In case any Reformed confessionalists actually wondered, Justin Taylor has made it official that he is a credo-baptist and by implication that credo-baptism is the default position of the Gospel Co-Allies (despite the presence of Presbyterians in the Coalition). Have any of the Reformed Co-Allies actually raised a finger and applied it to a keyboard to protest?
To support his credo-baptist position, Taylor reprints an interview he conducted with Stephen Wellum, a professor of theology at Southern Baptist Seminary. Wellum attributes the infant baptist position to the Reformed doctrine of the covenant of grace:
. . .the “covenant of grace” is an organic unity across the ages, this entails—so the argument goes—that the people of God (Israel and the church) are essentially one (in nature and structure), and that the covenant signs (circumcision and baptism) are also essentially one, especially in regard to the spiritual significance of those signs. Furthermore, Reformed paedobaptists argue that since one cannot find any repeal in the NT of the OT command to place the sign of “the covenant of grace” upon covenant children, so the same practice should continue today in the church, given the underlying unity of the covenant across the ages. In a nutshell that is the Reformed covenantal argument for infant baptism.
The problem for Wellum (and Taylor) is that this conception obscures differences between the Old and New Testaments:
. . . the problem with the theological category—”the covenant of grace”—is that, if one is not careful, it tends to flatten the relationships between the biblical covenants across redemptive history without first allowing each covenant to be understood within its own redemptive-historical context, and then how each covenant relates to the other biblical covenants, and then how all the covenants find their fulfillment in Jesus Christ. I have no problem in using the category “the covenant of grace” to underscore the unity of God’s plan of salvation and the essential spiritual unity of the people of God in all ages. But if it is used, which I contend is the case in Reformed theology, to downplay the significant amount of progression and discontinuity between the biblical covenants, especially as fulfillment takes place in the coming of Christ, then it is an unhelpful term. . . . In short, it is imperative that we do a biblical theology of the covenants which, in truth, is an exercise in inter-textual relations between the covenants which, in the end, preserves a proper balance of continuity and discontinuity across the canon in regard to the biblical covenants.
Actually, the covenant of grace as taught in Reformed confessions like that of the OPC has no trouble recognizing differences between the Old and New Testaments. In fact, the real flattening out took place when Baptists convened in London in 1689 to revise the affirmations of the Westminster Assembly and proceeded to delete important portions of the chapter (seven) on the covenant of grace, like the following:
4. This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in Scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ the Testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.
5. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the old testament.
6. Under the gospel, when Christ, the substance, was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper: which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the new testament. There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.
Aside from differences between the Westminster and Baptist Confessions of faith, the bigger problem for credo-baptists is an impoverished view of the person. Everywhere in Scripture, God deals with his people not individualistically but corporately, hence the reiteration that God will save Abraham and his children, or the Philippian jailer and his household (which likely included relatives and servants), or even Paul’s teaching in 1 Cor. 7 that the children of a mixed marriage are holy because of the faith of the believing parent. The solidarity of persons with their families is at the heart of federal theology, with Adam as the head of the human race such that his sin is mine, and Christ is the head of the elect so that his righteousness is mine. As such, children of believing parents receive the sign of the covenant and now that Christ has come that sign is baptism.
Baptists like John Piper who defend male headship in the home should not have trouble with such a view of familial solidarity. But in point of fact Baptists do struggle with the covenantal objection to individualism and ironically embrace the modern view of human beings as isolated and autonomous selves. Of course, they can’t go all the way with such a chilling view of babies and their relationship to the household of God and so devise dedication as a way to bring children in by the back door. But one cannot begin to count the ways that dedication is a man-made contrivance, one of those examples of what Calvin called the idol-assembly line that exists in every person’s soul.
As an aside, Taylor’s post should put to rest the claim by the Young and Restless crowd that they are Reformed. Their position on the sacrament of baptism differs little from Anabaptist teaching. In fact, the Baptist requirement that paedo-baptists be rebaptized (hence ana-baptist) puts the teaching and practice of contemporary Baptists and Anabaptists into remarkable alignment. Does this mean that the Young and Restless or other Baptists are bad people? Of course, not. Does it mean they aren’t Christian? No. Does it mean that they should not claim to be Reformed? Well, duh!
Old Life 
Re: Well, duh!
Schwarmers. It would be seemly if they would stop denying they are Anabaptists (with all of the entailing historic ramifications of their being at odds with confessional Christians who believe the action in baptism is the work of God, not man). Good fences make good neighbors.
LikeLike
Lily,
It would be difficult to “stop denying” that we are Anabaptists, since we’re not. Most calvinistic Baptists see the Anabaptists the same way Reformed people do. And many of us are confessional too.
DG,
We Baptists also understand how God deals with man corporately. We just believe more fully in the spirituality of the church, made up of those born not of the will of man, but from above. It may be true that we haven’t given full consideration to the corporate nature of the church, but we feel the Reformed have placed too little emphasis on the individual.
Grace and Peace,
Jim
LikeLike
Great post! Calvinistic Baptists are an interesting contradiction. They affirm the sovereignty of God in election such that it is God who chooses and, yet, they won’t give the covenant sign and seal of baptism to their children until they explicitly choose God. Which is it?
LikeLike
Jim,
You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Credo baptism is Anabaptist not Reformed and it is also against the historic church’s practice of infant baptism that came before them from the beginning (whether Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic). For the sake of being good neighbors, it’s good to respect the fences.
LikeLike
When the Second London left out this: “There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations”, that was NOT leaving out the reasons that Westminster isn’t flattening the covenants. This idea of “one substance” or one “essence” is nothing but a restatement of Zwingli’s flattening of the covenants (where in the baptism of infants is no longer justified as a means of regeneration but as a replacement of ritual circumcision).
Of course , Dr Hart, I would agree with you that Mohler and many other ‘baptists” nostalgic for Christian families and Christian cultures are very inconsistent in their individualism.
Acts 2:39–“For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, for as many as whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”
I don’t think Keller’s greatest problem is that he’s part of a baptist coalition. Keller’s problem is that he tells everybody that God loves them. Keller doesn’t preach the gospel of election and definite atonement, even though those doctrines are clearly part of both Westminster and the second London.
LikeLike
I think it’s important to remember that different “covenant theologians” have very different interpretations of the covenants and therefore different reasons for infant baptism. John Owen, for example, does not sound the same as Meredith Kline, and neither sounds very much like a Lutheran argument for infant baptism.
Now it could be that their agreement on ecclesial praxis is more important than these differences about ideas, but it does seem that some of them are closer to agreeing with the second London than others. (Some of you might want to check out Gary Crampton’s book on his transition from Westminster Confession.)
But to make the point that not all Reformed churches are on the same page on sabbath and covenants and the reasons for baptism, let me quote David Gordon, professor at Grove City, and by no means a baptist.
“Once covenant refers to an over-arching divine decree or purpose to redeem the elect in Christ, confusion Is sure to follow. John Murray despised dispensationalism. We all disagree with it, but few of us with the passion of John Murray.
“What Murray jettisoned was the notion of distinctions of kind between the covenants. He wrote that was not “any reason for construing the Mosaic covenant in terms different from those of the Abrahamic.” Murray believed that the only relation God sustains to people is that of Redeemer. I would argue, by contrast, that God was just as surely Israel’s God when He cursed the nation as when He blessed it.
“The first generation of the magisterial Reformers would have emphasized discontinuity; they believed that Rome retained too much continuity with the levitical aspects of the Sinai administration. But (federal vision) theology cannot describe covenant theology without reference to dispensationalism (or credobaptism, mm), despite the historical reality that covenant theology was here for several centuries before dispensationalism appeared.
“My own way of discerning whether a person really has an understanding of covenant theology is to see whether he can describe it without reference to dispensationalism.
“The word covenant is rarely employed in the Bible; indeed Paul never uses the expression. Where it is used, there is almost always an immediate contextual clue to which biblical covenant is being referred to, such as “the covenant of circumcision” (Acts 7:8) The New Testament writers were not mono-covenantal regarding the Old Testament (see Rom 9:4, Eph 2:12; Gal 4:24).
LikeLike
Dr. Hart, thank you for raising this issue re: Anabaptists or the dunkers.
Lily, I like the phrase, “good fences make for good neighbours.”
LikeLike
You’re slipping, Hart.
I think you could have made a greater impact with this title:
Young, Restless, and D(eb)unked
LikeLike
“Everywhere in Scripture, God deals with his people not individualistically but corporately, hence the reiteration that God will save Abraham and his children, or the Philippian jailer and his household (which likely included relatives and servants), or even Paul’s teaching in 1 Cor. 7 that the children of a mixed marriage are holy because of the faith of the believing parent. The solidarity of persons with their families is at the heart of federal theology, with Adam as the head of the human race such that his sin is mine, and Christ is the head of the elect so that his righteousness is mine. As such, children of believing parents receive the sign of the covenant and now that Christ has come that sign is baptism.
Baptists like John Piper who defend male headship in the home should not have trouble with such a view of familial solidarity.”
Well, since 1 Cor. 7 shows a parity of the sexes that leads to a spiritual consequence and Acts 16:14-15 is about a woman’s household, I think that would give Piperian male headship people a tizzy?
LikeLike
I don’t know, saying you’re Reformed but you just don’t baptize babies seems like saying you’re Catholic but just don’t accept papal authority, or a Republican who just wants higher taxes and more government. Or a Baptist who baptizes babies. Um…
LikeLike
GAS, get your own blog. Hold that. I’d have to read yours and MM’s.
LikeLike
DG,
Just out of curiosity;
A man (Bob) professes to be a believer and comes to your reformed OPC church. He is grieved over his family and brings his wife, his 19 year old son with his 18yr old live-in girlfriend and their newborn son, his 15yr old daughter who practices Wicca, his12yr old son, and his 4yr old daughter with Down’s Syndrome to church with him. None of them have any notion of “repenting” and consider Jesus to be a “mythical” character, but they are intrigued by the whole matter and agree to come to your church regularly with the believing head of their household. Who do you baptize and why?
I would be afraid if you would baptize them all and yet, if you only baptized Bob, I’m afraid your doctrine would appear woefully inconsistent on this matter of baptism, at least to my ignorant oxy-moronic “confessionally reformed baptist” ears.
LikeLike
Dunker? Did someone say “dunker”?
“The German Baptist Brethren enjoyed healthy growth until 1881-1883 when the church split into three: the Progressive Dunkers formed the Brethren Church, the Conservative Dunkers formed the Church of the Brethren and the Old Order Dunkers formed the Old German Baptist Brethren Church… a small group of conservatives withdrew from the Church of the Brethren in 1926 and organized the Dunkard Brethren Church. The terms ‘brethren” and “dunker” have been the cause of much confusion. Dunker is a direct derivation of the German word “tunken”, meaning “to dip or immerse”, and is identified with the peculiar method of immersion employed by all brethren churches–trine (triple) immersion–in which the believer is immersed three times, in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Dunkard Brethren fellowship has approximately 900 members in 25 congregations in the United States.”
