in such a position, but I wouldn't tell them what to do once they face the crisis.

I'm an amillennialist so I agree with you that Christians ought to expect persecution -- though they shouldn't go out of their way to solicit it.

So, when you say the "church" should proclaim justice to the magistrate, I think I must disagree if the word "church" means, "institutional entity established by Christ."

If by "church" you mean "Christians functioning as citizens" then yes, I think Christians, operating on the basis of natural, creational, common law have a right and duty to call the state to fulfill it's creational function including the various causes you mention. I don't think, however, that our faith gives us special insight as to what governments ought to do or any special status. I'm sure you agree with the latter, but I'm not sure about the former.

Thanks for writing.

Ted's Second Response

Scott,

thanks again for taking time. And yes, as an editor, I very much appreciate that you met your deadline instead of taking more time answering e-mail!

Can I ask two clarifying questions (and these are honest questions about your views; I'm unclear on whether we actually disagree)?

1. Does the magistrate's duty to bear the sword include the ability to take innocent people hostage in order to influence and punish the guilty family members?

It seems to me that even in very strong "two kingdoms" views, the duty to bear the sword is rather limited. The Augsburg Confession, for example, repeatedly uses important adjectives: "lawful civil ordinances are good works of God ... to award just punishments, to engage in just wars." I do not deny that it's the duty of a government to rescue those in mortal peril, to use force in doing so, or to punish kidnappers and murderers. But I do believe that the means by which and the extent to which the government bears the sword matters (jus in bello). As Augustine wrote, "We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace."

2. Does it matter that the Koreans were sent by a church?

Saemmul Presbyterian Church, to be specific. I wholeheartedly agree that there is entirely too much confusion between the visible, institutional church and the invisible church (Christians). And in this case, it seems to me, the difference matters quite a bit. The church sent these aid workers into a dangerous situation, knowing they were likely to persecuted. That does not mean that the church should not ask the government to intervene against persecution. (Indeed, Paul appealed to Caesar when he faced persecution; yet he did so in service to the gospel rather than merely to spare his life.) But I'm uncomfortable -- horrified, even -- with the government seeking to kidnap innocent Afghans in order secure the release of Christian workers sent by a church. And I think that, given the church's involvement, it does not violate covenant theology for both Christians AND the church to say, "It is unjust to kidnap innocents so that church workers may go free. Please do not do this on our behalf." That, to me, would certainly be part of the church's proclamation ministry.

Again, thanks for this conversation. It's good to think deeper about these things.

Clark responds:

Hi, Ted,

These are important questions. I'll interact below. (Ted's questions/comments are indented)

1. Does the magistrate's duty to bear the sword include the ability to take innocent people hostage in order to influence and punish the guilty family members?

I agree that the magistrate is responsible to the moral law, but I also think that it's long been recognized that under war, governments have liberty to do things that they would not ordinarily do. We have practiced carpet bombing killing large numbers of civilians that we would not otherwise have done. We're certainly at war with the Taliban and if their taking hostages is an act of war then perhaps taking their families hostages is also an act of war?

That said, I'm not saying what the governments should do except to say that they should act according to the second table of the moral law as it applies to war.

My query is how Scripture applies to this whole question. Your original post seemed to assume that there's a biblical or Christian response to this problem and I don't see it. Isn't that the force of your invocation of Paul, of asking what Paul would say (either to the Korean congregation who sent the missionaries or to the governments involved)?
That was the assumption I wanted to query. I don't know that we can deduce any sort of social policy from Scripture beyond whatever it tells us about the natural, creational law. Certainly there wouldn't be a "Christian" position on rescuing the hostages. There might be a wiser position or perhaps a position that accords with the natural law more than others. E.g., it might be more just not to take hostage the family of Taliban members.

It seems to me that even in very strong "two kingdoms" views, the duty to bear the sword is rather limited. The Augsburg Confession, for example, repeatedly uses important adjectives: "lawful civil ordinances are good works of God ... to award just punishments, to engage in just wars."

Of course, this is part of what is in dispute here, whether the war in Afghanistan is just and whether in the face of the patently unlawful acts by the Taliban a government is entitled to retaliate.

I do not deny that it's the duty of a government to rescue those in mortal peril, to use force in doing so, or to punish kidnappers and murderers. But I do believe that the means by which and the extent to which the government bears the sword matters (jus in bello). As Augustine wrote, "We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace."

I know it's heresy to disagree with Augustine on the just war, and I agree with Augustine's general theory that there are such things as just wars, I think Augustine (inasmuch as he assumed Christendom) was still confusing the two kingdoms and the covenants of works and grace.

The magistrate only works for the law. He doesn't work for the gospel at all. Here I dissent from much of contemporary evangelicalism when it continues to assume a sort of Christendom and continues to confuse the two kingdoms. The magistrate, as he wages war, should act justly and bring justice--as much as possible in this life--but not in the interests of grace; except as bringing justice and thus peace will facilitate the interests of the church.

2. Does it matter that the Koreans were sent by a church? Saemmul Presbyterian Church, to be specific. I wholeheartedly agree that there is entirely too much confusion between the visible, institutional church and the invisible church (Christians). And in this case, it seems to me, the difference matters quite a bit. The church sent these aid workers into a dangerous situation, knowing they were likely to persecuted.

Thanks for this clarification. I do remember reading and hearing this. We have prayed for the safe deliverance of the hostages.

The church probably erred in sending the missionaries to Afghanistan. I think we agree that, if they chose to do this, they should accept the consequences. Certainly this denomination should not ask the government to act one way or the other.
Individuals are free to speak to the government about policy and to encourage this or that course, but the church as church should remain silent on penultimate matters. The church as church may speak to ultimate matters (life, death, truth, salvation etc) and it's true that some policy questions verge on ultimate questions, but churches should exercise extreme caution.

That does not mean that the church should not ask the government to intervene against persecution. (Indeed, Paul appealed to Caesar when he faced persecution; yet he did so in service to the gospel rather than merely to spare his life.)

Here we disagree. Paul invoked his rights as a citizen. He didn't put his appeal to the magistrate on the basis of the gospel. He didn't say to the magistrate, "Listen, I'm an apostle of Christ therefore you ought to...." He invoked the same legal rights that any citizen had. Yes, it was to the advan tage of the gospel, but the appeal was made on the basis of common or natural law not special revelation or grace.

But I'm uncomfortable -- horrified, even -- with the government seeking to kidnap innocent Afghans in order secure the release of Christian workers sent by a church.

