In the past, I’ve explored the baptism debate on my blog. A friend of mine, Nathan Pitchford, has 4 excellent articles covering almost all sides of the debate. He started out defending Baptism from a Reformed, Covenantal perspective, but went on to retract his position and affirm a paedobaptistic view. I summarized that view as clearly as possible in an attempt to hone in on the real areas of dispute.
Many a Baptist would roll his eyes at my attempts to understand the other side. What’s the point? I’m sure that would have been my view, back when I was a dyed-in-the-wool strict fundamentalist. Of course our view is right, its historical (think Trail of Blood, here)!
Even after coming to leave strict fundamentalism and embrace Calvinism, I still had much skepticism over any non-Baptist view. So I wasn’t prepared for the dramatic results of entering the debate. I quickly learned that the Reformed paedobaptistic view has a lot of Biblical support. This is apparent when you understand the view from their perspective. I also learned that much of my “unshakable” arguments were actually irrelevant. Paedobaptists affirm the need for adult converts to be baptized, the question surrounds what to do with the children of believers. Pointing out NT examples of adult conversions does nothing to address the debate.
Through the whole exchange I gained an appreciation and respect for Bible-believing, thoughtful paedobaptist brothers. And I was prepared all the more to agree with my pastor, John Piper’s contention that baptism should not be an issue to divide Christ’s church over. It should be a big deal to refuse someone membership into the local church. Church isn’t about being on the same team or membership in a club — its about recognition of membership in the Body of Christ. My friend Nathan has some strong arguments that an even more dramatic unity should be pursued, than that for which John Piper was calling for. And I do agree that believers in today’s specialized world take for granted the full array of choices for the Western church-shopper.
Piper advocated a compromise of sorts. Elders would need to affirm an explicitly Baptist confession of faith, but believers who conscientiously held to a Bible-based understanding that paedobaptism is valid, would be allowed into membership, and only after having submitted to a meeting with an elder who would try to convince them of the Baptist view. In this way, a Baptist church could affirm the salvation of fellow believers who differed over this point of what is a valid baptism. And a similar position was held by none other than John Bunyan, one of the most famous historic Baptists.
The proposal was rejected by our church, at least at this time. There is hope of its being revived and accepted in the future, perhaps. What I found interesting at the time, was reading Wayne Grudem in his Systematic Theology propose something very similar to what our church was considering. He also pointed to the Evangelical Free Church which has a similar compromise in place at a denominational level.
I am writing about all of this because Grudem recently revised his section on the Baptism question with regard to this issue, effectively taking back his previous proposal. Justin Taylor posted the reworded section on his blog recently. Today, John Piper responded with a rebuttal to Grudem’s reversal.
I think the issue is worth considering, and if you haven’t explored the issue you should. Baptists particularly have been extremely divisive on this issue and have probably been guilty of shameful ill-will toward fellow believers. But of course historically, the Baptists have been maligned and worse in years gone by!
If you are interested in understanding the paedobaptist position, you should really read Nathan’s articles. The comments are a virtual debate that for the most part stays very charitable, and extremely insightful. Also, I recently read an 11 part series on the Reformed view of Baptism which specifically interacts with the Baptist position by Drake Shelton of Post Tenebras Lux. His articles are actually a quick read, and the first few provide an excellent case for sprinkling/pouring as the Biblical understanding of baptizo. If you are rolling your eyes again, you better check them out — they really are quite convincing!
If you’re wondering, I am still a Baptist. But I view the issue as much less definitive, and have planned to do some serious reading on this issue in the future. For the sake of growing in your appreciation of other believers in Christ, I would urge you to consider the matter. We may not see eye-to-eye on some of the issues this brings up, and that’s okay! But I encourage you to study and perhaps enter a discussion in the comments below.
With that in mind, you might be interested in reading the Mark Dever’s thoughts on the matter (accessible here), at the conclusion of an address establishing John Bunyan’s open membership views.
UPDATE: I have a question: How far removed is the open membership question from the open communion question? The New Hampshire Baptist Confession of 1833 affirmed: “Christian Baptism is the immersion in water of a believer… that it is prerequisite to the privileges of a Church relation; and to the Lord’s Supper…” Is not the historic acceptance of open communion among Baptists not an historic support for an open membership view?
UPDATE #2: Grudem has responded to Piper’s rebuttal. (You may also be interested in the comments here on Justin Taylor’s blog).
Schmooze — to “talk idly or casually and in a friendly way” (
On one of my posts dealing with the King James Only movement, I recently had someone leave a comment directing me to an article he had written entitled “Dangers of ‘KJV Onlyism’ or KJV Perfectionism”. Upon going to