I visited a Dunker church once. When the entire congregation turned around in unision to kneel I reflexively twitched toward the exit. All the men wore white shirts. A woman walked up to us, saw the color in our shirts and wryly asked “you’re not brethren, are you?”
LikeLike
Amos,
Did you just suggest that the child with Down’s Syndrome could/should never be baptized since (in your estimation) she would not have “any notion of repenting”? I will assume not, but would be curious what YOU would do with them.
The other stuff, with only a little bit of thought, could be sorted out by most pastors who are used to complex family situations. Obviously, who to baptize in that visiting family is not the first question to sort out. But a man who claims to be a Christian, with a child who is a Wiccan, does not bring a very convincing “testimony.”
Question for you: What do YOU (as a Baptist) do with all those folks who were baptized according to your strictures and later walked away (or more likely joined the Mormons)? Kind of blows up your view of “covenant” theology if you have someone marked by baptism as belonging to the Church, which is supposed to be filled only with the truly regenerate, and it turns out they are not.
LikeLike
Mr. Roach,
My question was addressed to Dr. Hart, and I don’t really know who you are, but do you always answer a question with a question (particularly a question that only take a “little bit of thought”)?
As far as the individual with Down’s, I strongly differ with you. I know an individual personally that does have a very strong “notion of repenting” and a sufficient understanding of Christ and Him crucified. But I see that going down this road with you will prove only a distraction from my original question.
The next issue you bring up, sidestepping again the “simple question”, about Bob’s credibility, is staggering. I realize that paedobaptist doctrine could produce a genetically challenged congregation in extreme circumstances, but surely you’re not suggesting that the Holy Spirit would/could never work outside the organic relationship of a family and regenerate a man from a pagan family, would you? I’m not asking whether he could be an elder, but rather would you baptize him and his entire household? Are you speaking from authority within a good standing OPC church when saying that your church would not admit into membership, but rather question the authenticity of a newly regenerate man unless his family lives like saints? Mr Roach, that indeed is scary!
Who would be baptized and why?
This is my “simple” question, Mr. Roach’s response is “Nobody! Bob’s profession is questionable because his family is too wicked.”
Even if it would not be convincing to reformed Baptists, there has to be a better answer than that!
LikeLike
Jim: We just believe more fully in the spirituality of the church, made up of those born not of the will of man, but from above.
That *is* the Anabaptism objection to infant baptism. (Menno S. here and here).
How would you distinguish your position from an Anabaptist position?
LikeLike
— Robert Frost, Mending Wall (excerpt)
LikeLike
Losing WCF 7.4-6 flattens backwards and fowards in redemptive history: between the testaments, and between this age and the age-to-come/ or inauguration and consummation of the kingdom of heaven. We still have the CoG that needs to be administered through word & sacrament. Baptist theology coincides with over-realized eschatology, there was a series of extremely helpful posts on this subject from R. Scott Clark back when Heidelblog was still in existence.
LikeLike
Amos,
Baptizing the unbelieving wife, Wiccan daughter, and unbelieving (on your account) son with live-in girlfriend wouldn’t make much sense. We’d have to turn around and discipline them in the next moment.
Baptizing the 4yo daughter does make sense. On the basis of Bob’s profession — assuming it’s credible, which I’m willing to accept — she also is an outward partaker of the covenant. The 12 year-old son is also, and he’s old enough for us to begin to ask whether his profession matches his covenant membership.
The whole thing is remarkably consistent
IF
one believes that the default status of the family is to be “in unless evidence shows otherwise.”
The problem that (ana)baptists have in understanding this is that they accept the assumption that the default status of the family is “out unless evidence shows otherwise.”
Remove that assumption, and the inconsistency disappears.
LikeLike
Erin: hear, hear.
LikeLike
Mending walls by Robert Frost
A stone wall separates the speaker’s property from his neighbor’s. Each spring, the two meet to walk the wall and jointly repair the sections damaged by the hunters. The speaker expresses that he sees no reason for the wall to be kept – there are no cows to be contained, just apple and pine trees – yet this implies that the speaker does recognize the need for fences. In response to the speaker’s argument, the neighbor replies with the old adage: “Good fences make good neighbors.” The speaker continues to press the neighbor. His neighbor is not swayed and simply repeats the adage. Repairing fences used to be seen as a part of respect for one another’s property and maintaining good relations – even among family members. The speaker appears to miss the depth and breadth of wisdom contained in “Good fences make good neighbors.”
LikeLike
DG, is a credo-Baptist church a true church? Or rather, can a credo-baptist church be a true church?
LikeLike
Amos,
I am assuming that Bob is already baptized since he is a believer when he comes to the church. Following the example of the apostles in Acts, I’d be tempted to baptize them all if Bob wanted to bring his whole family into the covenant and if they had already not been baptized. And I’d explain that as soon as baptized the rest of the family would be under discipline unless they repented of their ways (except for the Downs Syndrome child).
In other words, I think the practice of the Bible should be given the benefit of the doubt. Don’t you? Do you know that the Philippian jailer had an entire family and staff of Baptists?
LikeLike
Mr. Cagle,
I appreciate your clarity, this is very helpful.
Can I ask from where you quoted when you speak of the status of the family being “in”?
Does this mean to express that we presume all the members of a family to be elect unless their life indicates otherwise?
Actually, in the hypothetical situation, nobody in the family would have a profession except Bob who is newly converted, so I would assume that the 12yr old would be in question? Is there a particular age at which an individual can demonstrate that they are “otherwise”?
LikeLike
Mr. Amos,
I’m a pastor (so this isn’t just parlor talk for me), and the congregation I serve has the website listed right there when you click my name. In fact, I used my whole name, and not just initials(!). So, that is who I am. And this is a public forum. And while you don’t have to answer me, even if I responded to you…you did, so don’t be sore about it.
I don’t think you are differing with me about the Down’s child as much as with yourself (from one post to the next). In a Presbyterian church, she would be baptized when the parent(s) were received as members. However, given what you said in the first post about her not having the understanding of repentance b/c of having Downs (read it again), there wouldn’t be much room for her anywhere in Christ’s church in your theology. And that isn’t a distraction from the issue, it gets to the substance. Under covenant theology, she is included by God’s grace, and nurtured in the household of faith as a real member and full person.
And, I’m not quite sure why you are “staggered” about a pastor or session questioning/interviewing someone to become a member. I’ve had people who make professions of faith, but it turns out what they believe is not the gospel. And you are right – I’m not suggesting the HS only works in Christian homes. Your illustrative visiting family would all be welcome to visit at Hope (my congregation) but if they were going to become members at our church of course we’d interview the family including the father. As for the rest, well, re-read Jeff’s answer.
Ultimately though, the real side-stepping here is not evidenced by what to do in these complicated cases like you mention, Mr. Amos. Hard cases are a challenge for everyone. But the easy cases (“the promise is for you and your children”) are only a challenge for Baptists.
Thanks,
PGR
LikeLike
DG,
I do agree that we give the benefit of the doubt regarding a profession, but I cannot accept only a father’s profession as indication that his entire family is redeemed and therefore partakers of the blessings of the covenant made with the blood of Christ. I miss the gravity of “good and necessary inference” that demands this to be so.
With regard to the family of the Philippian jailer; I would fear being speculative if I pretended to know the denominational affiliation any more than I knew their ages. What scripture does say clearly is that the the jailer rejoiced and believed WITH all his house. I would say that the account in scripture implicitly describes an entire household that heard and believed.
LikeLike
I cannot accept only a father’s profession as indication that his entire family is redeemed and therefore partakers of the blessings of the covenant made with the blood of Christ..
Amos, neither do paedobaptists assume that by vitrue of the profession of heads that members of their household are redeemed. That becomes assumed upon their own professions of faith. But until then they are at least external members of the covenant who are to receive the sign and seal. One way of thinking of it is that baptism initiates covenental membership, then one is nurtured in the faith with an eye toward profession which then allows one to come to the table. It might help to remember that good paedobaptists are also credo-communionists, so we do have a place for individual and personal faith, it just gets worked out differently.
LikeLike
A few years back, I can remember being more than a little miffed at DGH’s suggestion that the Baptists and Reformed participation in the revered Gospel Coalition was built on a shaky, if not theologically suspect foundation. After all, didn’t they get the gospel right, and wasn’t that of the first order of importance? At one level, yes agreement upon what constitutes the gospel should open up at least some ecumenical dialogue, but in reality this new found gospel-centrism, with any good it might bring about, has also had a eroding effect on the importance of the sacraments that play such a large part in how a Reformed Christian understands, and stands in relation to the gospel. The net effect of this erosion, where it seems more historically Reformed tenets are eroding in the face of the baptistic theology of the bulk of TGC members, is that those who are heavily invested in TGC type cooperation wind up doing a disservice to the truly massive differences in the fundamental understanding of how Scripture is put together, and even rudimentary differences in ecclesiology.
Dumbing down these differences in a kumbaya-ish effort to come together, over the stuff that “really matters” grossly misrepresents what really matters. If Baptists are fundamentally convinced that infant baptism is not only incorrect, but also a sin, which any self-respecting Baptist should believe, why in the world would they hook up with Presbyterians who believe precisely the opposite? One’s views of the sacraments (or ordinances for our Baptist brothers) really does inform our view of the gospel, in content and application. It’s not a removable piece of theology. Leaders in this movement, who are always so insistent on everyone being nice, except to those who they deem as less than nice, sure aren’t being very nice to people who have a right to make up their minds about baptism without operating under the false assumption that it doesn’t really matter in the end, so long as there is agreement on the “bigger” elements of Christian theology. One of the great failings of organizations such as TGC and ACE is that these important distinctions seem to be communicated as less important than they really are.
Funny how the tables turned, where the delightfully prickly Hart is a greater respecter of the dignity and cost of making up one’s mind and sticking to those convictions on the important matters of the faith, turns out to be nicer than the saccharine-sweet Gospel Coalition, who doesn’t put much stock into these truly important issues at all really. I am not convinced that it is at all civil to encourage men and women to become wishy washy on issues that once upon a time were featured in the creeds and confessions of the church.
LikeLike
Even if we agreed with the false gospel of the “gospel coalition” (I don’t), that would still be no excuse for ecclesial antinomianism. Thus I agree very much with Jed’s comments above. Having the same gospel doesn’t mean being in the same church!
Of course to say that there are more churches than one (and also to say that some who think they are “churches” are not) is to already have an ecclesiology. It is one thing to think of individual liberty and quite another for those who baptise with water to agree about what that means. People can have the same gospel, and still not agree about what “sin” is in terms of water.
If Constantine believed the gospel, but did not baptize his family (but killed them instead), would that be sin? If Constantine waited until he thought he was going to die, was that sin? If a “Reformed” church decides to do “40 days of lent” this year, is that sin?
I like what the Westminster Confession says about doing works that are not commanded. And no, we baptists are still not convinced when we are instructed (again) that the sacramental work of the “church” is God’s work and not human obedience to divine commands.
