I would gladly admit Ligon Duncan or Sinclair Ferguson or R. C. Sproul or Philip Ryken to membership at Bethlehem (if I were allowed by our constitution), and in doing so I would not be giving up my view on the proper nature of baptism.My question for Piper is to what extent would he allow these men then to serve in the church. Would it be a teacher, youth leader, etc.? What would happen if they started teaching others their views? Now we would have others potentially causing a division within the church teaching something contrary to what Piper would be teaching? This is where I believe Piper to be wrong on this issue. I do so with reverence knowing he is way more affluent in the Bible than I am and that I am still learning.
I would say to them: “Brothers, I think you are not baptized. But you believe on biblical grounds as you see them, with as much humility and openness to truth as God has given you, that you are baptized. Your understanding of baptism does not imply that Christ’s command may be neglected or that infant sprinkling is regenerating. You give good evidence of being born again and that you embrace Christ as your Savior and Lord and Treasure, and you manifest an authentic intention, on the basis of that faith, to follow Jesus as Lord and obey his teachings. Therefore, since there is good evidence that you are members of the Body of Christ, you may be members of this local expression of that body. But understand this: I will spend the rest of my ministry trying to persuade you that you and your children should follow through on the full obedience to Jesus and be baptized. In admitting you, I do not give up on my view of baptism. That is the whole point. We are finding a way to work on this disagreement from inside the body of Christ in its local expression.”
Now I am intrigued however, that he would take a position that says that he would admit somebody into membership of the local church based not on their public display of obedience to Christ through baptism after salvation but on the fact that they have placed their trust in Christ solely. Now I believe the issue comes whether someone has been baptized as a baby or after conversion, but does the issue span into somebody that hasn't ever been baptized? Can the same principle apply do this person? Or would Piper say that the person needs to be baptized before becoming a member of the local church? Do we have the right to not exclude somebody from membership, but put their membership on hold until they are properly baptized? Because I don't think it matters a hill of beans if somebody has a "biblical" conviction on their paedobaptism if it isn't biblical.
What are your thoughts?
Read Grudem's response to John Piper
1 comment:
I think the question to be asked (and by the way I believe that baptism is for believers) is what constitutes membership in the universal Church? Should our standards for congregational membership trump that? What should be viewed as essential?
I have seen too much division in the Church over issues such as this. If it is over the divinity of Christ, the inspiration & inerrancy of Scripture, the Trinity, etc. Fine, but not over mode of baptism. If they don't view it as regenerating then I can live with it. I wouldn't allow them to teach on that topic, but I wouldn't deny them membership.
That's just me though.
Post a Comment