Kidding aside, Larry does have some good points. Keith in one of his last comments showed how Larry misquoted Piper on a key point. I don’t think this is a postmodernish thing. God does care about your heart and motivations are key.

I don’t see how Larry can say there should be no different qualifications for leaders over and against members in light of 1 Tim. 3. The whole Biblical concept of elders implies that the average membership needs to grow in their understanding of the truth. Why else do they need to be taught?

And again I think excluding people from membership implies you think they are seriously in sin. Again, is it a sin to be wrong? Doesn’t the NT address people who are willfully sinning, when it tells us to exclude them from membership?

Anyways, thanks for your continued interaction. I left a comment about 1 issue with Keith and Larry’s debate that was being overlooked. The NT examples of Baptism do not address the difference between paedos and credos. In the case of nonChristian adult converts, both would agree they need to be baptized upon profession of faith. There are no clear NT examples of what to do with the children of believers or the 2nd generation of believers. That is the focal point of the debate.

Gotta run.

You might want to see Larry Rogier’s blogsite.
He comments about the baptism issue, and I
think Larry has some good comments.
http://stuffoutloud.blogspot.c.....ptism.html

Don’t run away!

Maybe you don’t miss the water picture, but I did. It is stressed so often that baptism symbolizes burial (which it does), that the concept of it picturing cleansing from sin, based on the use of the water, escaped me. At least it is not emphasized much at all.

I’m not saying the OT has baptismal washings, I’m saying the cleansing rites performed with water are similar to baptism. They both signify cleansing and employ water. A typical dispensationalist Baptist (at least the common, bump-on-a-pew variety, like me) doesn’t even begin to think of those OT cleansing rituals as remotely tied to the concept of Baptism. They don’t know the same word in the NT is used in reference to those ritualistic cleansings and for Baptism.

All I’m saying is covenantal theology leads me to give more credence to the paedo view, and it helps me understand the significance of Baptism better. I’m still a credo, however.

With regards to Grudem vs. Piper, there is a point about non-members having fellowship. But why is that? Sure it is charitable and all, but what’s the point of membership then? Just to have an Americanistic vote on the color of the carpet? Piper is saying covenant membership in the local body should be important and should result in things being different for you. Sadly it often doesn’t.

Thanks for your thoughts, Larry. They are always well expressed and on target, even if I tend to disagree with my dispy bro. every once in a while!

I don’t think that a ‘dispensationalist’ would have an issue with regard to the mode or method of baptism. It’s simply irrelevant since the dispensationalist (like myself) doesn’t have a horse in the race, so to speak. There’s a considerable discontinuity between the church and the OT theocratic temple system (although all believe and have faith in God). Secondly, are there any witnesses of the ritual ‘washings’ of babies in the OT? It’s clear from the NT that baptism follows a profession of faith in Christ. Covenantalists seem to easily confuse an unsupported (and supposed) OT practice with a completely different NT practice of baptism. How you arrive to the conclusion that dispensationalists miss the meaning of the water in baptism is pretty much beyond me– I think we understand it as well as you do. What we ‘err’ with (in our disagreement with the Covenant system of theology) is that there isn’t much in common with the practices from the OT to the NT church, and those practices are remarkably different in the church where we now only practice a baptism after profession (credobaptism).

[dispensationalist-- and Baptist-- is now running for cover!]

I appreciate your candidness, it adds to our discussions here.

Larry,

You are right on the covenantal issue. Dispensationalists often ignore parallels between the old and new testament communities of faith. Sure there are significant differences–improvements for us on this side of the cross, but there is a great amount of unity. Ignoring that makes it harder to understand the paedo argument.

Baptism was not invented with no precursors at all. One point I feel that Baptists, particularly dispensaitionalists, miss about baptism is the significance of WATER. Baptism at its root signifies the washing away of our sin (Acts 22:16) — it signifies the fact that Christ cleanses believers.

Grasping that point, the parallels with the ceremonial washings and cleansing rituals in the old testament worship become clear. Against the backdrop of cleansing various utensils and even people cermonially with water, baptism is introduced as a ritual depicting our personal cleansing from sin effected by Jesus Christ.

And once you see that connection, the thought of sprinkling as a concept makes more sense.

I agree that there is much to consider with this whole issue. And I don’t necessarily look down at those who aim to continue Baptist tradition and safeguard the membership of the church. But still, I think Vern Poythress’ articles (linked in my latest post on the issue) bring up some important issues that relate to the concept of safeguarding the church.

Anyways, as always, I appreciate the charitable interaction, Larry.

I also appreciated that despite our initial disagreement with the PCA/Westminster position on infant baptism, they gladly embraced us into full membership. I appreciate that they allow elbow room for such debatable matters- at least in terms of church membership.

One interesting ‘monkey wrench’ in the debate is how one’s views on Covenant theology affects one’s views on baptism. Baptists who are also Covenantalists (Reformed Baptists come to mind here) probably have the greatest struggle, and I think this is where Bob is. I think I would understand the sometimes conflicting views that Covenant theology might present to the practice of NT baptism, especially to a Reformed Baptist. I wonder if this angle has been explored somewhere within the links to the posts that Bob provided?