“Good works are only such as God hath commanded in His holy Word, and not such as, without the warrant thereof, are devised by men, out of blind zeal, or upon any pretense of good intention. (WCF 16:1)
“Works done by unregenerate men, although, for the matter of them, they may be things which God commands, and of good use both to themselves and others; yet, because they proceed not from an heart purified by faith; nor are done in a right manner, according to the Word; nor to a right end, the glory of God; they are therefore sinful, and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God… (WCF 16:7)
LikeLike
Zrim writes:
“I don’t know, saying you’re Reformed but you just don’t baptize babies seems like saying you’re Catholic but just don’t accept papal authority, or a Republican who just wants higher taxes and more government. Or a Baptist who baptizes babies. Um…”
I always love reading Zrim. He’s right so often! The term “Reformed” to be meaningful must be defined historically, and it can not ‘t include those who refuse to sprinkle infants with water while saying magical words over them, thus magically placing them into a covenant made permanent by God (Heb. 8:13) which they understand not. Many will grow up and show themselves stronger than the magic by rebelling against God’s unbreakable covenant, thus rendering the magic impotent and the permanent im-permanant.
Such persons, both the dunkers, and the rebels, are not reformed.
LikeLike
Amos, the Bible says clearly that Paul told the jailer that if he believed he would be saved — and his household. The Bible then says that the apostle spoke about the things of the Lord to the household. The Bible also says in the same chapter of Acts that Lydia believed and then she and the members of her household were baptized. The Bible is not as clearly baptistic as you say.
LikeLike
Jed, I only seem prickly when readers are off their meds. Otherwise, I am cogent and winsome — in fact, the more medicine the more cogency and winsomeness.
LikeLike
Amen.
As others have noted, infant baptism was the practice of the first century church dating all the way back to Acts. If you reject this ordinance, you basically reject Christ’s rule and authority, since it is Christ’s church and he reigns over it.
How Baptists can claim they are “Calvinistic” AT ALL given the former is beyond me. Just read the London Confession – essentially no covenental theology, totally different understanding of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. BTW, if your covenant theology is broken, what does that do to your understanding of the 10 Commandments? Would that have anything to do with why Baptists are so prone to preaching the Law sans Gospel on Sundays?
There is no ecumenical common ground to be shared with Baptists, who were rightly called Anabaptists by the Scottish and English Reformers during the 17th century. They want things their way and are not going to depart from their folly. The only thing they can do for us is lead us astray.
LikeLike
Amos,
I follow these dots:
(1) And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise. Gal 3.29
and again,
He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. — Rom 4.11 – 13.
From this, we can draw a good-and-necessary conclusion: Those who are of the faith of Abraham are children of Abraham, and heirs according to the promise.
(2) Now this dot: “And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God.” — Gen 17.7, 8.
From this we draw this conclusion: Being a child of Abraham means that God is a God to us and to our offspring. (In case you’re wondering: I take Gen 17.8 to be a part of the promise “to inherit the world” that Paul mentions in Romans 4, to be fulfilled in the eschaton.)
(3) Further, And God said to Abraham, “As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. — Gen 17.9, 10.
From this, we draw the conclusion that the children of Abraham are to give the sign of the covenant to their own children. What is the sign of that covenant? Circumcision, it would seem. But …
(4) For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. — Gal. 3.27.
From this, and Col 2.11, 12, we see that baptism is the sign of our inclusion in Christ, which fact makes us children of Abraham. On this basis, we take baptism rather than circumcision to be the sign of the covenant.
Hence, we apply the sign of the covenant to our children out of obedience to the command of God.
Having done so, we then proceed to tackle the question of what it means and whether they are saved. Obedience first, meaning afterwards: I believe (and obey) in order that I might understand.
—
Amos: Does this mean to express that we presume all the members of a family to be elect unless their life indicates otherwise?
Reformed folk make a distinction between belonging to the covenant in the eyes of man and belonging to the covenant in the eyes of God. That is, between the visible church and the invisible.
We believe that all those who profess faith, together with their families, are visibly a part of the covenant. This is *evidence*, but not *proof*, of their election. Members of the visible church are charitably assumed to be saved (as far as man can tell), but are not presumed with absolute certainty to be saved.
If Bob says he believes in Jesus, this is evidence that he does, in fact, believe in Jesus. We treat him as a believer, recognizing that outward profession is what it is.
If Bob says he believes in Jesus, this is also evidence that God has promised to be a God to his children, as many as He shall call. That profession increases the likelihood that his children are elect. And by “increases the likelihood”, I mean in a strict statistical sense, not in the sense that Bob has nudged God’s hand in the matter, which of course we cannot do. There’s always Esau, and children of believers cannot rest on their parentage to acquire their own salvation, as John 5 makes clear. In the end, salvation comes by one instrument only: faith.
Now, we do hold that believing parents whose children die in infancy may rest on Acts 2.39 (and the example of David) as comfort that their children are likely to be elect.
From a purely mathematical perspective, it’s self-evident that faith tends to run in families, right?
Amos: Actually, in the hypothetical situation, nobody in the family would have a profession except Bob who is newly converted, so I would assume that the 12yr old would be in question? Is there a particular age at which an individual can demonstrate that they are “otherwise”?
That’s an issue of intramural debate. For my part, I take my 6yo’s profession of faith in Jesus to be genuine.
We have the same issue for professing adults, no? Bob comes into the church in 2000 by profession of faith. He comes regularly for two years, then attends only five times in 2003. Has he demonstrated unbelief? This is where church discipline — of the shepherding variety — comes into play. Same with children. Same with the mentally disabled.
LikeLike
Walt, as a former Baptist, I can say that being a Baptist was not a matter of folly but of upbringing and training, by dedicated servants of the Lord who taught me to love the Scriptures and who taught the Gospel.
For which reason, I eventually became Reformed.
Church is messy, man.
LikeLike
DGH,
Must we all medicate to appreciate your winsomeness? I carry my certifiably crazy card with some amount of pride, after all if Paul could boast in his thorn, can’t I in my crazy and still find sufficient grace? But, there are some level-headed chaps who can appreciate OldLife, just look at Yeazel for example. Maybe having a little bit of Walter in you is the only sane response to today’s ecclesiological morass. That said, I still have my suspicions about the sanity of the Michael Mann’s and Zrim’s, and even Jeff Cagle’s of the Reformed blogosphere, after all, when common sense is in such short supply it becomes the new crazy.
BTW rumor has it you are going to be in Escondido this winter, in which case I’d feel remiss if I didn’t offer to buy you a pint, or at least a finger or two of whiskey while you are in town. I hear the Irish nachos over at R.O. Sullivan’s are only rivaled by the cheese platter at the Stone Brewery Bistro.
LikeLike
Walt,
There is no ecumenical common ground to be shared with Baptists, who were rightly called Anabaptists by the Scottish and English Reformers during the 17th century. They want things their way and are not going to depart from their folly. The only thing they can do for us is lead us astray.
As torn as I feel about this issue on personal lines, on ecclesiastical ones I tend to agree. It would be one thing for North American conservative protestant denominations to convene every 5-10 years on an official level to discuss theological developments in their own fold, and to encourage confessional fidelity within their own ranks. This might be of some real value in combating theological errors that concern us all, such as the New Perspective on Paul, or the erosion of biblical inerrancy within conservative circles on an ad hoc basis. However, The Gospel Coalition has really muddied these waters, by making what is tantamount to new confessional and missiological statements, that really contemplate not only what TGC is, but what the Church should be, and this is from an organization that technically is not even an ecclesiastical body. On top of this, it appears that at least 70% of the ranks of this org is baptistic in orientation, which doesn’t bode well for the Reformed in their ranks.
For me, I can say that TGC honestly muddied an issue that should have been altogether clear, and rightly polarizing – namely the differences in the Baptist and Reformed approach to the Sacraments. For something that figures so large in Reformed theology, I am somewhat saddened that some TGC leaders in the Reformed camp have de facto allowed their stance on the Sacraments be downplayed in order to unify on “the essentials”. Historically, any ecclesiastical movement brought together on the account of “mere” or “essential” Christian doctrine eventually ends up giving up so much that some of these ecumenical movements ceased to even be Christian. It seems that the organic union talks amongst protestants in the early 20th century accomplished precisely this.
I have many dear friends and family who are Baptists, and not a few of them are in ministry at some level. Making the move to Reformed Christianity definitely underscored the gravity of our differences with Baptists, even those who (falsely) call themselves Reformed. On a personal level my fellowship with my friends may be quite rich, but if any of them were nominated for an elder position (ruling or teaching) in my local church, I would vote against them, and if they passed greviances would be filed with my presbytery. If they aren’t to become Reformed, I’d at least hope that they would come to understand just how important the issues are that divide us.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
Dr. John MacArthur maybe the gensis of these current discussions on the blogosphere. Dr. MacArthur recently preached a message, “Is Infant Baptism Bibical?”.
in the message, Dr. MacArthur lumped all everyone that holds the Paedo-baptism view together. He called the practice “Devilish” and pronounced the Reformation incomplete because Luther, Calvin and rest of the Refomers didn’t come around to his view
LikeLike
sorry for the typo’s, on my phone
LikeLike
Jed, should you really be drinking when medicated? I’ll be glad to drink your serving while in So Cal.
LikeLike
Joe, John McA has been preaching that message for some time, notwithstanding his friendship with RC Sproul. He lays the blame at PC’s feet for churches filled with unconverted.
How odd that he wouldn’t finger the obvious problem instead: churches that don’t preach the gospel.
LikeLike
Jed, for a credo-baptist to become nominated for office doesn’t he first have to be a member? So I can’t help but think the problem of sacramental latitudinarianism starts a few paces back where membership has been afforded those who are in serious error.
LikeLike
Zrim, the Confession says that “The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.”
You’ve only got a couple of options, then:
(1) Refuse church membership to Baptists and thereby declare that you don’t believe them likely to be saved (since they have a non-credible profession of faith), OR
(2) Accept Baptists as church members and teach them.
LikeLike
DGH,
Moderation enables me to imbibe just like the rest of us. Only baptists sneak another man’s drink while he isn’t looking, but only because they have to, since they are probably drinking a coke (on the rocks) while the Lutheran might be well into his second pint. That assumes Baptists and Lutherans hang, but the illustration should stand.
LikeLike
Add good cigars, Jed, and the Lutherans hang quite well. 😉
LikeLike
Jeff, the other option is to refuse membership to those who are in error in doctrine and life without having to over-realize what those errors mean eternally. In other words, I don’t understand why refusing membership means someone is damned. All I understand it to mean is that someone doesn’t confess and practice what we do. I expect to be a little surprised at both who is present and who is absent in glory, which is to say if we really understand the in/visible distinction then there really isn’t a one-to-one correspondence between militant membership and triumphant status. You know, wolves within and sheep without and all that.
The other option for the Baptist is to repent and confess and practice what we do, even if he’s not entirely convinced, and then grow into that understanding. I, for one, don’t expect anyone to be an erudite theologian before he becomes a member. All I want is for him to confess and practice what we do before he is affirmed as a member. Why is that so hard?