Personally, so am I, but my discomfort lies in my understanding of natural law, not special revelation. I might be wrong in my understanding of NL. Perhaps there's a common/natural way of justifying taking Taliban families as hostage? After all, haven't the Taliban and other Jihadists utterly blurred the line between combatants and non-combatants? They can't have it both ways.

And I think that, given the church's involvement, it does not violate covenant theology for both Christians AND the church to say, "It is unjust to kidnap innocents so that church workers may go free. Please do not do this on our behalf." That, to me, would certainly be part of the church's proclamation ministry.

Well, I'm not sure how this relates to covenant theology, but it would violate the spirituality of the church for the visible, institutional church, to speak to penultimate public policy matters. The only commission the church has is to preach the law and the gospel, administer the sacraments, and church discipline. Anything the church does outside of those three things is problematic.

Scott

Mark Dever Joins the Grudem vs Piper Baptism Debate

Thu, 16 Aug 2007 12:05:19 GMT

I am really enjoying the latest debate on baptism and church membership. My "lite blogging" plan for August has so far prevented me from entering the fray and declaring my own thoughts on it. Mark Dever has now posted briefly about his views. It is great to see some of our theological heroes respectfully disagreeing with each other. It is a model for the rest of us. (HT Alex)

Baptism SHOULD be required for church membership:
Because Jesus clearly commanded baptism and to disobey this command is sin [whether intentional or not]. To continue in such an unbaptized state is unrepentant sin [whether intentional or not]. Thus, no careful paedo-baptist will follow John P's apparent "generosity" about membership. That is, they will never knowingly admit someone to the Lord's Table that they understand to be unbaptized (even if they took that evangelical Quaker or believing Salvationist to be their brother or sister in Christ). John P wants us to admit to the Lord's Table those that he and we all agree are not baptized. John has no doubt that infant baptism is not baptism. He is solid on that point. But I think that actually leaves his position unusually open to other difficulties--knowingly admitting the unbaptized to regular communion. I simply don't want to take the responsibility to so disregard Jesus' commands (not that John P intends to in anyway disregard Jesus' commands). I especially don't want to do this in what has been an area of relatively unanimous Christian agreement from Jesus til now. Baptism precedes the Lord's Table.

Baptism, Church Membership and Congregationalism by mdever

Thu, 16 Aug 2007 01:11:20 GMT

OK, I'm on vacation with my family, but I took print-outs of the Piper/Grudem exchanges on baptism and chruch membership. 9Marks guys, can we weigh in on this? What would you add to, disagree with, nuance in this argument?

Baptism SHOULD be required for church membership:

1) Because Jesus clearly commanded baptism and to disobey this command is sin [whether intentional or not]. To continue in such an unbaptized state is unrepentant sin [whether intentional or not]. Thus, no careful paedo-baptist will follow John P's apparent "generosity" about membership. That is, they will never knowingly admit someone to the Lord's Table that they understand to be unbaptized (even if they took that evangelical Quaker or believing Salvationist to be their brother or sister in Christ). John P wants us to admit to the Lord's Table those that he and we all agree are not baptized. John has no doubt that infant baptism is not baptism. He is solid on that point. But I think that actually leaves his position unusually open to other difficulties--knowingly admitting the unbaptized to regular communion. I simply don't want to take the responsibility to so disregard Jesus' commands (not that John P intends to in anyway disregard Jesus' commands). I especially don't want to do this in what has been an area of relatively unanimous Christian agreement from Jesus til now. Baptism precedes the Lord's Table. MUCH more could be said on this, but it probably already has been.

2) Because according to the New Testament, it is not merely the elders, but the entire membership of the local church that bear responsibility for establishing and patrolling "border & boundary" issues of discipline (Mt. 18; I Cor. 5) and doctrine (Gal. 1; II Tim 4). I think John P recognizes the importance of unity among such a responsible body, but he understands [I think] the local congregation NOT to be this responsible body, but rather the active followers of the elders--but merely followers. A congregationalist on the other hand (as Baptists have traditionally been) understands that it is the congregation who must ultimately establish such issues. John P would NOT want such divisions on baptism in the body that he takes to be the final earthly adjudicatory--the elders--and neither would we Baptists. The difference is, we think that body is the congregation as a whole, led by elders, yes, but only with the necessary and Biblical consent and cooperation of the congregation. (So, in classic terms, John would be an independent, but not a congregationalist.)

Much more we could say here, but, reader, please keep in mind that this is written by one who loves John Piper, appreciates his ministry (see earlier blog post) and who is planning to have an Anglican Dean and a Presbyterian former Moderator of the General Assembly preach in his Baptist pulpit in the next few months. There is a great unity in active cooperation, honoring, encouragement and love that is not broken by our lamentable temporary separation over local church membership.

Guys, comments?

Jack Bauer Doesn't Work for the Kingdom of God

Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:32:41 GMT

In a piece that appears on Christianity Today online Ted Olson argues that a plan, which was cancelled, to free the Korean hostages in Afghanistan by taking hostage the families of the kidnappers is a bad idea because the Apostle Paul wouldn't have done it. His closing line:

It's hard to imagine Paul writing to the Corinthians, "When persecuted, we persecute; when kidnapped, we kidnap..."

Oh my.

Would the Apostle Paul have cut off anyone's head? Probably not, but that doesn't mean that he thought that the civil magistrate shouldn't do so. In fact, the Apostle taught that the civil magistrate had a duty to bear the sword (Rom 13:4).

The real point here is this: the church is the kingdom of God, the locus of the administration of the covenant of grace. The civil magistrate is not the church, it is not an administration of the covenant of grace. The civil magistracy is an administration of law, of the covenant of works, of the principle "do this and live."

This editorial reminds me that much of the evangelical left (e.g., Sojourners) and right (i.e., the "take back America" crowd) do not understand the difference between law and gospel and they are confused about its corollary, the difference between the covenants of works and grace.

We don't need grace from the magistrate. That's not his job. We need him to conduct wars and prosecute justice. If one wants grace: go to church, that's why Christ instituted it as a distinct kingdom.

This editorial seems to assume that there's a Pauline way to rescue hostages. If so is there a Pauline monetary policy? What would Paul write to the Corinthians about the the sub-prime crisis? Should the Fed lower interest rates or should he stand pat because God is opposed to inflation?

I'm not saying what the Koreans (or Americans or Afghanis) should do about the hostages. That's not my place. I'm a minister of the Word, but so far as a I know, the Apostle Paul didn't articulate a social policy. Maybe that was intentional? Maybe he didn't make assumptions that Olsen seems to make and he did make assumptions that Olsen seems to neglect.

