Baptizoblogodebate Roundup (with Breaking News)

From Justin Taylor @ www.theologica.blogspot.com

I thought this post might be helpful for those seeking to keep track at home regarding the credobaptism-paedobaptism-membership-Lord's Supper debate. Here's a recap.

1. John Piper used to believe that excluding paedobaptists from membership in a Baptist church but fellowshipping with them in other venues demonstrates a commitment to both serious love and serious unity.

Local Christian communities, called churches, are built around shared Biblical convictions, some of which are essential for salvation and some of which are not. We do not define our covenant life together only by the narrowest possible set of beliefs one must have to be saved. We believe rather that the importance of truth and the authority of Scripture are better honored when communities of Christian faith define themselves by clusters of Biblical convictions and stand by them, rather than redefining the meaning of membership each time one of their convictions is disputed. When different Christian communities can do this while expressing love and brotherly affection for other believers, both truth and love are well-served. For example, the fact that many of the speakers we invite to the Bethlehem Conference for Pastors could not be members of this church says that we take love and unity seriously and we take truth seriously.

2. Wayne Grudem used to believe that the best path of wisdom in the credobaptist vs. paedobaptist debate was in "allowing both views of baptism to be taught and practiced in denominations on both sides of the question." In other words, according to Grudem's 1st edition of his Systematic Theology textbook, a paedobaptist should be able to join a Baptist church.

3. But then Piper and Grudem switched teams.

In 2005 Piper sought to persuade the elders (thus far unsuccessfully) to allow the possibility of informed paedobaptists to become members of Bethlehem Baptist Church.

Grudem rewrote that section in his theology textbook. He wrote, in part, "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."

4. Piper publicly responded to Grudem's rewritten section.

5. Grudem offered a short reply.

6. Mark Dever then joined the fray with a post on Baptism, Church Membership and Congregationalism.

7. Abraham Piper (Son of John) penned a response to Mark on the issue of unrepentant sin.

8. Dever, returning from a presumably restful vacation to find a blogstorm waiting for him, offered a reply regarding the issue of unrepentant sin.

9. Credobaptist Sam Storms then entered the mix. Noting that Dever and Mohler would deny the Lord's Supper to paedobaptist Ligon Duncan, Storms asks, "How can we claim to be 'together' or 'united' for the sake of the gospel and turn away a brother or sister from the very expression and proclamation of that gospel that is so central to the life and testimony of the church?" Grudem amens Storms's argument. Storms also responded to a commenter who thinks Dever may sometimes allow paedobaptists to partake of the Supper.

10. Ligon Duncan has now posted a response. He writes, in part: "This significant difference (on baptism and church membership), far from being fatal to our unity, is precisely one of the reasons that Mark and Al and C.J. and I are in fact 'Together for the Gospel.' It is precisely one of the things that makes Together for the Gospel so different and extraordinary." In his next post he'll seek "to explain (historically, theologically and practically) in these posts is why this discussion/difference/disagreement, far from being a fatal contradiction of our unity in the Gospel is precisely a picture of the uncompromising unity that we enjoy."

By the way, there are some who think that bloggers can't be journalists. Well, Between Two Worlds is going to break some exclusive news here. Trusted sources tell Between Two Worlds that Ligon Duncan was not baptized as an infant, but was baptized as a believer! This certainly adds a wrinkle to the discussion, doesn't it? So shouldn't Dever accept Duncan both into membership and at the Lord's Table? Inquiring minds want to know!

I'm not sure why anyone would care what my position is, but I agree with old Piper, new Grudem, and unchanging Storms. I agree with Dever about membership and disagree with him regarding the Lord's Supper. And I think we'd all get along if we just followed the happy middlemen, Ted Christman and Vern Poythress!

Piper, Grudem, Dever, et al. on Baptism, the Lord's Table, and Church Membership (just how "Together for the Gospel" are we?)

By Sam Storms @ http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com

A few days ago Justin Taylor alerted us to a slight change in Wayne Grudem's view on baptism, to which John Piper then responded. Wayne then posted his response to John's response, and one needed only to wait for the ripple effect. By the way, you can read these articles on Justin's blog in the archive section (http://www.theologica.blogspot.com/).

