Why Our Church Doesn’t Rebaptize
Aug 9th, 2007 by admin
For those who have been going to Wellspring and have taken our membership, some might wonder why we don’t re-baptize those who have been only been baptized as infants. Well, Wayne Grudem and John Piper have recently taken up this issue with Grudem changing his position in an updated version of his Sytemtatic Theology and John Piper responding to WG. The reason we do not rebaptize is WG’s old reasoning in his former version and JP’s logic in his response to WG. I wholeheartedly agree with JP. Church membership is such a vital aspect of the believer’s life that to withhold membership on the basis of a biblical conviction of baptism seems to be a far greater consequence than it should be. Here’s what Drs. Grudem and Piper have to say:
One way forward could be for paedobaptists and advocates of believers’ baptism both to come to a common admission that baptism is not a major doctrine of the faith, and that they are willing to live with each other’s views on this matter and not allow differences over baptism to be a cause for division within the body of Christ.?? Specifically, this would mean allowing both views of baptism to be taught and practiced in denominations on both sides of the question.
. . . Specifically, this would mean that Baptist churches would have to be willing to allow into membership those who had been baptized as infants and whose conviction of conscience, after careful consideration, is that their infant baptism was valid and should not be repeated. Of course, Baptist churches could be free to teach and to attempt to persuade prospective church members that they should be baptized as believers, but if some, after careful consideration, are simply not persuaded, it does not seem appropriate to make this a barrier to membership. What good is accomplished by such a barrier? And certainly much harm can be accomplished in failure to demonstrate the unity of the church and in barring from full participation in the church those whom the Lord has in fact brought into that fellowship.
On the other hand, those who believe in paedobaptism would have to agree not to put undue pressure upon parents who do not wish to have their infants baptized and not to count those parents as somehow disobedient to the Lord. There might need to be a willingness to have some kind of brief ceremony of dedication of children to the Lord shortly after they are born, instead of a ceremony of baptism, if the parents so desired. And of course both sides would have to agree not to make one view on baptism a criterion for church office or for ordination.??1
If such concessions in actual practice were made by both sides on this question, the issue might in fact diminish the level of controversy within a generation, and baptism might eventually cease to be a point of division at all among Christians.
Lots of people know that Wayne Grudem and I are the deepest of friends. We love to room together at conferences. We love to do things together with our wives. We were both in seminary together for a season. We have co-edited a book together. We taught together at Bethel College. And at this very moment I love him and would fly to his side in a crisis. But, Wayne, Wayne, Wayne, why did you rewrite page 983?Justin Taylor drew our attention to the fact that Wayne revised section F1 in his new edition of Systematic Theology (pp. 982-983). The section is titled, “Do Churches Need to Be Divided Over Baptism?”
In the first edition, Wayne answered that question no. In the new edition, he does not answer it. He concludes, “Some kind of ‘compromise’ position on baptism is not very likely to be adopted by denominational groups in the future.” That’s probably true.
But, with that cautious comment on what is likely to be, rather than what ought to be, the new section has lost the prophetic, biblical force of the original edition. Evidently, Wayne is not so sure any more that we should make the effort to overcome the divisions among evangelicals for the sake of welcoming true brothers and sisters as members in the local church. I think his first edition was closer to the biblical balance.
In the first edition, he advocated finding a way to have conscience-persuaded paedobaptists and credobaptists as members of the same local church. He said,
This would mean that Baptist churches would have to be willing to allow into membership those who had been baptized as infants and whose conviction of conscience, after careful consideration is that their infant baptism was valid and should not be repeated. Of course, Baptist churches could be free to preach and to attempt to persuade prospective churches members that they should be baptized as believers, but if some, after careful consideration, are simply not persuaded, it does not seem appropriate to make this a barrier to membership.
I agree with this. And the main reason I do is that excluding a true brother in Christ from membership in the local church is far more serious than most of us think it is.
When I weigh the kind of imperfection involved in tolerating an invalid baptism because some of our members are deeply persuaded that it is biblically valid, over against the kind of imperfection involved in saying to a son or daughter of the living God, “You are excluded from the local church,” my biblical sense is that the latter is more unthinkable than the former. The local church is a visible expression of the invisible, universal, body of Christ. To exclude from it is virtually the same as excommunication. And no serious church takes excommunication as an invitation to attend the church down the street.