Athanasius on “The Divine Songs”

Wed, 15 Aug 2007 09:05:13 GMT

Among all the books [of Scripture], the Psalter has certainly a very special grace, a choiceness of quality well worthy to be pondered; for, besides the characteristics which it shares with others, it has this peculiar marvel of its own, that within it are represented and portrayed in all their great variety the movements of the human soul.

It is like a picture, in which you see yourself portrayed, and seeing, may understand and consequently form yourself upon the pattern given.

Elsewhere in the Bible you read only that the Law commands this or that to be done, you listen to the Prophets to learn about the Saviour’s coming, or you turn to the historical books to learn the doings of the kings and holy men; but in the Psalter, besides all these things, you learn about yourself. You find depicted in it all the movements of your soul, all its changes, its ups and downs, its failures and recoveries. Moreover, whatever your particular need or trouble, from this same book you can select a form of words to fit it, so that you do not merely hear and then pass on, but learn the way to remedy your ill. Prohibitions of evil-doing are plentiful in Scripture, but only the Psalter tells you how to obey these orders and abstain from sin.

(more…)

John Owen on Justification

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:54:41 GMT

Todd Peddlar at Semper Ubi Sub Ubi is doing a GREAT job working through John Owen on justification. Don't miss it.

Bryan Chapell on the NPP (and FV)

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 02:45:28 GMT

New at The Resurgence.

Chapell is president of Covenant Theological Seminary, the denominational seminary of the PCA (whose General Assembly this summer rejected the distinctive views of both the New Perspective and Federal Vision movements).

Malawi Wow!

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:05:14 GMT

Earlier this summer I posted a note about the trip several Westminster Seminary California students were taking to Malawi.

They're back and Mark VanderPol has posted a site with dozens of gorgeous and amazing photos with some brief descriptions. The thumbnail I used for this post does not do these pictures justice.

One of our students Fletcher Matandika founded an organization in Malawi several years ago to feed children and teach the Bible to them. The students worked with Fletcher's organization and they also taught seminary classes -- maybe now they'll have a little more sympathy for their old seminary profs?

I'll try to get more information to you about Fletcher's work.

Trueman: Where’d the Psalms go?

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:24:57 GMT

It is quite obvious in Scripture that Psalms are to be sung in the corporate life of the church (Col. 3:16; Eph. 5:19). Scripture assumes continuity between the life of the Psalmist before the Cross, and the life of the Christian after the Cross. Yet, this emphasis on relating to the Psalmist – not to mention the direct singing of the Psalms – seems to be largely missing from the contemporary church. I wonder why?

Let me make my own confession. As a non-denominational reformed Christian, I’ve never sung from a Psalter. In fact I’ve never held a Psalter in my hands. In my circles, I would have a hard time finding people who even know what a Psalter is! (One close friend suggested it must be something like a salt shaker!)

I am thankful that Scripture calls us to sing Psalms, and also opens the door to hymns and various other spiritual songs. I am deeply grateful for the corporate freedom to sing a variety of worship songs.

But a big question in my mind over the past year is, simply, why have the Psalms been disconnected from the corporate expression of the church? In the past I have suggested that perhaps part of the reason Puritan spirituality seems so foreign to us today is because the Puritans used the Psalms to interpret their life experiences. But this does not get us closer to a contemporary answer.

Recently I read Carl Trueman’s collections of essays, The Wages of Spin: Critical Writings on Historical and Contemporary Evangelicalism (Christian Focus: 2004). These essays provoked stimulating thoughts in a number of areas. Trueman is the Neil Postman (Amusing Ourselves to Death) of the contemporary church and if you want a great read, Wages of Spin is it. (Catchy title, isn’t it?)

In his chapter “What Can Miserable Christians Sing?” Trueman also takes note of the disappearance of the Psalms in corporate worship. While I am no closer to an answer, I have benefited from his insights:

Having experienced — and generally appreciated — worship across the whole evangelical spectrum, from Charismatic to Reformed — I am myself less concerned here with the form of worship than I am with its content. Thus, I would like to make just one observation: the psalms, the Bible’s own hymnbook, have almost entirely dropped from view in the contemporary Western evangelical scene. I am not certain about why this should be, but I have an instinctive feel that it has more than a little to do with the fact that a high proportion of the psalter is taken up with lamentation, with feeling sad, unhappy, tormented, and broken. In modern Western culture, these are simply not emotions which have much credibility: sure, people still feel these things, but to admit that they are a normal part of one’s everyday life is tantamount to admitting that one has failed in today’s health, wealth, and happiness society. And, of course, if one does admit to them, one must neither accept them nor take any personal responsibility for them: one must blame one’s parents, sue one’s employer, pop a pill, or check into a clinic in order to have such dysfunctional emotions soothed and one’s self-image restored.

Now, one would not expect the world to have much time for the weakness of the psalmists’ cries. It is very disturbing, however, when these cries of lamentation disappear from the language and worship of the church. Perhaps the Western church feels no need to lament — but then it is sadly deluded about how healthy it really is in terms of numbers, influence and spiritual maturity. Perhaps — and this is more likely — it has drunk so deeply at the well of modern Western materialism that it simply does not know what to do with such cries and regards them as little short of embarrassing. Yet the human condition is a poor one — and Christians who are aware of the deceitfulness of the human heart and are looking for a better country should know this. A diet of unremittingly jolly choruses and hymns inevitably I creates an unrealistic horizon of expectation which sees the normative Christian life as one long triumphalist street party — a theologically incorrect and a pastorally disastrous scenario in a world of broken individuals. Has an unconscious belief that Christianity is — or at least should be — all about health, wealth, and happiness silently corrupted the content of our worship? Few Christians in areas where the church has been strongest over recent decades — China, Africa, Eastern Europe - would regard uninterrupted emotional highs as normal Christian experience. Indeed, the biblical portraits of believers give no room to such a notion. Look at Abraham, Joseph, David, Jeremiah, and the detailed account of the psalmists’ experiences. Much agony, much lamentation, occasional despair — and joy, when it manifests itself — is very different from the frothy triumphalism that has infected so much of our modern Western Christianity. In the psalms, God has given the church a language which allows it to express even the deepest agonies of the human soul in the context of worship. Does our contemporary language of worship reflect the horizon of expectation regarding the believer’s experience which the psalter proposes as normative? If not, why not? Is it because the comfortable values of Western middle-class consumerism have silently infiltrated the church and made us consider such cries irrelevant, embarrassing, and signs of abject failure?