LikeLike
Zrim, I hear the not over-realizing. But at the same time, the Confession warns against under-realizing with the “no ordinary possibility” clause.
As to having someone confess what he is not actually convinced of … That sounds shady to me.
LikeLike
Who cares about baptism when you can quote scripture like this? Come on, DGH… get with it!
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2011/11/29/memorizing-and-reciting-scripture/?comments#comments#comment-92977
LikeLike
Jed – great comment! https://oldlife.org/2011/11/young-restless-and-dunked/comment-page-1/#comment-41188
LikeLike
Jeff, and shady isn’t affirming by membership the “detestable error of the Anabaptists” (Belgic 34)? But if a Baptist wants membership in a Reformed church then I don’t see what’s so shady about telling him he needs to be Reformed in doctrine and practice. If anything is shady it’s one wanting in on a communion that is at sharp odds with him. Or maybe you don’t think sacramental theology rises to the level of sharp odds, that Belgic 34 overstates the matter?
LikeLike
I think sacramental theology is a serious difference. I don’t think it rises to the level of excluding one from the visible church.
LikeLike
Zrim,
I can’t help but horn in on your exchange with Jeff here. Part of the issue, wherever you land in this discussion is that our denominations (PCA and OPC at least) require merely a credible profession of faith for membership. Any changes to this policy would also require changes to their BCO’s. I am not sure if the URC and other NAPARC denominations have different policies on this matter, but some of the issue of confessional subscription and how much it figures into membership eligibility is also a procedural discussion.
I think that for now I do lean towards Jeff’s position here, with the caveat that I have some affinity to what you are arguing, which is essentially the same as what RSC argues so well in Recovering the Reformed Confession. Part of the issue at hand here is does the local church have the right to refuse membership, or fence the table from those who have credible professions of faith, and are ostensibly part of the universal church? I am not absolutely comfortable saying no to those who would seek membership in a Reformed congregation who aren’t fully on board. Practically speaking, my own small PCA congregation comprises mostly baptistic transplants, many of whom needed time to hold to the Westminster Standards. However, with the exception of maybe one couple, I think all of the families in our church have come over to a full acceptance of our system of doctrine.
One of the strengths of the current policy is that it does take the catholicity of the church seriously, but it isn’t perfect as members who don’t necessarily hold to important elements of Reformed doctrine are accorded voting rights within the church. I could be convinced otherwise, but I’d honestly like to see this hammered out at the presbyteries and GA’s so that we can really flush the issues out and hopefully come to a sound conclusion. But I certainly do think it is a discussion worth having in our denominations.
LikeLike
Not that I agree with Mark Dever about the gospel, but Dever does seem to be one person who’s willing to draw boundaries (without “over-realizing” eternal significance, although he too seems “reforming” enough to allow folks to “grow out of” Arminianism).
http://onepilgrimsprogress.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/further-thoughts-on-the-reactions-to-mark-dever-calling-infant-baptism-sin/
LikeLike
Jeff, would you say the same about christology, soteriology and ecclesiology that you say about sacramentology, that is to say, some may have serious differences about the nature of Christ or how one is right with God but this shouldn’t rise to the level of excluding from the visible church? If so, why is sacramentology so negligible by comparison, especially when sacramentology rises to the second mark of the true church?
LikeLike
Jed, you can’t horn in on a discussion that I actually started with you. All fair enough, and yes, I am trying to echo RSC. I see more to be lost than gained by the two forms of church membership which ends up saying some of us (officers) must confess and practice the Reformed faith and some of us are free not to (laity).
But as a practical question you also say, and I have heard this many times from American Presbyterians, that most credo-baptist folks that you make members eventually come around. If this is the track record then wouldn’t it stand to reason that you could just withhold membership until that happens? I mean, it all seems a little hyper and impatient to make people members who really shouldn’t be if all they need is a little extended time with you to become people who should be. What’s the rush?
LikeLike
Jeff, some make different membership assessments depending on whether the baptist would-be member has baptizable children. For those who don’t, they allow membership. For those who do have such children, the thinking is that it is a serious offense not to baptize one’s children so it would be incumbent upon the church to immediately discipline the new members. Hence, the latter group are not allowed into membership. What do you think?
LikeLike
Zrim: Jeff, would you say the same about christology, soteriology and ecclesiology that you say about sacramentology?
No, no, and yes, respectively.
If so, why is sacramentology so negligible by comparison, especially when sacramentology rises to the second mark of the true church?
It’s an odd conversation where “significant” means “negligible.” 🙂
Do you believe that marks of the true church are also the marks of true church members?
But to back up to Jed’s point: The PCA’s position on membership is not infallible, but it carries weight for … PCA elders.
LikeLike
It is funny how you paedobpatists put so much emphasis on a doctrine of baptism that wasn’t even taught till around the lat 4th or 5th century at the earliest. Even then it wasn’t in the current form.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart:
A bit off topic but also on topic. Presented a 19-slide power point presentation at the local college on SGM, Baptacostalism (hint, hint, dunkers), “Old Baldy” Mahaney the enthusiast, Torontonian revivalist (yep, 1993-1994, with all of that…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SgByE0pX1M), turned YRR-T4Ger-1999ish, yet…ever…the high school graduate with “thin” books (literallly, e.g. 100 pagers), the man who just recently claimed he was a “theologian,” books that are “thin” re: absent research (see the non-existent bibliographies), and other manifest aberrancies, questions, and enthusiasms. Let T4G have him. This much, these dunkers, the lot of them, are not trained in basic academics. Mahaney needs a rigourous interdisciplinary baccalaureate. He lacks it. His clerics in SGM lack it. He lack a rigourous M.Div., not to mention Th.M or demanding Ph.D, yet, hubristically, he dares to enthuse the crowds in national forums, conferences and CDs/DVDs. (Darryl, reports are afoot that Mahaney has employed “ghost writers” for his “thin” and sophmoric books.) How Dr. Trueman ever got involved in this “Dunker’s” story is beyond me. How Dr. Trueman writes critically about Dr. Stott at Ref21 while assaying Mahaney “fit for ministry” is beyond Carl’s level of inquiry. Carl was out of his element. I wrote him about it too. I hope he stands back and–like the historian he is–will bow out. I hope he reads here. As to Lig Duncan or Tim Keller, well, they are Americans and the hopes are low. How, pray tell, did this Dunker, anti-confessionalist, high school graduate, and Baptacostal get on the “Board” of the Alliance of (Non) Confessing Evangelicals? In the Marines, one word. “Unsat.” Darryl, Mahaney is an American enthusiast and half-literate. Darryl, it’s worse than we know. The 45-minute disquisition tonight to students was not flattering. T4G is not a place for thinking, deliberative, and cautious Churchmen. Caveat Emptor was the theme of the evening for this “Dunker” named Mahaney. How are these Americans going to improve upon the WCF? Or my 1873 REC BCP (that needs a few adjustments, but is suitable for Calvinistic Anglicans)? Let the high school grad and his entourage of slick defenders, including Dave Harvey, tell us.
Best regards,
Donald
LikeLike
Jeff, not negligible per se but negligible by comparison. And so I am still puzzled by this, how sacramentology doesn’t matter in ways that christology and soteriology do.
I’m not sure it’s helpful to apply marks of institutions to individuals. But my point in bringing up the marks of the true church was to suggest that sacramentology rises to a much more significant level than you are suggesting. So if it’s significant enough to mark the true church then should it not be significant enough to stake out individual membership in the true church? Or, if the true church is marked by the correct administration of the sacraments then shouldn’t her members be practicing the correct administration of the sacraments? I mean, how do you achieve the mark if some aren’t practicing it?
You’ve made the point already that the church ain’t perfect, so let’s not worry too much about this. But it’s not perfection I’m gunning for. It’s simply practicing what we say we believe. Those are two very different things.
LikeLike
jorge, I assume you’re a Baptist. So to my mind, identifying by one’s sacramentology is what seems like overemphasis. Reformed includes a whole lot more than sacramentology. Speaking of which, since paedocommunionism is the mirror error of credo-baptism, why aren’t there more Reformed (paedo) Communionists to balance the Reformed (credo) Baptists, as in the Northern Communionist Federation?
LikeLike
Jorge,
From a former credo-baptist to a current one, until you have delved into the Reformed doctrines of the sacraments, both baptism and the Lord’s Supper, you simply cannot understand the ignorance of your statement.
We could well say “you silly Protestant’s, you place so much emphasis on justification by faith alone when the doctrine didn’t receive much emphasis until the 16th century.” The question isn’t when a doctrine develops historically, but whether or not it is biblical. There are profound reasons why Presbyterians and Baptists are in separate communions, and it is naive to downplay the difference simply because as a Baptist, you don’t place much stock in what you simply understand to be ordinances. We understand the sacraments to be a visible word, a tangible, physical representation of the promises, blessings, and even curses held out in the gospel. We believe that the New Covenant sacraments (baptism and communion) pick up where the Old Covenant sacraments (circumcision, Passover, and the Israelite sacraficial and festival laws) left off as they functioned as seals of the covenant of grace to the faithful, in other words tangible reminders of God’s work on their behalf. On top of this they signified the work of Christ in his life, death and resurrection as sufficient for man’s salvation for all time and in all places.
These concepts are woefully foreign to most Baptists, however please take the time to consider what it is you flippantly write-off, if not to come to believe in the Reformed doctrines of the sacraments, then at least to understand why you are Baptist as opposed to Reformed. You know – knowing what you believe and why you believe it.
LikeLike
Zrim,
What’s the rush?
I don’t think that the question is that of a rush, because there isn’t one. But that doesn’t make your question any less valuable. Like I said, we don’t yet have a great grasp on a doctrine of church membership in our Standards, not sufficient enough to determine where a prospective non-officer should stand with respect to the Standards. I think that RSC’s discussion was a good start, but it certainly didn’t lay the issue to rest (for me at least). Should a credible profession be sufficient or not, and on what biblical grounds?
I know that the URC, along with most Lutherans fence the table, and I have seen some contemporary discussions on the topic from Baus (where has that guy been anyway?), but in terms of any official determination on the issue of church membership and table fencing, I haven’t seen much. It would be helpful to see the issues discussed formally, and exegetically so that they can properly be ruled upon. I am not outright against the idea of confessional subscription as a prerequisite for membership of communion, but I simply haven’t seen enough to override our current system.
The big question to me is whether or not a credible profession should be viewed as the minimum requirement for acceptance in the church. As I read Acts, it seems to point this way, but the apostles also strived for doctrinal unity within the churches, and we see that in the epistles. Would a faulty understanding of one or more of the sacraments been grounds for barring access to them or membership in the church, assuming the soundness of the profession of faith in other points? I am not sure. However later in church history, it seems as if there was quite a process that converts had to undergo before they were brought in as members, and were given access to the sacraments. I can see some wisdom in the latter approach, but I’d like to see the warrant for such a practice before I change my own mind on the issue. If you know of any resources, I’ll be happy to give them a good look.
