Yesterday I listened to Rush Limbaugh while out running errands. I’ve listened to him for almost as long as he’s been around nationally, in varying amounts depending on my life situation at the time. (Teaching elementary school didn’t allow for much Rush!) Yesterday I heard something that was just absolutely priceless. I would say it was one of the most profound things I’ve heard on there in all these years.
Carl, who identified himself as an Independent, called in and wanted to know, “Why can’t we just all get along?” Discussion ensued and then Rush asked Carl a question: “As an Independent, what do you stand for?” Kind of a simple question, but it was met with total silence, then fumbling nothing.
So Rush asked him, “What are your core principles?” Again, longer silence and then stumbling to apparently even understand the question.
So Rush assured him it wasn’t a trick question. He just wanted to know, “What do you stand for?” Super long silence.
Poor Carl apparently had no idea what Rush was talking about.
The silence was so LOUD and LONG. He apparently had no idea how to even process the questions, let alone answer them. I suspect that Carl is not alone in his inability to express his most basic core beliefs whether the person is an American or, God help us (literally), a confessing Christian.
Okay, so what does this have to do with baptism?
I’ve been following the discussion between Wayne Grudem and John Piper regarding baptism and church membership. The three relevant posts are:
- Grudem’s Change of Mind Regarding Differences on Baptism within a Local Church (Wayback Machine)
- Response to Grudem on Baptism and Church Membership (Wayback Machine)
- Wayne Grudem’s Response to Piper
They are very interesting and friendly. You need not be apprehensive about reading a theology war because this is not it. Instead, two friends discuss some very relevant and thought-provoking spiritual truths.
Some might think this is just dry theology and it doesn’t have anything to do with following Christ in our day to day lives. Well, not for me. I’ve been Baptist pretty much my whole life, but the baptism thing is a tricky one for me. Those of you who have read here for a bit know that we actually switched churches when we found out we were expecting Caroline. We were attending a Christian Reformed church that baptizes infants and when push came to shove we decided to move to a Baptist church, primarily because of the baptism issue. (As an aside, I’ve never been totally comfortable with that choice either.)
But it is also relevant to us in another way, and this was the situation that has made me forever since uncomfortable with being a believer’s baptism by immersion person. We know an older couple who were both baptized as infants. They have spent their entire lives serving Christ in churches that baptize infants. To make a long story short, they started visiting some other churches because they were becoming increasingly concerned about some things happening in their own church (of which they are founding members and have been there for decades). They found a Baptist church they really liked. But in order to become members of that church they would have to be baptized by immersion as their sprinkling/pouring was not considered valid. No dunky, no membership.
I have to admit that as a Baptist I found it next to impossible to defend that position. I mean, I can defend it as a Baptist and give all the reasons why a person should be baptized in the mode of believer’s baptism. But as Sallie who knows these people and knows that they have followed Christ most of their lives, I could not justify telling them that they were not able to fully function as members of a church body of Christ unless they were immersed.
So what does this have to do with Rush and Carl, the Independent? The mode of baptism for me, at this point in my life and as best I understand the Bible, is not a core belief for me. In some Baptist circles that would be almost heresy to admit. Seriously. Some Baptists would sincerely doubt my salvation that I could even entertain such thoughts. I think the mode of baptism used to be a core belief for me, but I cannot imagine telling some of the great Reformed folks I know that they could not join my church unless they were immersed when they are fully convinced in their own mind before God that their baptism is valid.
And so I found this discussion between Gruden and Piper to be interesting.
I hope you will, too.
I feel it is necessary to reiterate how careful we need to be when discussing the essentials and non-essentials for Salvation. However, I do believe that each of us can learn from listening to other Christians’ viewpoints – even when it is completely different to our own. This can sometimes change our own view, or even make our own opinion more sure.
I consider believers’ baptism by immersion to be biblical, and find it difficult to view baptism of a baby as ‘believers’ baptism’. As a result, I don’t see how anyone can use infant baptism as a ‘replacement’ for believers’ baptism.
If someone, and I say this in love and with no other motive, wants to join a church but they are not happy with that church’s theology of believers’ baptism, why are they joining it? Why would anyone want to join a church with whom they disagreed over any important piece of doctrine?
These are just my thoughts, and I hope I have made no enemies here! I just leave you with one final thought – why does believers’ baptism have to be one of the conditions of membership in so many churches? I certainly believe it should be taught, but often wonder if the Lord feels it should be the reason for Christians joining or not joining a particular church.
