The baptism debate between Piper and Grudem August 13, 2007
Posted by Paul Edwards in Baptism, John Piper, Theology.trackback
John Piper wants to accept into local church membership persons who were baptized as infants and for conscience sake do not want to be re-baptized as believers. He argues that by doing so he is not accepting their interpretation of what Scripture teaches about baptism. His point is that the mode and timing of baptism should not keep a genuine believer outside the local body of believers. Wayne Grudem seemed to originally agree with that position, but now in an update of his popular Systematic Theology, he has changed his mind.
John Piper writes,
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.
Piper arugues that when he accepts into church membership believers who were baptized as infants and never baptized as believers, he is not giving any ground at all on his position that baptism is for believers:
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.
Read Piper’s position here.
Justin Taylor presents Grudem’s position here.
Judges 17: In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
Are these politicians or preachers?
Are we to the point of “biblical grounds as ‘you’ (or I )see them” ?
I’m a little taken back by both men.
I will not read the posts between Piper and Grudem, they can duke it out if they want. I don’t see the need to include the church membership debate in the Systematic Theology. Most people who are digging into the scriptures, and using the book Grudem has written will have that settled by now. Or get it settled quickly at the first Baptist church they visit.
Being baptized as an infant in a Catholic church, when I got saved, I started attending the local Baptist church, always asking what time the Sunday evening mass was there. I quickly came to terms with the need for the believers baptism, and took care of the issue, it seemed correctly in line with the scriptures. I honestly can’t see anyone fighting the need due to conscience.
It seems a minor issue, as well as being old news as I check Piper’s blog nearly daily.
Ed
I offer some thoughts for your analysis.
The exact place for the establishment of Christian doctrine is the scriptures. Not the writings of any man. These other writings may be beneficial to us, but should only be relied upon as they align with the sacred page. When we were told to “study” to show thyself approved unto God, none of these writings were even here. It appears to me that there is too much reliance upon the “leaders” rather than on the God of the doctrines, and HIS writings.
One final thought; I personally can not bring myself to refer to any thing God addresses as ” a minor issue”. Every thing in that book should be of major concern to us. If He saw fit to instruct on it, we need to follow it. Let God sift out the levels of importance.
Please be careful, you have a good base you operate from.
May the Lord of glory bless you this day.
Don
Do the scriptures address church membership as it relates to believers baptism vs infant baptism? If not, perhaps I need to read the debapte.
Let me further the question. Do the scriptures address homosexuality in relationship to church membership? Do they address open adultery as it relates to church membership? Do the scriptures address drunkenness as it relates to church membership? Do the scriptures address drug usage as it relates to church membership?
Extreme perhaps, but here is a verse that covers a multitude;
Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.
Let me frame the question in this manner Ed. Do the scriptures address baptism? If so, are we under any obligation to follow the format established?
Now as to this issue. Is it “right” or “wrong” to baptize an infant as far as doctrinal correctness goes?
Where does a local church draw the line?
I believe in the autonomy of any local Church, but may disagree with them on certain issues. I’m not deciding what is right for either of these two men, nor their respective churches, they are most capable themselves to do that.
What I had trouble with, and still do, is the apparent political dance
around the issue.
Ed, I have always found safer ground with a more dogmatic approach.
If the matter IS addressed in scripture, I stay on the conservative side of the positions, but that’s for me. As I said, I offered these thoughts for analysis rather than correction.
As for whether any church accepts infant baptism as an acceptable mode for church membership is entirely their business. I just happen to disagree on this one.
Paul threw it up for discussion and I jumped in.
Hope this helps a bit.
Don
Paul
Find us another Zacharias type of post, 109 posts and counting.