LikeLike
Jeff,
True, Dr. MacArthur preached a similar message in 1998 http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/80-194 , which was a better message if you believe in that position and the points he makes here. The bulk of both messages are very similar. I scanned through the 1998 message, I didn’t see Dr. MacArthur call Infant Baptism “Devilish” in that message.
Grace Community Church, like a lot of Mega Churches, have a large group of regular attendees non-church members. These folks attend regularly and a lot them are involved in the church’s programs too, but feel no need to actually join the church. At GCC when this group gets large, Dr. MacArthur preaches a series of messages on Baptism and importance of Church Membership, usually on Sunday Nights.
But, this round has a different tone to it to match some of his recent statements
Ex. @ 2011 Shepherd’s Conference during the Q&A session. Dr. MacArthur is asked “How does he make decisions to speak outside his pulpit and why? When he speaks about speaking at the Ligonier Conferences and why, Dr. MacArthur said this:
“he wanted to communicate to the Evangelical world at large that Reformed Theology wasn’t the private domain of Presbyterians”.
And he also said this:
“he was glad to be there to help move them towards the heart and soul of sound Reformed Theology.”
LikeLike
Mark,
Too bad 9 Marks deleted those links
LikeLike
Viking, sincerity and emotion go a long way in the United States. Thanks for the update.
LikeLike
jorge, you have heard that the Israelites administered the sign and seal of the covenant of grace on the eight day? In which case, your dating is way off, even if you were to change that to BC.
LikeLike
I also wish that 9 marks had not removed the links. To me, this is not about Mark Dever and his membership in an Arminian organization (the Southern Baptists have been, continue to be). I am more interested in questions like: what are the marks of the church? Is discipline one of the marks? Since when? Is the Lord’s Supper somehow more important than water baptism, so that we should sit at the table with folks we don’t regard as baptized? Why would a baptist who would not participate at the Lord Supper with a paedo-communion brother ask that brother to preach at his church?
John Piper has attempted to turn his baptist church into a “baptism means what you want it to mean” church, but the last I heard, the elders have not fully approved that move. But I try not to keep up on stuff like that.
LikeLike
Jed, as I understand it, the URC is currently taking up the question of confessional subscription for laity. I share your sympathies for a simple and credible profession, but I tend to apply it in the direction of covenant children being allowed to come to the table while seeing the wisdom in demanding more from adult converts with respect to membership. The irony for me is that many fellow credo-communionists demand more from covenant children than from adult converts, often times pushing children who make a simple and credible profession away from the table until they get their driver’s license and college degree, yet making members of those adults who deny basic and essential teaching.
But try a thought experiment. What if instead of a married couple who refused to baptize their children you had a co-habitating couple who refused to marry? And part of the reasoning was, Well, we find that most co-habiters come around after being made members. My guess is that you’d not make a member whose moral life is out of accord with Reformed teaching. So why leniency for one whose sacramental life is just as out of accord?
LikeLike
Zrim,
The problem with your thought experiment is that true believers do not seriously argue that they commit fornication for God’s glory with a good conscience according to the Scriptures, but many baptists withhold baptism from babies with a good conscience trying to be faithful to God and Scripture.
LikeLike
But, Todd, is it acceptable to say that withholding baptism from covenant children (which, btw, presumes the parents are believers) flows from faith? I think the Reformed tradition says no, it is a function of unbelief and requires repentance. The thought experiment is not intended to presume fornicators think their unfaithful behavior glorifies God, rather it is say that the Reformed faith demands not only moral obedience but also sacramental obedience. The pushback on this seems to suggest agnosticism on the latter, which I find unsettling.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Yes, withholding baptism because of conscience can flow from faith, as Rom 14 demonstrates, faith can be weak, immature, and uninformed, but still genuine and glorifying to God.
LikeLike
Todd,
I realize that Baptists don’t dunk their kids (even where a little sprinkling will do) in faith and in good conscience. And even weak or uninformed faith can honor God. However, if withholding baptism from covenant children is a sin, which we believe that there is, there is no way for this to glorify God directly, even if God can bring glory to himself in spite of human failing. Paul persecuted Christians because he thought that this would bring glory to God, however we know this wasn’t the case.
If what we are discussing is mere preference, then yes you are right. But, if we are speaking of obedience to God then I think your position is a little too soft.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Your point is well taken. Since we rightly draw parallels between baptism and circumcision, and withholding circumcision was a grave enough offense to earn a stoning, there is a very real sense in which the sin of withholding baptism is at least as grave as fornication. But there is also the fact that one is done willfully, and more typically the other is done in error and the assumption that paedobaptism is either sinful or an encroachment on the individual’s duty to believe.
If under your scenario, subscription is of such importance as a prerequisite for membership, then it is good to hear that the URC is discussing the issue. But, like I said, I think there needs to be robust theological dialogue on the issue before I can say with certainty that communions like the PCA or the OPC are in error in this regard. Refusing membership to someone who evidences genuine Christian faith, regardless of error they may hold to is a grave decision indeed, I can’t say that I am at the point where I see the evidence demanding confessional subscription as a requirement for membership yet, maybe someday though.
LikeLike
Jed,
A baptist is not necessarily rejecting baptism in total, just confused as to the timing of it for his children. There are degrees of rejection here of course. But let me clarify. An act doesn’t have to be glorifying to God though a motive can be. A member in my church is divorced. His wife deserted him because he was a believer. She has not remarried. Even though he is free to remarry, the way he reads Matt 19 and I Cor 7; he does not believe he is free to remarry. I think he is mistaken. He will live out his life single if they cannot reconcile. His position is erroneous, but one of sincere faith. So too the baptist who genuinely does not see infant baptism in the Scriptures. Hardly someone we should disallow to commune with us. Of course I am only expressing long-standing Presbyterian polity on this, nothing new.
LikeLike
Todd,
The discussion between you, Zrim, and I has been focused on membership and only touched upon communion, and like you I am not in disagreement with our Presbyterian polity, but I don’t think it is above the need for clarification and further development. I don’t think that one’s position on baptism should disqualify one from the table, and here I am more strongly convinced than on the question of membership.
I agree that baptists intentions might appear noble, but if the net result is sin, I am not sure how glorifying to God it is. This isn’t to say that Baptists cannot glorify God in any way, just that with respect to baptism they do not, because of their error. Though the sin of the baptist is a grave one, there is also the question of willfulness and culpability, which is different than fornication, and it is certainly not a sinful error to which God’s grace does not reach.
But with respect to Presbyterian polity, I don’t see how a baptist can be barred from membership or the table. That doesn’t mean that a discussion on the topic isn’t warranted.
LikeLike
Jed,
Yes, my communing comment was in reference to membership. And I didn’t bring up Presbyterian polity to stop debate, it is worth debating, like most things religious.
LikeLike
Todd, I think Jed makes a good point that what you seem to be suggesting is that sacramental theology is a matter indifferent. If they are then you are right. But our Reformed and Presbyterian confessions and catechisms seem to speak in ways that clearly and consistently suggest they are not at all matters indifferent. I understand that credo-baptists are fully persuaded in their own consciences. But I fail to see how that justifies something we confessional P&W seem to agree is contrary to Scripture. I know plenty of co-habitators who are pretty well persuaded in their own minds that fornication is perfectly valid and that marriage is more harmful than not. But so what? They’re wrong.
Frankly, I see how your latitudinarian position works well in something like the Evangelical Free denomination where both credo- and paedobaptist theology is affirmed and practiced. But I don’t see how the EF outlook works at all in traditions that descend from the Protestant Reformation that are more precisionist than latitudinarian.
LikeLike
And so, Jed, I am not sure how willfulness solves much. Aren’t co-habitators and baptists both equally willful?
If a baptized covenant child who grows up in the church, gets married and has children and then decides to withhold baptism and is disciplined per P&W polity, then the same church makes members of those who do the same thing, that sure seems like a double standard. So what do you tell our first couple? They can because they are them, but you can’t because you are you? They can because they are fully persuaded in their own minds about this, but you can’t because, even though you are as well, you’re also a child of this congregation and, well, that’s just somehow really different? Huh?
LikeLike
And, of course, by P&W I mean P&R.
LikeLike
Zrim,
We do not practice church discipline against members who do not baptize their children because they have not yet been convinced from the Bible to do so. And just because we do not reject baptist members does not mean we do not think and teach their position as error.
LikeLike
Todd,
I find your position to be a bit odd.
If I elect not to punish a thief because he does not see the error of stealing, how am I not implicitly condoning theft?
You may object that theft is not comparable to a parent’s failure to baptize a covenant child. But even that suggests that you’ve bought into a pseudo-gnostic gospel that elevates individualism and proselytism at the expense of covenantalism. Failure to baptize one’s covenant children, after all, is a grievous sin–a sin of failing to trust that God’s promise of unconditional grace to covenant children are indeed true. The credo-baptist elects to doubt God’s unequivocal promises until he sees evidence of that grace.
Covenantalism is central to Christ’s redemptive-historical plan. Individualism and proselytism, it seems to me, are gnostic add-ons, driven by a desire to exercise human control over God’s dispensing of His favor.
LikeLike
Todd, I understand you think it’s an error. My point is that it seems it’s not an essential error, a disposition I find more evangelical than confessional. To my mind, the two sides of the 2k coin are liberty on things indifferent but intolerance on things essential. You seem to find sacramental theology non-essential, but I just don’t see that as the case in historical Reformed Protestantism.
LikeLike
Bob,
American Presbyterians have allowed baptists to be members but not officers for a few hundred years now. That’s a lot of gnostics. And not agreeing on when to apply the mark is not the same as not believing the promise of the gospel.
Zrim,
Historical Presbyterianism, at least on this side of the pond, disagrees with you. Erring on the timing of baptism is not an essential of the gospel, but indeed an error.
LikeLike
Zrim,
And so, Jed, I am not sure how willfulness solves much. Aren’t co-habitators and baptists both equally willful?
Assuming all things being equal (baptist v. cohabitator) one’s sin is a known sin over something that Christian’s have agreed – namely that adultery is a sin. The baptist however, may be operating under the assumption that withholding baptism from infants is biblical. It doesn’t undermine the gravity of the sin, but it accounts for the fact that we can err as believers even at grave points and still be in the fold. But, at this point we are wrangling about on illustrations that aren’t directly arguing the case itself. Shoot me some bullet points, some more to interact with that makes more of a direct case and I’ll dig into RRC and we can get back after it soon.
LikeLike
To my mind, the two sides of the 2k coin are liberty on things indifferent but intolerance on things essential.
There’s no end to that train. Some people will even consider it essential that you agree with them on the list of essentials. Recall Campbell and the “don’t admit someone into your church if they disagree at even one point with your confession” argument.
