Baptism and Church Membership

~ fundyreformed ~ 21 Comments

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).

Man-Centered Christianity (part 2)

~ Bob Hayton ~ 16 Comments

** first read part 1

Jesus is our buddy, and God is our friend. Christ is hip, and church is cool. This sentiment is alive and well in today’s American Christianity, along with: God has a special plan for your life. You are very special to Him.

The problem with the Church today is that we are using God. Like Aladdin, we depend on our genie to help us live a meaningful and happy life. Afraid of hell, or guilty over sin? Pray a prayer, and Jesus takes care of it. Worry on the job, stress in your family situation? The Bible has the answer, its God’s guidebook for life. Longing for true acceptance and love? No one loves you like Jesus does! In the church we all love each other and look out for one another.

It takes a trained eye, but do you see how the above concerns all center around self and self-esteem? Perhaps its no wonder, then, that Jesus is also offered among evangelicals today, as one who can guarantee that you will get what you want, that you will get rich, that you will prosper, or that you will be healed.

How did we get here? Man-Centered Methodology including the Sinner’s Prayer

I suppose that there have always been such errors in the Church, after all we are human. But with the rise of the revivalist movement in the 1800s, an emphasis was placed on crafting evangelistic appeals tailored to the likes and dislikes of the audience. Charles Finney invented the altar call, and appealed to the human free will to come forward and make a commitment to Christ. Later evangelists continued to employ pragmatic methods in a largely parachurch context as they drew ever larger crowds together in large mass meetings around the country, and the world.

The pledge a new convert would make eventually was replaced by a prayer. And under Billy Sunday, the prayer was changed into the modern “sinner’s prayer”. Never before in the history of the church had such a method been used. Now sinners were directed to pray for personal salvation, rather than given counsel and encouraged to believe and thereafter commit/pledge to follow Christ with all their being. This subtle change in methodology, like the many that preceded, became a new tradition that bound countless evangelists and ministers for generations to follow.

From a personal prayer for salvation, the “sinner’s prayer” became employed en masse. Crowds were instructed to repeat this prayer if they wanted to be saved. And then came the religious tracts, which today overwhelmingly call for a prayer to be repeated. These prayers have given assurance to thousands, and have transformed our modern view of salvation.

While Scripture speaks of those who are “being saved”, most evangelicals view salvation in the past tense. While past evangelists exhorted converts to continue steadfastly in the faith, modern-day converts are promised that even the most damaging sins will not result in the loss of your salvation — the salvation they “received” upon their just completed recitation of the “sinner’s prayer”. Today, multitudes struggle over whether they “said the right words”, or truly “meant it”. And assurance is often given based on Rom. 10:13 and whether the person remembers a “time and a place” when they accepted Christ.

Whereas before converts would often come from churches where they had heard countless Scriptural sermons, and been given personal Scriptural counseling, before finally coming to repentance, today’s converts are given a few (often very few) verses, ripped from their context and strung together in the form of a “Roman’s Road”, or “The Four Spiritual Laws”. Earnest and biblical preaching has sometimes been turned into a well-crafted psychological appeal. Often times seekers are manipulated into just “trying” the prayer, or giving Jesus “a test drive”. In some fundamentalist circles, almost any means is employed to get people to repeat the magical, soul-saving, prayer — including putting a foot in people’s doors so they can’t shut it and so they have to hear the soul-winner’s quick appeal to pray this prayer.

Hold on a second, Bob! Where’s your proof, and aren’t you exaggerating a bit here? I knew someone was thinking that. You were, weren’t you?

In the next few days I will be reviewing a book which offers some historical background and proof for many of my assertions here. I’ll even be having a book give away (so stay tuned!). But at this point, I should insert a caveat. I do not think, that a “sinner’s prayer” experience is necessarily void of any merit. I think countless believers started believing in Christ right around the time they prayed that first prayer. The prayer didn’t save them, faith did; and the prayer was merely a vehicle by which to express their faith.

Problems with the “Sinner’s Prayer”

But at the same time I see some serious problems with this methodology. The “sinner’s prayer” can lead people to trust in an act they did as a means of salvation. They are saved because they prayed and did their part of Rom. 10:13 — they “called”, so God has to “save”. But salvation is not a mere transaction. And often the prayer is merely a recognition that you believe certain facts — the Gospel facts. No one is saved by believing facts, people must repent and trust Jesus alone for salvation.

Further, a “sinner’s prayer” gives people a false hope. Assurance is tied to the act, not to faith. And beyond that, it fosters a point-in-time prevailing view of salvation. It does not encourage people to take seriously the many Biblical warnings for those who do not persevere in faith.

And lastly, the “sinner’s prayer” fosters a self-orientation and a man-centered view of Christianity. Because God died to save people, people are important. I am important. My needs were met by God, so I should thank him and live for him. But still everything centers around me, even God is bowing down to serve me, having done all He could to save my soul.

Looks like these posts are turning into a series. Next time, I will discuss the theology of the “sinner’s prayer”, and Bible arguments against it. Then I will get into a Biblical view of eternal security/perseverance. And finally, Lord willing, I will explain what a God-centered Christianity looks like.AddThis Social Bookmark Button

2000

~ fundyreformed ~ 3 Comments

2000!

Congratulations to Don Fields (of World from My Window) for leaving the 2000th comment on my blog. This is my 352nd post, and I have had more than 2000 genuine comments now!