I did once suggest at a church meeting that the psalms should take a higher priority in evangelical worship than they generally do — and was told in no uncertain terms by one indignant person that such a view betrayed a heart that had no interest in evangelism. On the contrary, I believe it is the exclusion of the experiences and expectations of the psalmists from our worship — and thus from our horizons of expectation — which has in a large part crippled the evangelistic efforts of the church in the West and turned us all into spiritual pixies. By excluding the cries of loneliness, dispossession, and desolation from its worship, the church has effectively silenced and excluded the voices of those who are themselves lonely, dispossessed, and desolate, both inside and outside the church. By so doing, it has implicitly endorsed the banal aspirations of consumerism, generated an insipid, trivial and unrealistically triumphalist Christianity, and confirmed its impeccable credentials as a club for the complacent. In the last year, I have asked three very different evangelical audiences what miserable Christians can sing in church. On each occasion my question has elicited uproarious laughter, as if the idea of a broken-hearted, lonely, or despairing Christian was so absurd as to be comical — and yet I posed the question in all seriousness. Is it any wonder that British evangelicalism, from the Reformed to the Charismatic, is almost entirely a comfortable, middle-class phenomenon?

- Carl R. Trueman, The Wages of Spin: Critical Writings on Historical and Contemporary Evangelicalism (Christian Focus: 2004) pp. 158-160.

Rick Phillips

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:24:55 GMT

Where has Rick Phillips (the blogger) been all these years? He’s quickly becoming one of my favorites and especially after this recent post.

Church Planting in Chicago: The Creed or Chaos Interview

Sun, 12 Aug 2007 01:20:48 GMT

Phil Sipe at Creed or Chaos inteviews Westminster Seminary California grad and OPC pastor Chris Sandoval who is busy planting a church in Chicago.

If you know someone in Chicago looking for a Spanish-speaking congregation contact Pastor Sandoval at sandoval.1@opc.org

ps. As you can see, Chris and I share the same excellent barber!

Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry: The Creed or Chaos Interview Pt 3

Sun, 12 Aug 2007 01:20:46 GMT

Here is part 3 of the extended interview with Brannan Ellis at Creed or Chaos.

For Us and for Our Salvation by Stephen Nichols

Fri, 10 Aug 2007 19:19:54 GMT

Book announcement
For Us and for Our Salvation by Stephen Nichols

Conservative Evangelical publishers are placing a greater emphasis on patristics, the study of the early church fathers. It’s no surprise. Prominent figures have been jumping off the Evangelical bus to walk to Rome and frequently (we are told) because Rome better stresses the church fathers. In particular, the Reformed community is reclaiming its rich patristic heritage. For Us and for Our Salvation: The Doctrine of Christ in the Early Church (Crossway: 2007) by Stephen J. Nichols is one great example.

At 37 years old, Nichols has written everything but a cookbook. He is known as a master storyteller and a prolific writer, the author of several biographies and a lively overview of the Reformation – The Reformation: How a Monk and a Mallet Changed the World – the most exciting book we’ve seen in 2007! On top of patristic theology and the Reformation history, Nichols recently published an excellent essay on J. Gresham Machen, B.B. Warfield and Fundamentalism and is now working on a book connecting theology and the blues.

Due out on August 13th, Nichols’ latest release is yet another of his excellent historical studies. Now Nichols travels back into the first five centuries to rediscover the debates and characters who fought and defended a true understanding of Christ in His glory.

“Perhaps in no area of theology is this more necessary or beneficial than in the doctrine of Christ in the early church. … The early church fathers wrestled with the same problems presented by The Da Vinci Code phenomenon and its fanciful speculations about Jesus. They wrestled with the same problems presented by Islam and its adamant denial of the deity of Christ. And they wrestled with the same problems presented by the scholars working in the Jesus Seminar or in Gnostic texts like the Gospel of Judas who quickly dismiss the four canonical Gospels as God’s true revelation to humanity. In the days of the early church, the names of the opponents were different from those faced by us today, but the underlying issues bear a striking resemblance. When the church fathers responded with the orthodox view of Christ, they did the church of all ages a great service” (p. 14).

Contents

The book development is split into three historical eras: the first three centuries, the fourth century, and the fifth century. Nichols is a master tour guide through the significant theological works of Church history and a significant place is provided to quote the church fathers in their own words. Nichols provides an concise breakdown of the content:

“This book explores these controversies over Christ faced by the early church. This book also looks to tell the story of the people involved – Arius and Eutyches, Ignatius and Irenaeus, Athanasius and Leo. These may or may not be known to contemporary evangelicals, but they should be. The following chapters unfold this struggle in the early church chronologically. Chapter 1 starts with one foot in the pages of the New Testament and stretches to the first decade of the 300s. Chapter 3 tells the story of Athanasius and his arch-nemesis Arius, the two figures behind the Nicene Council in 325 and the Council of Constantinople in 381. Chapter 5 unfolds the events of the 400s, focusing on Leo I and the Chalcedonian Council in 451. In an unprecedented event, no fewer than 520 bishops met and actually agreed on a very nuanced and sophisticated theological statement that we know as the Chalcedonian Creed. The intervening chapters, 2, 4, and 6, all break from the narrative to provide primary source documents, allowing the major figures in this struggle to tell the story in their own words. A brief epilogue explores the variations on these themes that have occurred in the life of the church since Chalcedon in 451” (pp. 15-16).

TSS Certified Cross-Centered

Nichols’ historical illumination on the church fathers is excellent but more excellent is the Cross-centered focus of its content. Nichols is not content sharpening orthodox Christology until the Cross is brought into focus. At each point Nichols reminds us that the greatest danger in misunderstanding Christ is a misunderstanding of the Cross. It’s because of this repeated emphasis that we stamp this book “TSS Certified Cross-Centered.”

Conclusion

In The Glory of Christ, John Owen said a hearty gaze at the glory of Christ is exactly what we need to cure our spiritual declension and spur us to new levels of Christian maturity. Owen was right (see 2 Cor. 3:18). In For Us and for Our Salvation, Nichols has given us a great view overlooking the valley of patristic Christology, but more importantly he has led us to a place where we can better behold the life-transforming glory of Christ.

———–

Title: For Us and for Our Salvation: The Doctrine of Christ in the Early Church
Author: Stephen J. Nichols
Reading level: 2.0/5.0 > very readable
Boards: paperback
Pages: 172
Volumes: 1
Dust jacket: no
Binding: ? (reviewed electronically)
Paper: ?
Topical index: ?
Scriptural index: ?
Text: perfect type
Publisher: Crossway
Year: 2007
Price USD: $14.99 (w/free PDF edition)
ISBNs: 9781581348675

Wayne Grudem's Response to Piper :: Desiring God

Fri, 10 Aug 2007 03:05:12 GMT

Wayne Grudem's Response to Piper :: Desiring God

I think Wayne should listen to his wife. :-)

kerux noemata - the blog of pastor paul w. martin
thanks for reading!