The cure for that particular itch is to let the Church speak to what constitutes proper membership. And the Presbyterian church has done so …
LikeLike
So, Todd, Jeff and Jed: if sacramental theology isn’t essential then is the protest against the Roman Mass still alive? I assume so, in which case my understanding is that the Protestant Reformation was a battle on two fronts, Rome and Muenster (even if the one against Rome gets the most press). But historically speaking there’s more to being Protestant than not being Catholic, and the Radical Reformation was not the Protestant Reformation. The pushback here seems to me to be a function of the modern notion that the Protestant Reformation was one sided and a sort of uncomfortable peace has been made with the other. And if you’re right then some serious confessional revisions need to be made, starting with Belgic 34.
But Todd and Jeff, I understand that in recent history American Presbyterianism has come down on the side of latitude and two forms of membership. But I think the Continental Reformed (and Presbyterian) got this right.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Well, I’m not sure how accurate it is to compare, let’s say, John MacArthur to the 16th century Anabaptists. But again, like so many sessional decisions, it is a matter of degree. If a prospective member is adamant against infant baptism we would likely not approve his membership. But if an 80 year old single woman who has never heard of Presbyterian baptism has a credible profession, and is open in time to try to understand better the doctrine, we don’t withhold membership until she is fully on board. The gospel is not so bound up in infant baptism that the gospel would be compromised if she were a member.
LikeLike
Todd, I agree with Bob Godfrey when he says that modern (Reformed) Baptists and historical Anabaptists are not one and the same and it is anachronistic to suggest they are. A better example of modern descendants would be the Amish or Mennonites or perhaps even some broad evangelicals. The modern creature who calls himself a Reformed Baptist is as sacramentally perplexing as the one who calls himself a Calminian is soteriologically perplexing. Still, what they do share in the final analysis is a sacramental theology that is opposed to Reformed sacramental theology. In this way, they are closer to Muenster than Geneva.
As far as our 80 year-old friend, I’d make the same point to you as I did to Jed: what’s the rush in making someone a member who shouldn’t be if all she needs is a little extended time with us to become one who should? I can’t help but think the rush has to do with not wanting to alienate, which just seems like the P&R version of seeker sensitivity.
LikeLike
Zrim: I can’t help but think the rush has to do with not wanting to alienate, which just seems like the P&R version of seeker sensitivity.
No, it has more to do with avoiding the mistakes of the past. The early church boxed itself in by requiring extreme waits for church membership. It did so ostensibly to elevate church membership and limit it to “true” Christians.
The terminus of this view was Tertullian, who simultaneously (a) advocated waiting to baptize until the END of a person’s life, and (b) rejected the government of the visible church.
I see a similar (but less extreme) dynamic at work here. On the one hand, you want to elevate church membership by limiting it to those who are doctrinally … well, elite, to use your term. But at the same time, you must do so by downplaying what the Church has said about membership in the visible church: that outside of it, there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.
You’re building up the visible church by rejecting, or at least skirting around, the teaching of the visible church.
LikeLike
I am sure, Zirm, that you know that there were no Mennonites or Amish at Munster. But of course the folks there were “anabaptists” who rejected their birth-right “baptisms” from the state-church. But you find it convenient to identify all baptists with Munster, despite the very different historical origins of the baptists of the First London Confession (1642).
Since Tim Keller is a paedobaptist, and you also, then I don’t need to read anything you write, because I can just put you in the paedobaptist group with Tim Keller. Or depending on the polemic, I might prefer to identify all paedobaptists with James Jordan. You’re all the same, you know.
I certainly agree with you, Zirm, that what those London baptists confessed about bread and water means that they were not “Reformed”. It’s very possible to stipulate that without identifying them with the violent Munster revolutionaries who were violently killed by Protestants.
If you want to know more about Munster, I would recommend a wonderful historical novel by Jonathan H. Rainbow entitled Speak to Her Kindly. In this novel, Rainbow gives a lot of details about the differences between those who became Mennonite (and Amish) from the anabaptists who attempted to set up OT polygmay in Munster.
I would note also that Jonathan Rainbow (recently deceased) also wrote one of the best books describing the historical context of “limited atonement” debates at the time of Calvin. We can’t say that Calvin never thought about the extent of the atonement, because there were many public debates between his Reformed colleagues and the “anabaptists” (all of whom without exception taught universal ineffective atonement).
Of course the Baptists in London did not teach universal ineffective atonement. They taught the gospel. But I do agree with you that those Baptists were not Reformed in saying that water baptism replaced ritual circumcision. I agree with you that this doctrinal difference about water (and bread) is important enough to put us in different…well, what would you call a church which is not a church?
Münster fell under Anabaptist rule for 18 months — from February 1534, when the city hall was seized until its fall in June 1535. It was Melchior Hoffman, who initiated adult baptism in Strasbourg in 1530, and he taught that Jesus was coming soon. Jan Matthys a baker and Jan Bockelson a tailor had little difficulty in obtaining possession of the town and deposing the magistrates. In April 1534 on Easter Sunday, Matthys, who had prophesied God’s judgment to come on the wicked on that day, made a sally with only thirty followers, believing that he was a second Gideon, and was cut off with his entire band. He was killed, his head severed and placed on a pole for all in the city to see, and his genitals nailed to the city gate. Bockelson, better known in history as John of Leiden, was subsequently installed as “king”.
Claiming to be the successor of David, he justified his actions by the authority of visions from heaven, as others have done in similar circumstances. He legalized polygamy, and himself took sixteen wives. (Like an Anglican we know, John is said to have beheaded one wife)
If you want to read about nonviolent anabaptists, I would suggest The Radical Reformation by George H. Williams,
LikeLike
But Jeff, just think about how much good Constantine did for the visible church, and Constantine waited a very long time (just before death) to receive the “sacrament” of water baptism! Zirm sounds “sectarian”. Of course I think that’s a good thing.
But the usual “Christ transforming culture” strategy is to baptize “them” early, get “them” into the membership early, and then gradually bring “them” around. “The church” will influence “them” more than “they” will influence the church. At least that’s the strategy. No us and them. Preaching and sacraments, two marks.
LikeLike
Zrim,
The question that must be answered is, by what criteria is one qualified for membership in the local church? If one is justified by faith in Christ, he is a member of the body of Christ. Under these conditions, I am not sure if there is a NT precedent for refusing membership or Sacraments from such members. Certain members were dismissed for various reasons, such as immorality, or heresy, however I am not sure we can say that an errant sacramentology qualifies one as a heretic. Our own Confessional witness says no less:
Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it; or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated. (WCF 28:5)
The problem I see in barring someone from membership who errs on sacraments, is that both the NT and our WCF seem to indicate that such a person might well be regenerate. Therefore he is entitled to the full benefits of membership in the body of Christ, in spite of his present error. Like Todd said there is a big difference between someone who is adamant in their error, and someone who is simply confused on the issue and needs clarification. What I think we are trying to argue is that there is a difference between how someone should be handled in these cases. What we don’t want to end up doing is turning someone away from the Church that Christ would not.
LikeLike
But, Jeff, that’s the crux of the argument: I think the church got it right in the past (even if some went to odd extremes). I don’t see how I am downplaying that outside of the church there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. I’m actually saying that visible church membership means something and that we do pious souls outside her a disservice by not requiring them to hold and practice the teachings of Scripture or by affirming their doctrinal errors.
LikeLike
Mark, I think a closer read of what I said and you’ll see that my point wasn’t to conflate all credo-baptists as historical Anabaptists. It was to say that on sacramental theology there is little to no difference. I don’t mind being identified with Jordan or Keller as a paedobaptist, because they’re right. But Jordan is wrong about paedocommunion and Keller about transformationalism.
LikeLike
Jed, I’ll make my point another way: I have no interest in making the church absolutely pure or in expecting members to be erudite theologians. I do not want to turn people away. Indeed, I want the opposite. But I don’t see the wisdom in affirming doctrinal error by way of membership. It’s a mixed message. I agree that there is a difference between someone adamant in his error and someone who is simply confused. But I still don’t see how being someone’s being confused justifies affirming what is finally an error. The only thing I can think is that the assumption is that sacramental theology just doesn’t rise to essentials, which again makes me wonder what we’re doing saying it constitutes the second mark of the true church (THE TRUE CHURCH!!).
LikeLike
Maybe Zrim you only wanted to conflate the violent minority (at one time, in one city) of the anabaptists with the nonviolent majority Mennonites and Amish. At any rate, my Mennonite and Amish friends here in Lancaster County WOULD very much mind your use of “Munster” to describe them. They would just sake that infant baptisms are not real baptisms. Of course Mennonites don’t even think infants are lost.
I certainly disagree with the false gospel taught by the Mennonites and Amish, but there is no reason to caricature what “anabaptism” means. Of course I would agree that most Baptists are far from being pacifists. They simply do not seem to be able to say no to violence.
LikeLike
Mark, it was just short hand to try and make a point about sacramental theology; it was not sleight of hand to confuse or impugn and had nothing to do with non/violence. Such are the shortcomings of short hand.
LikeLike
Zrim,
The only thing I can think is that the assumption is that sacramental theology just doesn’t rise to essentials, which again makes me wonder what we’re doing saying it constitutes the second mark of the true church (THE TRUE CHURCH!!).
I hear what you are saying, and in this respect I think there is somewhat of a tension between WCF 28 and Belgic 29. I am not willing to say that they contradict, but you can appreciate why the continental Reformed tend toward a more strict subscription and close communion and Presbyterians do not. Yes, a congregation or communion’s position on sacraments is a mark of whether or not it is a true church. But the question also remains, in the issue of baptists whether or not the admixture of their sacramental error makes them a false church. Belgic would tend more toward yes and WCF more towards not necessarily. After all WCF does not make one’s position on the sacraments essential to one’s salvation, and it does affirm (in the Standards) that outside the church there is no ordinary means of salvation. Meaning, a baptist congregation, filled with regenerate baptists may not constitute a false church, regardless of whether or not it is a church in error. As I understand it, this is why we are separate from the baptists, because we believe them to be in error, not because we believe them to be heretics.
It’s a dangerous game we play either way, either it is latitudinarianism with respect to membership which is the error to which Presbyterians are vulnerable, or the Reformed (continental) attempting to divine who is really “in” and who is “out” with respect to the visible church, credible profession notwithstanding. I am not so sure it is wise or prudent to exclude such persons from Christ’s church, because I am not so sure Christ himself would, or that Scripture unequivocally demands us to do so. I really appreciate what you are arguing here, and as compelling as a position as it may be, I am not sure that it properly accounts for the flip side as well as it needs to to rise to the level of necessity. That said, I could very well be wrong on the issue, which is why I am more or less barely within the Presbyterian position here.
LikeLike
Jed, speaking of tension, while I affirm Belgic 29 and 34 and am here trying to bolster the precisionist case, I hope it helps to know that I also have a hard time saying Baptist congregations are false per se; I do think they are necessarily one significant step away from faithful and true. But I think this is something of a separate question from that of individuals and questions about church membership. I would rather say on the one hand that charity demands most Baptists to be regenerate, but on the other that pious souls should be compelled to faithful doctrine and practice. And one way to do that is to withhold membership until one confesses and practices what we do. Not to sound too nonplussed, but it just seems like common sense to expect a person to affirm the teachings of an institution, natural or supernatural, before extending the right hand of fellowship, and I have a very hard time understanding why this should be controversial.