Wayne’s new considerations are less compelling than what he wrote in the first edition. In the new edition, he writes:
For someone who holds to believer’s baptism, admitting to church membership someone who has not been baptized upon profession of faith, and telling the person that he or she never has to be baptized as a believer is really giving up one’s view on the proper nature of baptism.
No, Wayne, this is not true. 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.
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.”
When Wayne says that admitting to church membership a biblically conscientious paedobaptist amounts to saying that “he or she never has to be baptized as a believer,” he is being (I am sure unconsciously) slippery. “Has to” implies a result that will not be achieved if one doesn’t do it. What goal does Wayne mean? “Has to in order to go to heaven?” He doesn’t believe that. “Has to in order to be fully obedient to Jesus?” Both he and I would agree with that. But that is precisely what I would say to any paedobaptist who joined our Baptist church.
Then Wayne continues: “It is saying that infant baptism really is valid baptism!”
No. Admitting a conscientious paedobaptist to membership in a Baptist church would not say that the infant baptism is valid. What it does say is: “Your mistaken understanding of baptism and the invalid baptism that follows from it are not the kind of disagreement, mistake, and failure that we are going to use in defining the meaning of the local church. We view you as a brother whose resting place is Christ alone, through grace alone, by faith alone, to the glory of God alone. You are in the Body of Christ. You may be in this body of Christ.”
Finally, Wayne says,
But then how could anyone who holds to this position tell anyone who had been baptized as an infant that he or she still needed to be baptized as a believer?
By saying: “You are wrong in your understanding of baptism. And your practice is wrong. You need to be baptized to be fully obedience to Jesus.”
Turning the tables, I would say that when a person looks a true and precious brother in the eye and says, “You may not join this church,” he is doing one of two things: Seriously diminishing our spiritual union in Christ, or seriously minimizing the importance of church membership. Very few, it seems to me, have really come to terms with the seriousness of excluding believers from membership in the local church. It is preemptive excommunication.
There are dozens of questions that need to be answered. When we walked through this several years ago, I did my best to answer as many as I could. I have hope that I will have Wayne back on this side of the issue eventually.
- Baptism - Required?
- Does Membership Really Matter?
- How People Find a New Church
- How Would You Choose a Church?
- The Necessity of Extra-Curricular Bible Study?
Does Wellspring prohibit re-baptism or simply not require it?
Interesting discussion- I had to deal with the issue of rebaptism several years ago when I attended a Grace Brethren Church. The issue wasn’t over accepting into membership those who were infant baptized only. My problem was that I was baptized as an adult believer by being immersed only once. Grace Brethren churches teach that legitimate baptism must consist of being immersed three times- they use Matt. 28:19-20 to support this idea of triple immersion in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
So… after much debate and inner turmoil, my wife and I refused to be rebaptized with the extra dips, and sadly, we left that church. We couldn’t become actual members and felt both excluded and limited in our capacity there. We could never enter into ministry leadership without membership, and so we needed to find a church that would “accept” our baptism and grant us membership. It was a very sad experience- almost like a divorce to us. We left behind many good friends as a result.
When things like this end up happening in churches, something has gone seriously wrong!!
A similar debate to Steve’s issue is sprinkling vs. immersion. I’ve seen plenty of scriptural support for both (aka proof-texting) but divisions have occurred over such issues in many churches.
Two good men with Baptist background discussion baptism. We need to ask ourselves “what is baptism?” Just a mode according to one’s preference? People should define baptism properly and if one is convinced the other is in error, then one should not compromise by agreeing or assenting to a different mode. This is not biblical nor love.
Baptist are known for believer’s immersion (not sprinkling - because they are convinced that baptizo means immerse, period). Baptist - reformed or otherwise, believe regeneration precedes baptism. For the simple reason, without the prior, it’s mere dunking. If one wants to be part of the local body yet refuses to subscribe to its tenet, then it is unethical.
Furthermore, making it “optional” means to efface the Baptist’s distinction. Moreover, if one was baptized as infant, prior to salvation, then how can that be a valid baptism to begin with? Subsequent to salvation, one refuses to be baptized (scripturally that is - immersion) but wanting to hinge on infant baptism is PLAIN DISOBEDIENCE to biblical mandate! Piper or not, we need to understand that biblical pattern has always been salvation before baptism. FF BRuce said in Acts commentary that it doesn’t happen that one is saved but refused baptism (of course i’m paraphrasing here, off the cuff). Baptism pictures the believer’s union with Christ. No union without salvation!