Grudem’s Response to Piper on Baptism

Fri, 10 Aug 2007 01:59:55 GMT

Anyone who is vaguely aware of John Piper’s position on Baptism should check out Wayne Grudem’s response to Piper’s post on the way that Grudem revised what he had written on Baptism.

I love Piper. I have learned a ton from him, and I resonated with everything in Mark Dever’s tribute to him. But I think that Grudem’s reply to Piper’s position is absolutely devastating, and I pray that Piper will change his mind.

This interchange is a model of godly interaction between brothers who disagree. Praise God for both of these men and their example to us!

Old School Church Planting

Fri, 10 Aug 2007 00:30:32 GMT

I've never met Andy Webb in person but we've corresponded for several years. He is a PCA church planter and he's started a new blog on planting Old School Presbyterian (OSP) congregations. I've learned from and benefited from his writing in the past and the blog looks helpful.

Andy is trying to offer an alternative to the way that church planting is often considered. It is widely accepted that, in order to plant a church we must conduct what might be called a "bait and switch." We're to pretend to be broadly evangelical, or "seeker sensitive," and even, in some cases, quasi-Pentecostal in order to attract people to a new congregation. There is tremendous pressure on church planters "to succeed." There is pressure to "produce numbers" in very short order.

As James Boice used to say, so I'm told, "what you use to get them in, you must use to keep them in." In other words, if we "market" our congregations as one thing, there's no reason to think that the folk we attract using such methods will be much interested in getting to know us as we really are.

Here's a pointed example: imagine a young women decides to attract a husband by dressing and acting like, what used to be called, "a girl of easy virtue," or "fast" or "easy." Let's say she meets a man and he agrees to date and marry her with the understanding that she's a certain sort of girl. Once married, however, the sleazy clothes go away and suddenly she wants to go to church weekly and pray at meals. The new husband has a right to ask, "Hey, this isn't what I signed up for!"

Why would we think that we can attract folks to our congregations, when we say we want to be Reformed, and convince them to be Reformed when we, by our actions, have demonstrated that we don't really believe it ourselves. We say we believe it, but we're willing to set it aside in order to get the church started.

It's like trying to start a family restaurant by convincing consumers (not the happiest metaphor) that we're a McDonalds.

Why do we feel such pressure? For one thing, the first thing anyone asks a church-planting pastor is, "How's your attendance?" They mean well and it's not as if thinking about how many folks are attending is unimportant, but the question serves to put pressure on the congregation to measure itself by attendance. We also feel pressure because, unless you live in Philadelphia or Greenville, SC or Grand Rapids, perhaps in a few other cities, you're probably not living in "Presbyterian Country" or "Reformed Country." We need to be realistic. It's probably not possible, in the ordinary providence of God, to plant a confessionally Reformed congregation in two years. It probably takes much longer than this. We should think in terms of 10 years, not 2 years.

I'm not defending mediocrity or failure. There are times and places to close works and to start over or to move on, but we have decide to plant what we want to grow: confessional Reformed congregations. If we plant something other that confessional Reformed congregations, we're not likely going to get confessional congregations.

All this is to say, it's great to see someone, who is actually doing it, writing about planting confessional Reformed churches.

John Piper Disagrees With Wayne Grudem Over Baptism Graciously

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 23:49:55 GMT

As a model of how two friends can honestly, robustly and yet graciously disagree over an issue of importance see the following post I have re-titled "Wayne, Wayne, Wayne...".

Justin Taylor has also linked to this and there is interesting discussion in his comments section. I somehow suspect we may not have seen the last of this debate since surely Dr Grudem won't pretend he hasn't read this!

Lots of people know that Wayne Grudem and I are the deepest of friends. We love to room together at conferences. We love to do things together with our wives. We were both in seminary together for a season. We have co-edited a book together. We taught together at Bethel College. And at this very moment I love him and would fly to his side in a crisis. But, Wayne, Wayne, Wayne, why did you rewrite page 983?

. . . Wayne’s new considerations are less compelling than what he wrote in the first edition. In the new edition, he writes:

For someone who holds to believer’s baptism, admitting to church membership someone who has not been baptized upon profession of faith, and telling the person that he or she never has to be baptized as a believer is really giving up one’s view on the proper nature of baptism.

No, Wayne, this is not true. I would gladly admit Ligon Duncan or Sinclair Ferguson or R. C. Sproul or Philip Ryken to membership at Bethlehem (if I were allowed by our constitution), and in doing so I would not be giving up my view on the proper nature of baptism.

I would say to them: “Brothers, I think you are not baptized. But you believe on biblical grounds as you see them, with as much humility and openness to truth as God has given you, that you are baptized. Your understanding of baptism does not imply that Christ’s command may be neglected or that infant sprinkling is regenerating. You give good evidence of being born again and that you embrace Christ as your Savior and Lord and Treasure, and you manifest an authentic intention, on the basis of that faith, to follow Jesus as Lord and obey his teachings. Therefore, since there is good evidence that you are members of the Body of Christ, you may be members of this local expression of that body. But understand this: I will spend the rest of my ministry trying to persuade you that you and your children should follow through on the full obedience to Jesus and be baptized. In admitting you, I do not give up on my view of baptism. That is the whole point. We are finding a way to work on this disagreement from inside the body of Christ in its local expression.”

Wayne Grudem Replies to John Piper On Baptism

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 23:49:53 GMT

In this "battle" of two of our theological giants, Grudem has struck back but admits his wife is on Piper's side on this one!

1) I do not see denial of church membership as “virtually the same as excommunication,” nor do any of the Baptist churches known to me. Non-members who are clearly believers in Jesus Christ are welcomed as believers into many aspects of fellowship. They share in the Lord’s Supper together with members (in all but a very few of the most strict Baptist churches). They participate freely in worship and prayer and fellowship. Sometimes a Baptist church will even have a Bible-believing Presbyterian or Episcopalian or Methodist or Lutheran pastor preach as a guest from the pulpit. That is far from “excommunication”!
. . . There was an unexpressed assumption in my discussion, an assumption which your response makes clear to me. I did not express it because it is so commonly assumed in nearly all churches. The assumption is this:

Baptism is required for church membership.