Also, if it helps but not to get too personal, I have a whole set of in-laws that are Baptist. If they ever sought membership in our URC, my opposition to it would have nothing to do with making comment on their eternal status. It would have everything to do with maintaining faithful doctrine. I know their rejection of my daughters’ baptisms has nothing to do with making comment on my wife’s eternal status and mine. It has everything to do with wanting to maintain faithful doctrine. We both think our sacramental theology matters and pious souls need to come into alignment. And so what is noteworthy is how many of my Baptists very often seem to understand this better than many of my P&Rs. I know militancy is a four-letter word anymore, but I really do think that if P&Rs want to conceive themselves as militant we need to do a lot better on this one.
LikeLike
Militancy works a lot better where flags are actually flying.
So for example, if (when!) one of our members transfers to a baptist church, we do not transfer his membership. We remove him from the rolls as an act of discipline.
That’s militancy: one denomination to another, we do not recognize you.
But to train one’s militant guns on an individual is a lot less advisable. You say this withholding membership is to compel to faithful doctrine and practice. I say that the Puritan experiment shows what happens when one tries to compel faithful doctrine and practice too greatly: the church gets re-defined, and individuals begin to fake their faithfulness.
LikeLike
Zrim and Jed,
If you don’t mind, I’m confused. I keep following this discussion and I can’t understand the problem. If a prospective member cannot in good conscience agree to what the Reformed believe about the means of grace after being catechized, why would either side want to pursue the matter? It seems that the prospective member would either want to withdraw and seek another church or they would want more time to learn/pray in order to see if they would come into agreement before joining. I don’t understand how could I call myself Lutheran if I did not believe what they believe about something as central to the divine service as the means of grace? It seems like a core issue from my perspective and one that would cause a mutual agreement/decision between the parties involved on whether to join a church or not.
I also don’t understand what is wrong with saying credo baptism originated with the Anabaptists and as such it’s an Anabaptist doctrine. Isn’t it? I’m confused as to why that would be considered conflating Baptists with Anabaptists if the subject is the doctrine and it’s origin??? Maybe I’m having a tough day, but it’s not making sense to me.
LikeLike
Lily, in both the PCA and OPC the standard for membership is whether the individual makes a credible profession of faith. Agreement with the Westminster Confession is desirable but not required. That at least explains how the problem comes about.
The thorniest issue to me is receiving baptists who have minor children. A session should have a very serious talk to paedobaptists who neglect the baptism of their children, but have to look the other way with Baptists who neglect it. That’s problematic to me. I don’t know if Jeff didn’t see my related question earlier or didn’t want to answer it.
LikeLike
Sorry MM, missed your earlier question. It’s an interesting idea. I don’t know what the practice of the PCA is.
LikeLike
Eegads, what’s the story on Dr. Carl Trueman? Rockspel? Carl appears to own the photo.
What pray tell is this?
http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2011/12/embarrassing-photo-of-celeb-dr-carl.html
Enthusiast, a high school graduate, vis a vis Carl’s endorsement of Mr. Mahaney’s endorsement to fitness for ministry. Carl, a member of Phila Presy, issues this statement?
Confessionally and catechetically trained? Liturgically trained? Carl, you might have a PhD, but were you reared in the catechisms and old Prayer Books?
Viking
/
LikeLike
Many thanks, MM. I greatly appreciate your help – this is a dilemma. Confessional Lutherans handle things differently. I’m not sure why a prospective member would need to agree to the entire Westminster Confession, why not limit it to the means of grace? That would solve the dilemma of baptism, wouldn’t it? It would also allow them to truly enter into the worship service as participants with the Reformed understanding of the service, wouldn’t it? Perhaps we could all learn something from the African churches who catechize their prospective members for 3 years before allowing them to join! 😉
I missed your question to Jeff, too. I have noticed that sometimes my RSS feed will skip numerous comments and only later realize what happened. Perhaps that happens to Jeff too?
LikeLike
Dr. Trueman endorsing a Dunker, a Baptacostal like Mahaney? Whiskey, tango, foxtrot, Oscar!
LikeLike
“Oscar” means over. WTF is self-explanatory and well known to Marines. Pete Lillback had and has no Confessional or liturgical background either. Not reared in it. Now, the same questions obtain for Carl. In fact, for Alliance of (Non) Confessing Evangelicals like Ligon Duncan. Some of us had to memorize (thankfully) our old WSC and BCPs. We ain’t forgettin’ it either. Do my 20-year oldish children (4 in college at present) have better WSC and BCP backgrounds? Sharon and I are confident in that rearing through the years and the kids still get it. What did Carl have? Or Peter? An old 81′ WTS alum has questions.
LikeLike
James Jordan: “We depart from the whole Reformation tradition at certain pretty basic points. It’s no good pretending otherwise. I think the PCA is perfectly within its rights to say no to all types like us. We are NOT traditional presbyterians. The PCA suffers us within itself, but we are poison to traditional presbyterianism. We are new wine, the PCA is an old skin. We do our best. But we don’t really “belong” there.
“I mean, think about it. Would any of you seek ordination in a Baptist denomination? No. Then why do you seek ordination in non-paedocommuning Reformed denominations? Don’t tell me that these aren’t the same question, because at the practical level, American presbyterianism is just “Baptist light.” That’s what Banner of Truth Calvinism is, and why it’s been Reformed Baptists who most appreciate it…. That’s what the Southern Presbyterian tradition is. That’s what American individualist conversionist presbyterianism is: baptists who sprinkle babies.
“So, why not seek to get ordained Baptist? There are a whole lot more baptists out there. A bigger pond. Larger sphere of influence. It’s because the baptists won’t have us, and so far the PCA will. But there’s no reason why the presbys should receive us, since sacramentally speaking we are NOT Reformed…. if you believe in paedocommunion, you’re not in the Reformed tradition at all in a very significant and profound sense.
LikeLike
Darryl, tell us more. I’ve been gone from WTS since 81. Philip Edcumbe Hughes was my mentor. Shepherd was in trouble in the late 70s. I’ve not followed the East story since. Been to sea, desert, mountains, war and more. I really need to look more closely. I’ve never ever been comfortable with Peter, Dallas alum and dispensationalist, without catechetical or liturgical backgrounds, as the President. My attenae is up. Including this splash with the Celeb Rock Star (horrors), Carl. Is there no sense for an adult? As Carl was? He apparently owns the photo. Rock-loons as liturgists? As to worship, will take cues from the Masters rather than Carl. And then, Carl endorsed Mahaney for ministry? Is there no honour, no decency, and no scholarship here?
LikeLike
Lily,
We wouldn’t say not understanding why infants receive baptism is equivalent to rejecting the Reformed view of the means of grace. Our members would agree that God normally administers his covenant blessings through the Word and sacraments, but in the one area of babies they would not understand how that would apply. A struggle in one area is not a rejection of an entire doctrine.
If one considers the Book of Acts, let’s say, Acts 2:47, which we normally understand “number” there as membership in the visible church, however they measured membership, there certainly was not a lot of time for detailed theological instruction before being added to the church. A profession of Christ as Lord and Savior seemed enough. Added to that the theological deficiencies revealed in I Cor, the answer was just more instruction, not making a full understanding and acceptance of an entire system of theology the marker for entrance. Now, we have to be careful not to make everything in Acts proscriptive for church government, but the early church did go too far in the other direction requiring a year or more of instruction and discipleship before allowing for membership. It sure didn’t seem to solve any problems one might think it would solve.
LikeLike
Todd,
I appreciate your thoughtful response. Unfortunately, the Lutheran and Reformed have different understandings of the means of grace. The difficulties the Reformed appear to be having with baptism and new members may be related to the proverb’s wisdom in the question, “Can two walk together unless they agree?” Confessional Lutheran pators catechize and reach agreement prior to membership – thus the question is resolved and discipline is unnecessary. It’s not that a new member has to go through laborious catechism or the Book of Concord. But, catechism includes the means of grace and agreement with our understanding of them and a confession of faith is needful for membership. Perhaps that’s one of the reasons we don’t emphasize discipline as the Reformed do? It’s addressed prior to membership…
LikeLike
Lily:
“Many thanks, MM. I greatly appreciate your help – this is a dilemma. Confessional Lutherans handle things differently. I’m not sure why a prospective member would need to agree to the entire Westminster Confession, why not limit it to the means of grace? …. Perhaps we could all learn something from the African churches who catechize their prospective members for 3 years before allowing them to join! ;)”
There’s an interesting dynamic in which the OPC/PCA “credible confession” standard of membership brings in many from outside Presbyterianism. That’s good in a way, but it also tends to be a pull toward broader evangelicalism, and a discomfort with or even opposition to catechizing by the church. More to the point of your comment, individual sessions decide on the extent of instruction given to incoming members.
“I missed your question to Jeff, too. I have noticed that sometimes my RSS feed will skip numerous comments and only later realize what happened. Perhaps that happens to Jeff too?”
It sure could have happened. But it’s nothing new; my children miss my comments, too.
I missed your question to Jeff, too. I have noticed that sometimes my RSS feed will skip numerous comments and only later realize what happened. Perhaps that happens to Jeff too?
LikeLike
MM,
I should clarify that I was talking about the confessional Lutheran churches in our synod. We have problems in our synod similar to the ones you face where numerous churches embraced the church growth methods and are more evangelical in teaching and practice than Lutheran. It’s more than a difficult situation when a synod church wants to be Lutheran in name only.
I cannot understand why a confessional church would not catechize their members in the faith. It seems irresponsible for a confessional body to fail to catechize and pass on the faith. It’s the pearl of great price that we have to offer a dying world. Having a credible confession of faith doesn’t make someone EO, RC, Reformed, Lutheran, or etcetera. Evangelicals seem to have a pretty vague, cafeteria style belief system where gnostic new age beliefs, or therapeutic moralistic systems are accepted without much problem. I haven’t a clue of how one helps them straighten out their belief system without catechizing?
IMNSHO, I think the churches need to get over the numbers game of trying to grow their churches and focus on being faithful. The excuse that we could not turn away a prospective member with a credible confession of faith who could not agree with vital basics in our church’s confessions seems to be just that – an excuse to not be a confessional church. To be a small church is not a sin. Faithfully teaching the faith and letting those who want pluralistic evangelicalism go to those churches is not a sin.
I find it interesting that some people are offended by our practice of close communion, yet are not offended that the EO or RC practice the same. Why do they respect their fences but not ours? Why do they expect to be catechized into those bodies and balk when a Lutheran church does the same? The only answer I can think of is that people want churches that reflect the culture’s demands for a libertine egalitarianism where having standards and possibly offending someone by those standards is unacceptable. To go to the lowest common denominator of a confession of faith for church membership in our current culture will and should cause a confessional church problems. We are not one-size-fits-all and thus not everyone will want to accept our confessions. To me, it seems only common sense to say these things, but to others, I’m guessing that I sound like an evil, unfriendly curmudgeon who doesn’t care about the lost or homeless Christians. IMO, I think the lost need to hear the gospel and be catechized prior to their first communion plus I think numerous homeless Christians are looking for faithful confessional churches that are willing to take the time to catechize them and willing to take the time to wait for membership until they know if they are in agreement on vital church doctrines like the means of grace.