Of course this doesn’t count the spam. I’ve personally deleted many spam/offensive comments over the years, and since July of 2006, Akismet, the spam-guard feature of WordPress, has deleted close to 20,000 spam comments here.

Anyways, I thought it would be fun to celebrate the big 2,000 mark! I guess that is testimony to my blogging interaction ability (recently awarded). I praise God for many fruitful discussions, and even for the challenging and sometimes negative feedback. The blog has been a blessing over the last 22 months. I’m looking forward now to my official 2 year anniversary on November 22nd (the first real blog post, and the start of my official blogging).AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Man-Centered Christianity?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 15 Comments

Many times labels are a bit self-serving. After all, “I” am God-centered, Gospel-centered, Christ-centered, God-saturated, etc. etc. And of course you aren’t. Oh, and I’m orthodox, my beliefs are historical and Biblical, and Spurgeon agrees with my position! Labels are at the same time helpful. There is an orthodox position. History does matter, and gospel-centered does mean something.

Perhaps an aversion to any kind of theological pride in labels is behind recent blog discussion (by those Phil Johnson calls “post-evangelical”) centering on the question, “Can you be too God-Centered?” While some good points are raised concerning that question, from my vantage point the overwhelming problem in evangelicalism today is that far too many are man-centered.

I don’t want to merely throw out such a label in hopes of scoring points. And I realize no one will be standing in line to claim the label I’m describing here! But this is a very important issue, and I hope I can gain a hearing.

The problem I’m discussing is especially big among strict fundamentalists, yet it’s present among many more liberty-conscious evangelicals. From the TBN-watching Arminians, to even the staunchest, doctrine-loving Reformed — man-centered Christianity finds a home.

It’s sometimes overt, yet often dangerously subtle. And since we are all recipients of Adam’s sin nature (and the pride of our one-time father the devil), we would do well to at least explore whether perhaps we might have slipped into being too man-centered.

“I suddenly saw that someone could use all the language of evangelical Christianity, and yet the center was fundamentally the self, my need of salvation. And God is auxiliary to that….I also saw that quite a lot of evangelical Christianity can easily slip, can become centered in me and my need of salvation, and not in the glory of God.” — quoted in Tim Stafford, “God’s Missionary to Us”, Christianity Today, Dec. 9, 1996.

I read the above quote in John Piper’s book The Legacy of Sovereign Joy (pg. 118), and felt I just had to comment on it. Man-centeredness can be successfully cloaked in a religious and even conservative garb, and therefore it is even more dangerous.

So central to American revivalist evangelicalism, is man’s personal need for salvation. For many — the majority, I would say — in evangelicalism, the need of personal salvation brings them into the church, and is very soon taken care of. Then other needs find central place.

A wide segment of the church today emphasizes the emotional and physical needs of the congregation, straining to serve and help everyone become successful and happy. And another more Biblical (in my opinion) aim centers on the need to live a holy life and obey God’s commands. Serving the poor, reforming one’s own character, contributing to the common good by volunteering and giving to the church, sacrificing to reach the lost, these all are good things which become central. Even in worship, an emphasis on personal tastes and being accepted is quite common. Others stress a personal experience.

The danger in all of this, becomes the tendency to center everything around self. God saved me, so He deserves my love and praise. I want a better life, so I enjoy and benefit from teacher so-and-so’s practical teaching….

This can lead to lives that are not much different from the non-churched. God has a part, but He is not central. The here and now matters an awful lot, as does economical and emotional well-being. Helping each other, and feeling good about ourselves are essential.

But where is the light on the hill? How is this all that different from the world? Do you find a feel-good invitation in Scripture? Come follow Jesus, and there’s no cross to bear, and all your problems get fixed! God loves you so much he did everything just to help you. Shouldn’t you love such a God in return?

The problem with this is that we don’t need a great and glorious God to make it work. Its not all that different from secular health-and-wellness seminars, or the new age movement. Substitute yoga for God and you get about the same thing. Yoga can transform your life and give you real meaning and purpose….

All I’ve done here today has been to introduce the problem. I hope to explore what God-centered Christianity would look like. And I hope to point out how the popular methodology & doctrine concerning salvation has a profoundly negative impact with regards to this problem.

So for now, ask yourself: Am I too man-centered? And please, let me know if you think I’m off base in my assessment that this is 1) a widespread problem, and 2) this is a big problem.AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Presbyterians on Fundamentalism

~ fundyreformed ~ 7 Comments

Some of you may have missed this. Rick Phillips and Carl Trueman commented on BJU-style fundamentalism on Reformation 21’s blog [Phillips’ initial post, clarification#1, clarification #2, Trueman’s post, Phillips’ response — all these are quite brief, BTW]. Sean Lucas, of Covenant Theological Seminary, followed up with some reflections of his own [post 1, post 2], as one who graduated from both BJU and Westminster.

I don’t have much time right now to comment much on the discussions, but there is plenty of food for thought there. Rick praises fundamentalism deservedly, while Trueman and Lucas make sure we beware of errors which are especially prone in fundamentalism.

And on the heels of this discussion, Bob Bixby discusses what he sees as the “emerging middle” — a coming together of conservative evangelicals and “young” fundamentalists. His article is also worthy of attention.

I agree with much that is said by the Presbyterians from both angles, and I’m hoping that Bixby is right. With that said, what do you, my readers, think of these discussions? A penny for your thoughts!AddThis Social Bookmark Button