I think I assumed this because, as far as I know, it has been the practice of all major denominations throughout history. Presbyterians believe that baptism is necessary for church membership (for they consider infant baptism true baptism). Episcopalians believe that baptism is necessary for church membership. Baptists believe that baptism is necessary for church membership. Pentecostals believe that baptism is necessary for church membership. Methodists believe this. The Evangelical Free Church of America (which allows both views of baptism) believes this. Independent Bible churches believe this. Even Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox churches believe this. Apart from some unusual groups that don’t practice baptism at all (such as the Salvation Army), I think that the whole church throughout its history has held that baptism is necessary for church membership.
. . . I think the reason churches throughout history have required baptism for membership is that the New Testament so clearly makes baptism the public act that every believer undergoes at the outset of the Christian life. It is right there in the Great Commission: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:19-20). There is no such thing in the New Testament as an unbaptized person being an active member of any local church. So how could we say today that we should start allowing unbaptized persons to be members of our churches? But that (it seems to me) is what my earlier position, and your current position, would have to say.
I do not think such a position is wise, or consistent with the New Testament, and I would not recommend any church to adopt it.

Grudem Response to Piper

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 22:05:04 GMT

From Wayne Grudem (posted with permission):

Dear John,

Thank you for the kind, gracious spirit in your response!

And thank you for your friendship, which has meant so much to me for so many years.

And thank you for helping me to think more clearly about the details of what I have written. You write so persuasively! In fact, last night I printed out what I had written and your response, and gave it to Margaret, and before we went to bed Margaret informed me with a smile, “I agree with John.” Now what can I say to that??

Nevertheless, here are some responses:

(1) I do not see denial of church membership as “virtually the same as excommunication,” nor do any of the Baptist churches known to me.

Non-members who are clearly believers in Jesus Christ are welcomed as believers into many aspects of fellowship. They share in the Lord’s Supper together with members (in all but a very few of the most strict Baptist churches). They participate freely in worship and prayer and fellowship. Sometimes a Baptist church will even have a Bible-believing Presbyterian or Episcopalian or Methodist or Lutheran pastor preach as a guest from the pulpit. That is far from “excommunication”!

And in varying degrees (in different churches) non-members are encouraged to minister to others in the church – they can become active members of home fellowship groups (and in some churches, such as my own Scottsdale Bible Church, they can lead such groups). They can become (in various churches) members of the choir or worship team, youth group workers, ushers, greeters, and so forth. These all give visible signs of treating this unbaptized person as a brother or sister in Christ. (I realize that Baptist churches and denominations have varieties of allowed participation in such things, but they all allow some measure of participation and treat unbaptized Christians as Christians.)

And surely a Baptist church would not give notice to the whole church that the unbaptized non-member should be “treated as an unbeliever from now on,” which would be done in the case of church discipline and excommunication. All these examples show that Baptist churches do not consider the refusal of membership to be equivalent to, or anything even similar to, excommunication. So I am not persuaded by that part of your thoughtful response to me.

(2) But there is a still a clear difference between members and non-members. Unbaptized believers are not members, so they cannot be elders or church officers. They cannot speak or vote at church business meetings. In other words, they can have no formal, recognized part in determining the ongoing policies and teachings of the church. And there will be other activities that each church decides, for various reasons, to restrict to members. There is considerable freedom for churches to decide what they think is wise in this area, in my opinion. And I have seen considerable variety in the Baptist and other believer’s baptism churches that I have known. But there is a clear difference, which I think is right.

(3) There was an unexpressed assumption in my discussion, an assumption which your response makes clear to me. I did not express it because it is so commonly assumed in nearly all churches. The assumption is this:

Baptism is required for church membership.

I think I assumed this because, as far as I know, it has been the practice of all major denominations throughout history. Presbyterians believe that baptism is necessary for church membership (for they consider infant baptism true baptism). Episcopalians believe that baptism is necessary for church membership. Baptists believe that baptism is necessary for church membership. Pentecostals believe that baptism is necessary for church membership. Methodists believe this. The Evangelical Free Church of America (which allows both views of baptism) believes this. Independent Bible churches believe this. Even Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox churches believe this. Apart from some unusual groups that don’t practice baptism at all (such as the Salvation Army), I think that the whole church throughout its history has held that baptism is necessary for church membership.

In the light of that assumption, which I have now made explicit by adding the words in boldface type, I think the section that you objected to makes good sense: [In this section I am explaining the problem that will arise if a church decides to allow both views of baptism to be held and taught:]

On the other side, those who hold to believer’s baptism (as I do) would have to be willing to admit into church membership people who have been baptized as infants, and who did not make a personal profession of faith at the time they were baptized. But from a believer’s baptism position, genuine baptism has to follow a personal profession of faith. So how can believer’s baptism advocates in good conscience say that infant baptism is also a valid form of baptism? That contradicts what they believe about the essential nature of baptism – that is an outward sign of an inward spiritual change, so that the apostle Paul could say, “As many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27).
For someone who holds to believer’s baptism, and who holds that baptism is necessary for church membership [I just now added these words], admitting to church membership someone who has not been baptized upon profession of faith, and telling the person that he or she never has to be baptized as a believer, is really giving up one’s view on the proper nature of baptism. It is saying that infant baptism really is valid baptism! But then how could anyone who holds to this position tell anyone who had been baptized as an infant that he or she still needed to be baptized as a believer?

(4) Now it may be that someone would want to start a new denomination in which baptism is not necessary for church membership. Or people may decide to change their church constitutions so that baptism is no longer required for membership. People are free to do that if they wish.

In that case, I suppose a (hypothetical) Baptist church could say to someone, “We require baptism for church membership, unless you disagree with our view of baptism. For those who disagree with us, we do not require baptism for church membership. Whether we require it or not depends on what you think of baptism.” I suppose a church could say that.

In such a church, they could allow an unbaptized person to be a member. If a godly, Bible-believing, born again Presbyterian (such as your examples of our friends Ligon Duncan or R. C. Sproul, or others) came and wanted to be a member, this (hypothetical) Baptist church could say to him, “We don’t believe you have been baptized, but you can become a member anyway because we allow unbaptized people like you to be members.”

(5) But I don’t think I could support such a practice in a church. I think the reason churches throughout history have required baptism for membership is that the New Testament so clearly makes baptism the public act that every believer undergoes at the outset of the Christian life. It is right there in the Great Commission: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:19-20). There is no such thing in the New Testament as an unbaptized person being an active member of any local church. So how could we say today that we should start allowing unbaptized persons to be members of our churches? But that (it seems to me) is what my earlier position, and your current position, would have to say.