LikeLike
Lily, for that second paragraph I give you a fist-bump and a high-five followed by a hip bump. I think I’ll put in on an inspirational desk calendar.
Then you say “IMNSHO, I think the churches need to get over the numbers game of trying to grow their churches and focus on being faithful. The excuse that we could not turn away a prospective member with a credible confession of faith who could not agree with vital basics in our church’s confessions seems to be just that – an excuse to not be a confessional church. To be a small church is not a sin. Faithfully teaching the faith and letting those who want pluralistic evangelicalism go to those churches is not a sin.”
First, what’s the acronymn? FYI, what actually happens may not be as bad as it seems. People coming into a Westminster standards church know they’re doing that, and it’s not unusual for an incoming member to say they have no problem with any of it. And, assuming the pulpit ministry and Sunday School reflect those standards, the incoming member is unlikely to have major issues with them. The larger problem is, for lack of a better word, ecclesiastical culture. Folks who come from traditions with some elements of pietism and/or biblicism give catechism the hairy eyeball.
LikeLike
P.S.
Perhaps John Y. best summed up the problem I was trying to articulate when he wrote the following observation in another thread this morning:
“Not being conformed to the world is a more difficult enterprise than one would normally imagine.”
LikeLike
MM,
FWIW, I attended mid-week classes at a PCA church a number of years ago when Sinclair Ferguson was teaching the book of Ephesians. What I found among the laymen and elders does not fit well with what you are saying. It may be because it’s size was somewhere around 5000? When I asked an elder’s wife about the TULIP, she said, “Oh, I don’t believe that and most people do not.” When I noted that one of the assistant pastors was a Dallas Theological Seminary graduate and not trained in Reformed theology, she said that the pastors did not have to agree with all of the Westminster confessions in order to be a minister in the PCA. I found it sad since this pastor was teaching DTS beliefs (eg: not Reformed) in his Sunday school classes. I also met a long time teaching elder who was teaching the book of Isaiah and told me that Jesus had always had a body from the beginning. I was thankful that they at least observed the church calendar and had vespers prior to the mid-week classes until Dr. Hart pointed out that this was not part of Reformed practices. Anywho, my experience with them pointed to a cafeteria style of being Reformed and one that welcomes non-Reformed teachings with open arms. Similar experiences can be had in Lutheran churches.
LikeLike
Lily, there is considerable overlap between the PCA and OPC, but there are certain forces more predominant in the PCA. From its inception the PCA has had a tension between the more doctrinal and confessional types on the one side and broad evangelicals on the other. The OPC was founded, in part, on the ground that doctrine is important. The result is that the PCA has more churches and larger churches, while the OPC has fewer and smaller churches. Each denomination can look at the other as a kind of thought experiment, with each side asking “what would we be like if we followed their route?” It seems that you encountered a large, broadly evangelical PCA.
LikeLike
Jeff, maybe some of those who are “faking faithfulness” are actually people putting intellectual understanding after submission instead of before? I know it seems like my case is one that bolsters intellectualism, but I would suggest that it’s actually your side of the table that makes things safe for it since you give such leeway for those who are “convinced in their own minds” about a doctrine that we confess is flat wrong, regardless of how persuaded anybody is. The Pope is pretty persuaded in his own gifted mind that justification includes sanctification. So what?
LikeLike
Lily, you asked,
If a prospective member cannot in good conscience agree to what the Reformed believe about the means of grace after being catechized, why would either side want to pursue the matter? It seems that the prospective member would either want to withdraw and seek another church or they would want more time to learn/pray in order to see if they would come into agreement before joining.
I have in mind the specific situation in my own URC where a transient Reformed Baptist family (only here temporarily for study) is afforded what is called “associate membership,” which means they have all the rights and privileges of full membership, with the exception of voting in congregational meetings and holding church office. Their communicant memberships remain in their respective home churches. My understanding is that the RB family finds our URC superior to area RBCs on the doctrine of the two kingdoms and is why they sought membership. I could not be more sympathetic. But what I do not understand is how those who elevate sacramental theology to such a level as to denominate themselves by it would want to sacrifice it on the altar of 2k. Wouldn’t a BAPTIST be willing to tolerate anti-2k since by his very name and communicant membership he seems to think sacramental theology is essential? And on the church’s side, doesn’t affording any kind of membership affirm this doctrine, or at least wink at it?
LikeLike
Todd (Bordow, right?), not to take us too far afield (though still within sacramental discussion), if you’re going to appeal to the primitive/early church to make the case that a simple and credible profession apart from sacramental confession and practice is all that is needed for adult converts to be added to visible church membership then I wonder why that same appeal can’t be made for weekly communion. You make the case that infrequency flows from the wisdom of historical Reformed development. I could just as easily appeal to that same historical development for baptismal precisionism.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Yes, it’s me. I think you could turn a discussion of Mary Ann versus Ginger into one on weekly communion. Since weekly communion is not clear from Acts I’m not sure how your point is made. We can see from Acts what was required to join the church. I think Matt 16 is another argument. Peter’s confession of verse 16 is the bedrock of all public professions. It is not until v. 17 that the Lord reveals to him the source of his faith that led to his confession. Thus I have non-Calvinists in my church that are not fully on board with election, but are growing in their understanding as members, and serve well. I think having a different style of church on every block in America colors this debate. What if we were the only church in an area? Knowing it takes some Christians years to grow in their doctrinal understanding, would it be right for us to withhold membership in Christ’s church, accountable shepherding, etc… if their profession is genuine, but were simply having trouble grasping certain doctrines, even though they were willing to be better instructed?
LikeLike
Lily, I missed your question, too — in fact, it’s not showing up still on my page.
Above, you said, “I think the churches need to get over the numbers game of trying to grow their churches and focus on being faithful. The excuse that we could not turn away a prospective member with a credible confession of faith who could not agree with vital basics in our church’s confessions seems to be just that – an excuse to not be a confessional church. ”
I agree that we need to focus on being faithful.
And because of that, and because of how our denomination defines the visible church, I feel compelled to take the position I do on membership.
You may disagree that this is the appropriate position to take — and from your confession’s standpoint, I can see why.
But you cannot say that I’m “making an excuse to not be confessional” or “trying to play the numbers game.”
My reason is what it is. There’s not some ulterior motive behind it.
LikeLike
Viking, I have lots I could say about my experience with WTS and may say more in the future. But like the moth flying around the candle, I’ve learned I need to stay away from the flame for a while. I’ve been singed into silence.
LikeLike
Todd, I think it comes down to what we think is essential and what is non-essential. I don’t see how membership can be afforded those who don’t affirm what is essential. Heck, I’ll take a wobbly affirmation. After all, even a man who stammers “I do” to his prospective bride beats a man who won’t. Does anyone consider him a husband who professes inward love but takes outward exceptions to the vows simply because he’s “made up in his own mind” that sickness is an out?
Frequenters think weekly is clear from Acts. But my point was that I find it interesting how you appeal to historical development to oppose weekly eucharist, yet the early church to affirm baptismal latitude. But credo-baptism is a relative novelty in church history, so appealing to the early church seems moot.
P.S. Mary Ann would totally be a weekly gal. Ginger is so neo-Calvinist.
LikeLike
Thanks, Zrim.
Good questions. As I pondered the situation, I kept wondering why a special membership designation was extended rather than accepting them for what they state they are: visitors. I suppose this is an example of why I am fond of the adage: good fences make good neighbors. It keeps things clear on both sides. I can’t think of any church that would not be willing to welcome them as visitors for an extended time, but it is puzzling why they sought membership sans a change of mind about doctrine and why your church would give them a modified membership. Are the URC and RBC in church fellowship?
Jeff,
I think you may have misread my comment to MM. I didn’t ask you any questions in any of my comments. I was offering a possible reason that you might have missed MM’s question.
I never implied or accused that you were “making an excuse to not be confessional” or “trying to play the numbers game” – I was only making a general observation about the dynamics that seem to be at work in a large number of confessional churches. Like it or not, the church growth movement and/or leadership movement has infected a lot of churches and their influence both overtly and covertly puts pressure on other churches in detrimental ways.
LikeLike
Lily, to my knowledge, no, the URC doesn’t enjoy any formal fellowship with any Reformed Baptist communion. My understanding is that the RBs also wanted local oversight and accountability during their stay, which again, like the 2k point, is only a good thing. But is it really good oversight to extend even provisional membership which in effect seems to convey that willfully denying paedobaptism in doctrine and practice is acceptable? Like you, I really don’t see why things can’t simply be left at visitor.
LikeLike
Lily, thanks. I agree with you about the larger trend.
LikeLike
Zrim,
This gets curiouser and curiouser. I suppose it makes sense that if the URC was going to provide oversight that they would need to give them some kind of membership in order to set up that kind of relationship. But… if the RB wanted oversight for them, why did they support the couple in rejecting the local RB churches over 2k? On the face of it, it seems like a slap in the face to the local RB churches that they aren’t up to snuff and looks like an indulgence in American Cafeteria Christianity to go to a non-affiliated denomination over 2k. It is a curious situation and as they say: the devil’s in the details.
Jeff,
Re: So do Lutherans.
Not so, Jeff. It’s not a good idea to say what we do or don’t believe based on Reformed teachers. Yesterday, I listened to the Reformed Forum podcast on the subject of Union and the normal misinformed thoughts on what Lutherans believe or don’t believe. Rarely do the Reformed get us right. Dr. Horton is one of the few who seems to have come to a clear understanding. His advice? (Paraphrase) “If you want to know what Lutherans believe, it’s best to ask them.” I would recommend a good Lutheran pastor or theologian (eg: not me).
It seems to me that since union with Christ is a mystery that cannot be fully explained, it’s best to keep that in mind. And since it was the Lutheran pietists in the early 1700’s who were so fascinated with figuring out the order of salvation and passed that on to the Reformed pietists, it seems good to keep that in mind. From what I’ve read/heard of the those who espouse the Reformed view on union that says others don’t believe in union if they put justification first is in my thinking: a false dichotomy. I also have the impression that the hubaloo over “union with Christ” is it’s the latest fad or popularized doctrine or whatever you want to call it in Reformed circles. Lutherans have rich teachings regarding our union with Christ, so I continue to stand unimpressed by Westminster East.
LikeLike
Mr Veitch,
You’re getting your knickers in a twist for nothing over that photo, It’s an old classic of Led Zeppelin standing beside The Starship.
LikeLike
Lily,or robbing Peter to pay Paul. But if Paul can get in Peter’s grill over seating arrangements I think we could tell our RB friends they’re more than welcome to visit all they please but living here is another question. And if natural family membership is the analogy for the supernatural, I can’t imagine telling someone he has all the rights and privileges of a family member, but only sorta.
LikeLike