Grace- I don’t know how it is where you are but in many churches here membership of a church is needed to take the Lord’s Supper- and a public, obedient profession of faith is needed for membership. Can you see how the two tie in? If an individual is not willing to obey the commands of scripture then what kind of church member will they make? I think that that may be more the issue- the demonstration of obedience and willingness to submit.
Grace- I don’t know how it is where you are but in many churches here membership of a church is needed to take the Lord’s Supper- and a public, obedient profession of faith is needed for membership. Can you see how the two tie in? If an individual is not willing to obey the commands of scripture then what kind of church member will they make? I think that that may be more the issue- the demonstration of obedience and willingness to submit.
I think I would agree with Susanna’s last point. When I first discovered reformed theology, I received most of my information from presbyterian sources, and the covenant sign view of baptism was the one I held to almost by default.
Since we started attending a reformed baptist church, I felt it right to really investigate the topic fairly, and I am now convinced of the baptist position. I am quite content to accept as brothers and sisters those who have been baptized differently, and I wouldn’t dare to question the salvation of a solid presbyterian by virtue of their mode of baptism.
But church membership is a different issue. As it happens, I was sprinkled in an Anglican church at 17, and then dunked a few years ago in our old church by my own choice, but if I hadn’t been and a church we wanted to be full members of required me to be baptized by immersion, even though I may not be convinced of the need for it, I would consider it a matter of fitting submission to authority.
I’m reminded of Screwtape, actually, suggesting that if each Christian took seriously the idea of submitting to one another, the church would be a ‘positive hotbed of charity and humility’ 🙂
I think I would agree with Susanna’s last point. When I first discovered reformed theology, I received most of my information from presbyterian sources, and the covenant sign view of baptism was the one I held to almost by default.
Since we started attending a reformed baptist church, I felt it right to really investigate the topic fairly, and I am now convinced of the baptist position. I am quite content to accept as brothers and sisters those who have been baptized differently, and I wouldn’t dare to question the salvation of a solid presbyterian by virtue of their mode of baptism.
But church membership is a different issue. As it happens, I was sprinkled in an Anglican church at 17, and then dunked a few years ago in our old church by my own choice, but if I hadn’t been and a church we wanted to be full members of required me to be baptized by immersion, even though I may not be convinced of the need for it, I would consider it a matter of fitting submission to authority.
I’m reminded of Screwtape, actually, suggesting that if each Christian took seriously the idea of submitting to one another, the church would be a ‘positive hotbed of charity and humility’ 🙂
I think the point in this topic that people are missing is that infant baptism is NOT believer’s baptism. We’re not saying that baptism is a public profession of faith, but rather a sign of the covenant between God and His people. So you can’t apply the logic of believer’s baptism to refute infant baptism.
I think the point in this topic that people are missing is that infant baptism is NOT believer’s baptism. We’re not saying that baptism is a public profession of faith, but rather a sign of the covenant between God and His people. So you can’t apply the logic of believer’s baptism to refute infant baptism.
I just pulled this out of the archives.
Interestingly enough, we have been discussing this very thing this month. I had forgotten about this post.
As a follow-up 18 years later, we went back to that CRC church and had Caroline baptized when she was two. I wrote about that somewhere on here.
Now we are members of a different Baptist church and struggling with the very idea discussed above regarding whether Caroline should be required to be immersed to become a member. She will have to be if she desires to become a member because that is our church’s stance. But I’ve been thinking about it more from a Biblical and theological perspective and what it means for a Christian to deny their baptism as an infant in order to be baptized again to fulfill someone else’s doctrine. I read a number of discussions about this among Reformed and Presbyterian folks on a few message boards. It was interesting to see their perspective of it.
So 18 years later, we’re still dealing with this. When I wrote this week about the fact that we’ve struggled with church stuff, I meant it. We never fit in anywhere.
I just pulled this out of the archives.
Interestingly enough, we have been discussing this very thing this month. I had forgotten about this post.
As a follow-up 18 years later, we went back to that CRC church and had Caroline baptized when she was two. I wrote about that somewhere on here.
Now we are members of a different Baptist church and struggling with the very idea discussed above regarding whether Caroline should be required to be immersed to become a member. She will have to be if she desires to become a member because that is our church’s stance. But I’ve been thinking about it more from a Biblical and theological perspective and what it means for a Christian to deny their baptism as an infant in order to be baptized again to fulfill someone else’s doctrine. I read a number of discussions about this among Reformed and Presbyterian folks on a few message boards. It was interesting to see their perspective of it.
So 18 years later, we’re still dealing with this. When I wrote this week about the fact that we’ve struggled with church stuff, I meant it. We never fit in anywhere.