I do not think such a position is wise, or consistent with the New Testament, and I would not recommend any church to adopt it.

Thank you again for your thoughtful, gracious response, John.

Your friend,

Wayne

Wayne Grudem's Response to Piper

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 21:05:06 GMT

(Author: Wayne Grudem)

Dear John,

Thank you for the kind, gracious spirit in your response!

And thank you for your friendship, which has meant so much to me for so many years.

Nevertheless, here are some responses:

(1) I do not see denial of church membership as “virtually the same as excommunication,” nor do any of the Baptist churches known to me.

Non-members who are clearly believers in Jesus Christ are welcomed as believers into many aspects of fellowship. They share in the Lord's Supper together with members (in all but a very few of the most strict Baptist churches). They participate freely in worship and prayer and fellowship. Sometimes a Baptist church will even have a Bible-believing Presbyterian or Episcopalian or Methodist or Lutheran pastor preach as a guest from the pulpit. That is far from “excommunication”!

And in varying degrees (in different churches) non-members are encouraged to minister to others in the church — they can become active members of home fellowship groups (and in some churches, such as my own Scottsdale Bible Church, they can lead such groups). They can become (in various churches) members of the choir or worship team, youth group workers, ushers, greeters, and so forth. These all give visible signs of treating this unbaptized person as a brother or sister in Christ. (I realize that Baptist churches and denominations have varieties of allowed participation in such things, but they all allow some measure of participation and treat unbaptized Christians as Christians.)

(2) But there is a still a clear difference between members and non-members. Unbaptized believers are not members, so they cannot be elders or church officers. They cannot speak or vote at church business meetings. In other words, they can have no formal, recognized part in determining the ongoing policies and teachings of the church. And there will be other activities that each church decides, for various reasons, to restrict to members. There is considerable freedom for churches to decide what they think is wise in this area, in my opinion. And I have seen considerable variety in the Baptist and other believer's baptism churches that I have known. But there is a clear difference, which I think is right.

Baptism is required for church membership.

I think I assumed this because, as far as I know, it has been the practice of all major denominations throughout history. Presbyterians believe that baptism is necessary for church membership (for they consider infant baptism true baptism). Episcopalians believe that baptism is necessary for church membership. Baptists believe that baptism is necessary for church membership. Pentecostals believe that baptism is necessary for church membership. Methodists believe this. The Evangelical Free Church of America (which allows both views of baptism) believes this. Independent Bible churches believe this. Even Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox churches believe this. Apart from some unusual groups that don't practice baptism at all (such as the Salvation Army), I think that the whole church throughout its history has held that baptism is necessary for church membership.

In the light of that assumption, which I have now made explicit by adding the words in boldface type, I think the section that you objected to makes good sense: [In this section I am explaining the problem that will arise if a church decides to allow both views of baptism to be held and taught:]

On the other side, those who hold to believer's baptism (as I do) would have to be willing to admit into church membership people who have been baptized as infants, and who did not make a personal profession of faith at the time they were baptized. But from a believer's baptism position, genuine baptism has to follow a personal profession of faith. So how can believer's baptism advocates in good conscience say that infant baptism is also a valid form of baptism? That contradicts what they believe about the essential nature of baptism — that is an outward sign of an inward spiritual change, so that the apostle Paul could say, “As many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ,” Gal. 3:27.

For someone who holds to believer's baptism, and who holds that baptism is necessary for church membership [I just now added these words], admitting to church membership someone who has not been baptized upon profession of faith, and telling the person that he or she never has to be baptized as a believer, is really giving up one's view on the proper nature of baptism. It is saying that infant baptism really is valid baptism! But then how could anyone who holds to this position tell anyone who had been baptized as an infant that he or she still needed to be baptized as a believer?

In that case, I suppose a (hypothetical) Baptist church could say to someone, “We require baptism for church membership, unless you disagree with our view of baptism. For those who disagree with us, we do not require baptism for church membership. Whether we require it or not depends on what you think of baptism.” I suppose a church could say that.

In such a church, they could allow an unbaptized person to be a member. If a godly, Bible-believing, born again Presbyterian (such as your examples of our friends Ligon Duncan or R. C. Sproul, or others) came and wanted to be a member, this (hypothetical) Baptist church could say to him, “We don't believe you have been baptized, but you can become a member anyway because we allow unbaptized people like you to be members.”

(5) But I don't think I could support such a practice in a church. I think the reason churches throughout history have required baptism for membership is that the New Testament so clearly makes baptism the public act that every believer undergoes at the outset of the Christian life. It is right there in the Great Commission: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:19-20). There is no such thing in the New Testament as an unbaptized person being an active member of any local church. So how could we say today that we should start allowing unbaptized persons to be members of our churches? But that (it seems to me) is what my earlier position, and your current position, would have to say.

I do not think such a position is wise, or consistent with the New Testament, and I would not recommend any church to adopt it.

Thank you again for your thoughtful, gracious response, John.

Your friend,

Wayne

That Whole Baptism Thing

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:11:24 GMT

This response to Wayne Grudem by John Piper is worth reading:

If you don't know, Wayne Grudem is a Reformed Baptistic Charismatic whose Systematic Theology is (yes, I know that sounded odd) one of the better "modern" systematics. It is the "go to" Systematic for many evangelicals. He recently revised his chapter on baptism.

Funny, I remember debating the old version of that chapter in college with folks who knew I was paedobaptist. Even back then I found the chapter insufficient and uncompelling. According to Piper, it has become even less so.

Piper is arguing for what the PCA already does: admit baptistic Christians into membership while continuing to hold that their view on baptism is not correct. He'd like to see the same in Baptist churches, but has had some degree of difficulty in seeing that change occur in his own church.

Having just preaching last week on Peter’s vision of the sheet being lowered from heaven, the whole theme of what makes for unity in Christ has been at the forefront of my thinking. The point of the vision was that Peter should not allow his religious traditions (dietary laws, Gentile uncleaness) to keep him from admitting a God-fearing Gentile into church membership. Is it time for Baptists to stop calling sound, God-fearing Presbyterians unclean? (And vice versa.)

Related Tags:

Wayne Grudem Changes His Mind on Baptism

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 08:36:22 GMT

Last year I intereviewed Wayne Grudem the leading systematic theologian of our day - at least in terms of readership of his Systematic Theology. He spoke about changing his mind about baptism from a position that it is fine for a church to have a compromise position about it. You can read what he had to say here. Justin Taylor now reports that the relevant section in Grudem's book has been rewritten for a new reprint. Justin has the whole new section on his blog, but here is an extract:

But the most serious difficulty arises when people begin to think about what such a “compromise position” implies about the views of baptism held by the people who go along with this compromise. For people who hold to infant baptism, they have to be able to say that it is acceptable for believing parents not to baptize their infant children. But according to a paedobaptist view, this seems close to saying that is acceptable for these parents to disobey a command of Scripture regarding the responsibility of parents to baptize their children. How can they really say this?