Recently (August 16, 2007), Mark Dever posted on this issue at the 9Marks blog (http://www.blog.9marks.org/). My primary concern is less with the question of the relationship between baptism and church membership (as important as that is) and more with a related topic that emerges in the course of discussion.

Let me take you back to the Together for the Gospel conference that was held in late April, 2006. It was hosted by Mark Dever, Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan, and C. J. Mahaney, who also invited three others to deliver plenary messages: John Piper, R. C. Sproul, and John MacArthur. Registration for next year's conference is now open and I strongly urge you to attend. I will certainly be present.

After the conference was officially over, on Friday afternoon, there was a small gathering of some 75 people in one of the adjoining rooms at the Galt House Hotel. The purpose of this meeting was to address an issue that was raised last year by John Piper, pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

To be brief, John has come to the conviction that the terms on which one enters the membership of the local church should be, generally speaking, as close as possible to the terms on which one enters the membership of the universal church. In other words, he grew increasingly unsettled by the fact that conscientious, born-again, Christ-loving, Bible-believing Christians who were only baptized as infants could not join his local church. It has been the policy of Bethlehem Baptist Church, a member of the Baptist General Conference, that in order to become a functioning member one must, among other things, be baptized as a believer. On this scenario, Ligon Duncan and R. C. Sproul, being Presbyterians, could attend but would not be permitted to join Bethlehem Baptist Church.

Piper's desire was to make it possible for individuals who had been baptized as infants, and believed it would be a violation of their conscience to be baptized as adults, to join his church. They would not, however, be permitted to hold a leadership position as an Elder in the local body. As of today, the issue at Bethlehem has been temporarily put on hold, pending further discussion and prayer.

Now, back to Louisville. Mark Dever, Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan, and John Piper each began with a brief statement concerning their view on this proposed policy. Both Dever and Mohler, who are Southern Baptists, oppose it, while Piper and Duncan support it. But my primary concern is not with this policy per se, but with what happened in the course of discussion.

Let me be clear on one thing. I am a credo-baptist, not a paedo-baptist. That is to say, I believe that only those who believe in Jesus Christ should receive the ordinance of water baptism. I also believe that the proper mode of baptism is by immersion. Ligon Duncan, on the other hand, is a Presbyterian paedo-baptist. Because of this, both Mark Dever and Al Mohler made it clear that if Duncan were in attendance at either of their churches they would not permit him to partake of the elements of the Lord's Supper.

Let me repeat that. Because of Duncan's paedo-baptist convictions, both Dever and Mohler would prohibit his participation in the Eucharist. They would deny to him partnership in the table of our Lord. They would withhold the bread and the cup from him because of his disagreement with them on who are the proper recipients of Christian baptism.

As best I can tell (and I'm open to correction on this point), since Jesus clearly commanded (believer's) baptism, a paedo-baptist (says Dever in his recent blog post) is guilty of "disobedience" and "unrepentant sin" (however unintentional it may be) and is thus disqualified from participating in the Lord's Table.

Duncan believes that when an adult comes to faith in Christ he/she should be baptized in water (he prefers by effusion, but would acknowledge the validity of immersion). But he also believes that the infants of Christian parents should be brought to the baptismal font. I disagree with him on this latter point, but I'm disturbed that anyone would deny him access to the Lord's Table on such grounds.

I have tremendous respect for both Mark Dever (whom I count as a good, personal friend) and Al Mohler (although I don't know Dr. Mohler personally). Truly I do. They are both an incalculable blessing to the body of Christ. I also agree with them concerning the proper subjects of Christian baptism. But I find it remarkable that they would turn away Ligon Duncan from that ordinance of the church that above all else signifies and expresses the unity of the brethren in the body of Christ.

This may be offensive to some, but the claim to be "Together for the Gospel" rings a bit hollow to me when some would decline to fellowship with others around the Lord's Table because of their disagreement on the proper recipients of baptism.

Let's be sure we understand what the Eucharist is designed to communicate. Aside from differences of opinion concerning the nature of Christ's "presence" (whether physical, spiritual, or merely symbolic), there can be no mistake that this ordinance signifies, embodies, and expresses the foundational essence of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Before us are the elements of bread and wine that unmistakably represent the body and blood of Jesus Christ given on behalf of sinners like Ligon Duncan, John Piper, Al Mohler, Mark Dever, and myself.

