To pick up the gauntlet thrown down by JP, I will ask an open-ended question that has an obvious agenda: MUST Baptistic beliefs be sacrificed on the altar of the Doctrines of Grace, or can the two co-exist?
I hope the appropriate people will respond, for I have been curious about the answer for some time now. Not knowing all of the details, this has seemed to be the case lately. And of course, I ask the question with all sincerity of love and not as "the first to caste a stone" (though of course the best textual evidence indicates that this passage is not part of the inspired Word of God :)).
12 comments:
As one who is currently agonizing over this question as I remain SBC to date, here is my response...
My answer has two parts:
1. Yes they can co-exist--with much grace and patience. How will the culture change if there are none within the walls of the church who speak of the majesty of God? But it doesn't come without a challenge--to maintain a God-centered outlook the burden shifts to me personally to feed my family as we are not getting it preached on Sundays. The internet has become a haven of resources to keep our hunger and thirst for the holiness of God.
2. I remain because I feel called to be an 'unprofitable servant' who points others to those glorious truths of the greatness of God. This is the present desire and task God has laid at my feet.
My real dilema will come once children are here...how do you go to a church that doesn't sound like what is said Mon - Sat? Is that healthy for them?
PS - DRock I love you...no really, I love you.
From a personal theology or doctrinal standpoint I would say that that they can exist and should exist. In fact I would hold that Reformed Baptistic beliefs are desired over some of the other reformed denominations.
However, my concern comes right along side of JP's concern. As I think of my reponsibility to shephard my wife and children, I am looking for a body of believers that will encourage me, my wife, and children. I would hope that I would not have to do a lot of "correcting" every Wednesday and Sunday . I am also looking for a church that has a healthy body of elders who are far wiser than I, who can shephard me as I try to glorify God as a Husband and a Father. I also want a pastor who is unashamed of the word of God.
It is because of these concerns that I chose to exit stage left from the SBC. I feel that I have a larger commitment to sound doctrine and holy living than to a "cause" or denomination. I do not want to make light of some of the doctrinal differences. I think they are serious, but they pale in comparison to the doctrine of the Sovereignty of God and a church's stance on scripture. And as I think about raising children, I think it is going to be much easier to explain why we didn't have them baptized as babies than it would be to explain why God is so "mean".
I chose my church by its overall stance on the scriptures and its basic doctrinal assumptions not its denominational affiliation.
I have also found that once a church can get past the "election debate" (i.e milk) and move on to solid foods that there is incredible growth and maturity awaiting it in both worship and practical holiness. I have been incredibly humbled by the godly men and women in our church that live truly reformed lives that reaches beyond there brains.
Having said all of this, I yearn for a truly reformed Baptist church to sprout here in my hometown. That would be my dream. I have not sacrificed my Baptistic beliefs on the altar of the doctrines of grace. Sadly, the baptist church's here SUCK!!! Right smack dab in the middle of the Bible belt. They are either borderline Charismatic or dead. And I do not have the patience that JP has. Yes I am weak.
Anyway, this is my request.
Drock and Jason-- ya'll need to come to enterprise and start a reformed baptist church. I will be your first member. Jp, will set up a satellite office here and come on the weekends. So right off the bat that gives us 11 people. That's a pretty good start!
miket and jp--good points.
But I still want to flesh this out some more.
First, I never mentioned SBC. That was intentional. It would be ridiculous for me to think that any one institutional denomination is the only group of true believers. Or even the most right group of believers.
Second, I never mentioned denomination. Again, intentional. Grace Community Church is baptistic but does not belong to a denomination as such (though they cooperate with some other independent churches). So I am not lobbying for SBC or any particular denomination in this discussion. However, I am lobbying for correct baptism as being more important in the discussion than it has been allowed. Yes, I quickly grant that baptism doesn't save and all that. But here are some points.
First, I want to posit that the chances (not meaning to sound humanistic) of my church (local or otherwise) changing stances on the doctrines of grace are much more likely than a presbyterian church changing stances on baptism. Here is why. For my baptist church, a deficient soteriology is not "institutionalized" (even if it might be confessional, which it is not; BF&M is not anti-Reformed), but for the presbyterian church, infant baptism IS institutionalized. Meaning, I am fighting for the hearts and minds of individuals with the truths of Scripture, but you are fighting not just hearts and minds but also a hierarchy and an organization. Look back at Nate's posting in February: he says that he wants his children to be baptized by immersion when they believe, but that it will have to be private (is that Scriptural baptism?) IF the elder is still allowed to do it that way by his hierarchy when the time comes. Already the institution is winning out over conviction. And the institution is not going to change (apart from a movement like the Reformation itself). If that particular local church wanted to change, it would be highly discouraged to do so because the hierarchy could seize all property and assets. Not impossible to overcome, but hard. Also, Nate can't become an elder so his influence is further limited. Which brings up the point that we are not just talking about baptism, but we are also talking about church gov't issues as well. But since I don't know where you stand on that, I digress. For the record, I believe in local autonomy that is elder-led, not elder-ruled. Bottom line: I believe that a baptist church that has problems with understanding the doctrines of grace because they have been misled many years has a better chance (again, not humanistic) of becoming "a more pure church" than a presbyterian church who may be more right in the doctrines of grace but has a slim to no chance of correctly defining who is in the church and governing the church in a biblical fashion (See below). One set of beliefs is not institutionalized, and one set is.