If one isn’t Baptist and has no desire for immersion, then he should consider other assemblies whereby he can ethically participate and fellowship with other saints and serve the Lord. To insist on joining a Baptist church yet wanting to propagate one’s position is plain unethical. It’s not much different from a Midwestern caucasian entering a Chinse restaurant insisting on ordering prime beef steak, medium-rare, and getting upset that the chinese chef tells him to go next door to Kenny Roger’s Restaraunt (or other well-known beef steak restaurant). What makes a Chinese restaurant chinese?
I am appreciative of Piper’s ministry though not always agreeing to everything that comes out of DGM. We should consider church history and ask if theologically (and historically) speaking why is baptism such a big issue? Why should Piper’s Baptist-forefathers die for that mode?
Both good men are not talking about heresy. One is erroneous while the oher is right; both cannot be right. I am glad Grudem changed his mind. He is following the Word, not the convenient route.
Alvin, thanks for your comment. Some thoughts and questions I have for you:
1. Your first question is an important one, “What is baptism?” Is baptism a sign of regeneration alone or is it a sign of the new covenant ushered through Christ or both? The paedo-baptist would argue that the latter definition would be a critical interpretive grid for understanding baptism. As a parallel sign to the old covenant, it would be a sign of the people of God and not just regeneration. As you prob know Alvin, the paedobaptist argument is pretty intricate. I think JP appreciates the theological depth of a paedobaptist’s understanding of baptism and the credobaptist cannot so easily dismiss the argument by simply saying there is no paedobaptism in the Bible.
2. You said, “If one wants to be part of the local body yet refuses to subscribe to its tenet, then it is unethical.” If you were in suburban Alabama (this actually was a position a friend of mine was in) where there were only Baptist churches that preached the Gospel faithfully, and liberal churches that were Presbyterian, and he was a paedobaptist, to want to be a part of the local body of a Baptist church there is ‘unethical’? Isn’t that quite possibly far too broad of a statement?
3. On your point, “Moreover, if one was baptized as infant, prior to salvation, then how can that be a valid baptism to begin with? Subsequent to salvation, one refuses to be baptized (scripturally that is - immersion) but wanting to hinge on infant baptism is PLAIN DISOBEDIENCE to biblical mandate!” again I would point out that the paedobaptist argument would be that from a covenantal view, this is in no way PLAIN DISOBEDIENCE to the biblical mandate. In Acts, the paedobaptist would argue that in a generation where no one trusts in Christ and are turning to him, of course there would be no infants being baptized. We’re talking about a first generation of believers. Whether you think this argument is tenable or not, it certainly casts some possibilities into the pciture that perhaps it isn’t PLAIN DISOBEDIENCE.
4. What if the Chinese chef decided that so long as this man values the Chinese food, but his tastebuds are so accustomed to steak, that the chef decides he’d be willing to cook him the steak? Does that mean that the Chinese restaurant is no longer a Chinese restaurant? No, it means for this man, the chef has shown grace to that man. Now if the man demanded that the chef wash his laundry, he doesn’t belong.
Yes, a Baptist church has distinctives. But I think most Baptists would say what ultimately defines them is the Gospel, not baptism by immersion. At least I think this would be so.
4. “Why should Piper’s Baptist-forefathers die for that mode?” Is it possible that those forefathers died for something that they didn’t have to die for? Yes, their murderers will be held accountable. But dying for something does not mean that it makes it legitimate (1 Cor 13:3).
Thanks Alvin for your words. They sharpen as iron sharpens iron.
Extra dips- yep, I still need two more for the Grace Brethren Church to accept me into membership. I wonder if they’d allow membership if I got rebaptized at two other churches by single immersion at each. That would be 3 total, and should count, right? : - 0
Seriously though, I’ll also add that back when I was attending this church (about 15 years ago) there we’re actually some Grace Brethren churches that were considered “open” to membership by those who had not been baptized by triune immersion. Our particular church was not open, and it was an ongoing debate within the denomination (actually, they don’t call themselves a denomination, but rather, a fellowship of churches).