In reference to my post on baptism / church membership yesterday, a commenter asked for some kind of proof that those against the idea of opening church membership to convinced, saved paedobaptists fall back on the red herring of “What Might Happen If...” I think there have been many such instances, but here is one from print from my friend Mark Dever. Contextually, he is including paedobaptists in his category of “unbaptized.”
“When a noncongregational style of government is adopted, the acceptance 0f the unbaptized into membership may seem initially without effect. But a subtle indifference to doctrine may be communicated. Furthermore the bulk of members may come to hold the allowed exception, and the teaching ministry of the church on this—and other—points may begin to stray. Such a tendency would not be unprecedented in the history of once great evangelical churches.”
Mark Dever, “Baptism in the Context of the
I guess I still don't see why this is a red herring/slippery slope/or whatever else you want to call it.
ReplyDeleteIs it so unreasonable to believe that if a church welcomes unbaptized persons into membership, then the church's statement of faith (which in effect says "THIS WE BELIEVE")on the issue of baptism tends to lose its force?
I think it necessarily weakens. The "We" changes. The confession of faith in effect says "THIS SOME OF US BELIEVE." This is not a "This might happen if" This is a necessary consequence of having the unbaptized as members of a church.
Thanks for the reference, Paul. I was thinking primarily in terms of what Grudem had written in his revision to his systematic theology, his response to Piper, and Dever's blog post this week. I wouldn't have known this passage from Dever's book (or other sources either, for that matter).
ReplyDeleteDever's quote ( and Dave's multiple comments ) is/are spot on. Baptists hold to the beliefs we do because we consider them Biblical, ie. before one joins a church, they ought to follow the Biblical mandates. Why should/would we put our beliefs on the shelf? If we can do it for baptism, what happens when a charismatic brother who holds to continuance of apostleship / early church gifts etc.. wants to join? Where's the doctrinal line?
ReplyDeleteIt appears that the Piper thought would allow RC to join his church. One possible implication that bears consideration and addresses Kerux's point of a faithful pulpit ministry preserving the church from generation to generation ( to which I add my hearty agreement ):
If a man is a member of a church in good standing and displays the requisite teaching gifts, normally he'd be made an elder. RC has joined Piper's church, he obviously has teaching gifts and he's made an elder. The first adult class he takes, he opens the Bible to Gen 17 and proceeds to teach the paedobaptist view of covenant and baptism. Next Sunday he preaches and launches from "Suffer the little children to come unto me" into infant baptism...
Seems to me the admixture of paedo and credo baptist beliefs might affect the teaching / pulpit ministry as well.
There's similar issues that can be raised if paedobaptists are allowed partial membership as well ( eg. they can vote, but can't hold office etc...).
Fraught with peril methinks.