Jesus himself made it clear that the cup represented or pointed to or in some sense embodied "the forgiveness of sins" that would come from the saving efficacy of his atoning death (Matthew 26:28). In 1 Corinthians 11:26 Paul echoed this truth by telling us that every time we celebrate the Lord's Table we "proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." In other words, the Eucharist is a dramatic, visible, vocal enactment of the gospel itself. It stirs our hearts to meditate on Christ's redemptive work and is designed to stimulate the mind to reflect on the significance of all that he achieved on behalf of those for whom he died.

My question, then, is this: How can we claim to be "together" or "united" for the sake of the gospel and turn away a brother or sister from the very expression and proclamation of that gospel that is so central to the life and testimony of the church? What does this prohibition say to the world around us? What must they think of our professed "togetherness" or "unity" when the elements of the Eucharist would be withheld from a brother such as Ligon Duncan?

In effect, this is the message that is sent: "Ligon, we agree with you on the nature of the gospel. We agree with you that we must faithfully proclaim and preach the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and salvation by grace alone through faith alone in what he has accomplished on Calvary. But you cannot share with us the table of the Lord or the elements that represent and proclaim that gospel."

I'm sorry, but that doesn't sound to me like "together" or "united" or any such thing for the sake of the gospel. It sounds rather like a narrow sectarianism that fails to consider the unity of the one body as represented by the one bread (1 Corinthians 10:17). It sounds like the colossal loss of an excellent opportunity to deepen and strengthen Christian fellowship and bear witness to a lost and dying world both of the gospel itself and our unity that is grounded in it.

For some brethren to look at Ligon Duncan (or others in his camp) and say, "We believe the same gospel, we preach the same gospel, but we refuse to express that belief and proclaim that gospel with you by means of the ordinance that Jesus commissioned as an expression of our unity and our confident hope in its capacity to save," calls into serious question the significance of the word "together".

I hope none will conclude from this that I think the conference was a failure or was not beneficial to those in attendance. As I said, I plan on attending again in 2008. I hope none will think that Al Mohler and Mark Dever do not love their Christian brother, Ligon Duncan. Indeed, they would no doubt contend that it is precisely because of their love for him (among other reasons) that they feel compelled to hold firmly to their position. True love is never served by compromising the truth. There is no greater expression of love for another than the willingness to make painful and unpopular decisions for the sake of bringing an errant brother into the light.

One more thing should be noted. In his recent post, Dever indicated that he planned on having an Anglican and a Presbyterian preach from his pulpit in the near future. In the comment section of his blog, one person said: "The implication . . . is that there are people whom you are happy to have in your pulpit but not at the Lord's Table. That seems a little odd." Yes, it does.

In a similar vein, another comment asked: "why would you let someone in unrepentant sin be teaching the flock at Capitol Hill?"

Finally, more directly to the point of this article, the question was asked: "If your Anglican . . . friend were preaching in your pulpit on a Sunday where the Lord's Table was observed, would you exclude him from participating?" The answer, clearly, is that Dever would indeed exclude him from participating.

In fact, let's suppose, just for the sake of argument, that the Lord's Table is celebrated every Sunday at Capitol Hill Baptist Church (although I don't think it is). This would mean that Dever's Anglican or Presbyterian friend might conceivably preach a profoundly biblical message on the gospel of the dying and rising Christ and salvation through him alone, only to be told (if not in words then surely by the actions then taken) that he must sit to the side and refrain from receiving the elements that symbolize and embody the very dying and rising Christ whom he only moments before so faithfully and biblically proclaimed.

In this not unlikely scenario, the visiting paedo-baptist might even reinforce the truth of the gospel message by pointing to the elements on the table before him, articulating with passion and humility how the sacrifice of Christ's body and blood, here symbolized by the bread and wine, have secured for all Christians forgiveness of sins and eternal life. He would then, I suppose, be led away from the elements and told that although he is no less trusting in what they represent than are his credo-baptist brothers and sisters, he cannot partake with them in the supper.

Historical Reflections on Baptism and Church Membership, Part Two

By Aaron Menikoff @ www.blog.9marks.org

I don’t intend to advocate in this post for a Baptist ecclesiology (9 Marks, after all, it not a Baptist ministry) as much as I hope to simply note that the current discussion of the necessity of baptism for church membership is not new, though it tends to be assumed more than it is fully and clearly advocated.