Second, we are not "just" talking about baptism in this issue, but this issue strikes at the heart of who the church is. Is the church a body of baptized BELIEVERS, or does it include people that somehow are determined to be "in the covenant" apart from their faith in JC? "My daddy believes in Jesus, so I am in...unless I screw it up." I know both miket and natedawg desire to teach sound doctrine to their children, and worry about communicating confusion. That is admirable. But I feel that identifying with a presbyterian church DOES communicate confusion about sound doctrine: salvation and the body of Christ. Salvation in this way: are your children "owed" salvation because they are part of the covenant community? The doctrines of grace are trying to get us away from a obligation mentality. The Body of Christ in this way: only the bride of Christ has hope, only those identified with Christ have hope. In my opinion, presbyterian churches cause confusion in just those areas. When do your children become a part of the bride of Christ? When do your children become identified with Christ? You probably will say to me, "When they believe." But is that what the presbyterian church communicates. I mean, doesn't infant baptism just come from a bunch of Catholics who thought that their children were going to go to hell if they weren't baptized. They got it from a wrong view of salvation/baptism. They did not get it from covenant theology or Scripture for that matter. Protestant pedobaptists have had to construct all of the theology behind it after the fact.
So, hopefully this is not all rambling. I also may think of some other stuff later, so I reserve the right to post more.:)
God bless you guys,
Derrick
DRock, I love you...why are you starring at me so strange?
D--Come to Tampa, the weather is nicer, and in-state tuition to UF ALONE is reason enough to move to Florida.
Great things to digest D-Rock. I will come back with a lenghthier response later when I am not at my desk trying to get grading done, lol.
drock,
you have made some excellent points. Most of your arguments are right in line with some recent concerns of mine since the pressure to baptize my child is increasing from our elders as the day draws near. I can't go very long without have a booklet shoved in my face trying to convince me of its biblical soundness. As you have so thouroughly dismantled infant baptism in your post, i completely agree with you. these are the very same arguments i have posited to my friends here. What seemed like an easy decision 3 years ago now carries with it some major consequences. And although it may seem like i don't struggle with it from my previous post. I do struggle with it. I especcially become discouraged when i get the vibe from my presbyterian brothers that I am not fit to be an elder or deacon b/c of my stance. Or even worse, that i am not being a faithful father and husband. these sideways glances can pile upon my shoulders and way me down at times.
I do appreciate your post and how it has challenged me. I will probably read it several more times.
Also, the presbyterians do realize their problems with their doctrine. if you will read my previous post on Federal Vision and The New Perspective on Paul and also do a little digging on the topic yourself (in your spare time:) ) you will see that this recent controversy in the PCA has really come about b/c there are some logical inconsistencies and some biblical inconsistencies in there soteriology. So FV and NPP, I think, are some presbyterians' way of rationalizing their "Institution" with scripture.
PS--I would like also to go on record as saying that I am one of the strongest baptist defenders/propagandists in the PCA church.
Nate, this is especially for you. Infant Baptism is NOT biblical. also to be truly reformed you do not need to give up your baptistic beliefs to be reformed. In fact to be truly reformed we need to leave behind the Catholic teachings completely. Please do not let any of your new presbyterian brothers convince you otherwise. I have been digging into this very hard the last four years and I still can't find justification for paedobaptism. The whole basis of their "institution" (of baptism) is unbiblical.
Thanks again for your post drock--keep it up. You always have been good at making people think.
When is your baby due miket? Is everthing going ok with the baby and your wife? We all are praying for you guys.
Thanks again for the thoughts Mikey T. and DRock. I have always, and still do, disagree with infant baptism. My pastor, its elders, and most of the members in my small group know my stance on infant baptism, and it will not change. There is no evidence in scripture to convince me otherwise. I understand where you are coming from as well Mikey in that you feel like it is subtley shoved in your face all the time. One encourageing thing from my church is I have started to find other congregants that disagree with pedobaptism as well. This is, according to my brother up in Tennessee who also attends a PCA church, a growing trend. More and more people are disagreeing with the pedobaptism issue. MacArthur and Sproull have a nice debate on this issue that everyone should listen to. I beleive you can get a copy of it, if you havent already, from the Founder's website. Anyway, I digress, I just wanted to make sure you guys knew that I have never even considered changing my view on pedobaptism. My earlier post was concerning the actual administration of baptism (sprinkling vs. immersion). That too has been cleared up, I feel, in sound arguments from J Gray, D-rock, and Mikey T. You guys are all awesome, and just because I don't hold the title of "elder" in my church doesnt mean I can't still be an involved leader within the church. You guys bless me in so many ways and I thrive off of these discussions.
drock,
our baby is due june 17th
and nate,
it's good to hear that you are stinking strongly to your baptist roots.
drock,
i plan on coming back very soon with a discussion on the PCA church government. This is an area wher I have done some study, but not to the extent that I have looked into baptism. I would love to here a recent seminary graduates thoughts on it.
Be back soon!
Sorry I've been rather quiet this semester.....Thank you guys for throwing those posts up. They have been really edifying.
I have really another thought for you guys....Pray for me. I've really struggled-since I've been married-on how to be a good, effective spiritual leader to Ashley. Quite frankly, I suck at it. My own personal walk has suffered as well. I want to be a man of God. Please help.
Some professors at SBTS just had a "round-table" on the topic of baptism. Here is a link to an article written about this forum. It touches on some things we have discussed.
http://www.towersonline.net/story.php?grp=news&id=425
Post a Comment