On the other side, those who hold to believer’s baptism (as I do) would have to be willing to admit into church membership people who have been baptized as infants, and who did not make a personal profession of faith at the time they were baptized. But from a believer’s baptism position, genuine baptism has to follow a personal profession of faith. So how can believer’s baptism advocates in good conscience say that infant baptism is also a valid form of baptism? That contradicts what they believe about the essential nature of baptism – that it is an outward sign of an inward spiritual change, so that the apostle Paul could say, “As many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27).

For someone who holds to believer’s baptism, admitting to church membership someone who has not been baptized upon profession of faith, and telling the person that he or she never has to be baptized as a believer, is really giving up one’s view on the proper nature of baptism. It is saying that infant baptism really is valid baptism! But then how could anyone who holds to this position tell anyone who had been baptized as an infant that he or she still needed to be baptized as a believer? This difficulty makes me think that some kind of “compromise” position on baptism is not very likely to be adopted by denominational groups in the future.

However, we should still be thankful that believers who differ on the issue of baptism can have wonderful fellowship with one another across denominational lines, and can have respect for each other’s sincerely held views.

Grudem's Change of Mind regarding Differences on Baptism within a Local Church

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 01:11:19 GMT

While at a Christian bookstore today I noticed that Zondervan has retypeset Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology, using the Minion font and a wider trim size. The result is quite attractive, with bigger margins for note-taking. (If you don't own the book, I'd highly recommend purchasing it right away. It's excellent.)

By and large the text (and pagination) are unchanged. But readers may be interested to know that Grudem completely rewrote section F1 (pp. 982-983) in the baptism chapter (ch. 49). Grudem previously argued for "allowing both views of baptism [i.e., paedobaptism and credobaptism] to be taught and practiced in denominations on both sides of the question." Grudem has since changed his mind. Here's the rewritten section:

Do Churches Need to Be Divided Over Baptism? In spite of many years of division over this question among Protestants, is there a way in which Christians who differ on baptism can demonstrate greater unity of fellowship? And is there a way that progress can be made in bringing the church closer to unity on this question?

Much progress in this regard has already been made. Christians who differ over baptism already demonstrate their unity in Christ through individual fellowship, Bible studies and prayer groups in their communities, occasional joint worship services, cooperation in city and regional evangelistic campaigns, joint support of many mission agencies and other parachurch groups, joint sponsorship of youth activities, pastors’ fellowship groups, and so forth. Although baptism remains a difference, that difference does not generally lead to harmful divisions. In fact, most Christians seem to realize that baptism is not a major doctrine of the faith.

A very few denominations have decided that they would allow both views of baptism to be taught and practiced within their denominations. The Evangelical Free Church of America (EFCA) does this, for example, as a result of a “compromise” reached in 1950 when the denomination was formed from two different groups that had different views on baptism. The EFCA allows ordination for pastors who hold to believer’s baptism and for pastors who hold to infant baptism. And they allow into membership those who had been baptized as infants in a Christian church, without requiring them to be baptized as believers before joining the church. If some parents want to have their infant child baptized and the local pastor does not hold to infant baptism, the local church invites some other Evangelical Free Church pastor who holds to infant baptism to come and baptize the infant.

Although the Evangelical Free Church continues as a strong, healthy denomination today, there still remain some difficulties inherent in this position. One is that there can be a tendency to minimize the importance of baptism: since members disagree on this topic, it is easier not to talk about it much or emphasize its importance.

But the most serious difficulty arises when people begin to think about what such a “compromise position” implies about the views of baptism held by the people who go along with this compromise. For people who hold to infant baptism, they have to be able to say that it is acceptable for believing parents not to baptize their infant children. But according to a paedobaptist view, this seems close to saying that is acceptable for these parents to disobey a command of Scripture regarding the responsibility of parents to baptize their children. How can they really say this?

On the other side, those who hold to believer’s baptism (as I do) would have to be willing to admit into church membership people who have been baptized as infants, and who did not make a personal profession of faith at the time they were baptized. But from a believer’s baptism position, genuine baptism has to follow a personal profession of faith. So how can believer’s baptism advocates in good conscience say that infant baptism is also a valid form of baptism? That contradicts what they believe about the essential nature of baptism – that it is an outward sign of an inward spiritual change, so that the apostle Paul could say, “As many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27).

For someone who holds to believer’s baptism, admitting to church membership someone who has not been baptized upon profession of faith, and telling the person that he or she never has to be baptized as a believer, is really giving up one’s view on the proper nature of baptism. It is saying that infant baptism really is valid baptism! But then how could anyone who holds to this position tell anyone who had been baptized as an infant that he or she still needed to be baptized as a believer? This difficulty makes me think that some kind of “compromise” position on baptism is not very likely to be adopted by denominational groups in the future.

However, we should still be thankful that believers who differ on the issue of baptism can have wonderful fellowship with one another across denominational lines, and can have respect for each other’s sincerely held views.

Notes

1. I realize that some readers will object to this sentence and will say that baptism is very important because of what the differing positions represent: differing views of the nature of the church. Many Baptists would argue that practicing infant baptism is inherently inconsistent with the idea of a church made up of believers only, and many paedobaptists would argue that not practicing infant baptism is inherently inconsistent with the idea of a covenant community which includes the children of believers.

I would encourage those who reason this way to consider how much they hold in common with evangelical believers on the other side of this issue -- not necessarily with those far from them on other matters as well, but especially with those on the other side who agree with them on most other aspects of the Christian life. Many Baptists do encourage and demonstrate a valued place for their children within their churches, and many paedobaptists do pray for the

salvation of their baptized children with the same fervency with which Baptist parents pray for the salvation of their unbaptized children. Regarding church membership, evangelical paedobaptists do require a believable profession of faith before children can become full members of the church (their term is "communicant members"; that is, those who take Communion). They also require a believable profession of faith before any adults are allowed to join the church.

When these procedures are functioning well, both Baptists and paedobaptists use very similar procedures as they seek to have a church membership consisting of believers only, and both love and teach and pray for their children as most precious members of the larger church family who they hope will someday become true members of the body of Christ.

2. I did not realize this difficulty when I first published this book in 1994. I have revised this entire section for the 2007 printing.