Thus, I began the discussion with one of my heroes, John Bunyan, who rejected the argument that baptism must precede fellowship in a local church (and, thus, church membership). Bunyan wrote, “For herein lies the mistake, To think that because in time past baptism was administered upon conversion, that therefore it is the initiating and entering ordinance into church communion: when by the word no such thing is testified of it” (Works, II:605). Bunyan insisted, instead, that an individual ought to be accepted into membership on the basis of his profession of faith and show of good works.

I already mentioned Abraham Booth who opposed this particular view of Bunyan’s. Baptist theologian John Dagg is another example. What we see in Dagg is a robust theology of the universal church coupled with a robust theology of the local church. He saw both as two sides of the same coin.

Without mentioning Bunyan, Dagg argued against the idea that a profession of faith is sufficient for church fellowship because God ordained another means: “The profession of renouncing the world, and devoting ourselves to Christ, might have been required to be made in mere words addressed to the ears of those who hear; but infinite wisdom has judged it better that it should be made in a formal and significant act, appointed for the specific purpose. That act is baptism” (Dagg, Manual of Church Order, 71).

Certainly, for Dagg, to be baptized as a believer was to be obedient to God’s command just as a faithful Paedobaptist believes baptizing an infant is an act of obedience. However, perhaps the most interesting aspect of Dagg’s argument has to do with the way he differentiated between the visible and invisible church. Those who denied that baptism is a prerequisite to the Lord’s Supper (and consequently to church membership) often argued that to do so was uncharitable, unloving. According to Dagg, nothing could be further from the truth; a local church has a responsibility to establish boundaries, based upon Scripture, regarding with whom she may share church fellowship but the boundaries of the Church are larger, and her boundaries, Dagg noted, are not open for dispute (for Dagg, the Lord’s Supper represented church membership):

There is a table which the Lord has spread, and to which every child of his family has an unquestionable right. It is a table richly furnished with spiritual food, a feast of fat things, full of marrow, of wine on the lees refined. This table the Lord has spread for all his children, and he invites them all to come: ‘Eat, O friends; drink, yea drink abundantly, O beloved.’ Any one who should forbid their approach would offend against the community of God’s children. The guests at this table have spiritual communion with one another; a species of communion which belongs of right to every member of the church universal.

There is another table which the Lord has commanded his people to spread in each local church. It is not, like the other, covered with spiritual good things, but with simple bread and wine. It is not, like the other, designed for the whole family of the Lord, but for the particular body, the local church, by whom, in obedience to divine command, it has been spread. Though human hands have set out the food, yet the table is the Lord’s, because it is designed for his service, and prepared at his command; and the will of the Lord must determine who ought to partake. He knows best the purpose for which he commanded it; and, whatever may be the feelings of the guests, they have no right to invite to his table any whom the Lord has not invited (Dagg, Manual of Church Order, 224).

The relevance of these two paragraphs in the Grudem-Piper discussion becomes readily apparent. Piper wrote that for any church to refuse membership to a godly believer is to diminish “our spiritual union with Christ.” However, this is not necessarily the case if spiritual union with Christ is not fully and finally reflected in church membership. As important as the local church is, she is the not the ultimate gatekeeper to membership in Christ’s kingdom—that was Dagg’s point. Membership in the invisible or universal church is a real and glorious reality. Membership in a local church is real and wonderful as well, but refusing membership to this body does not necessarily deny or diminish the reality of another's believers spiritual union with Christ--it may but it need not.

This does not address every issue that needs to be addressed. For example, the pressing question remains: who decides whether a baptism is valid, the subject or the church? However, it does address one important issue: It is not necessarily less spiritual to divide over issues of baptism (though it can be!) if we affirm membership in the universal church even as we limit membership in the local church.

On a side note, I'm very thankful for the way Drs. Grudem and Piper are modeling how to handle theological disputes with decorum, kindness, and love. Their wisdom and grace is humbling. It is easy to assume it should simply be that way, but it isn't always the case.

In the meantime, I would still like to reflect more on some other issues that have arisen in the past and maybe some other 9Marks guys will chime in on some even more pressing issues related to this discussion (hint, hint).

Historical Reflections on Baptism and Church Membership, Part One

By Aaron Menikoff@ www.blog.9marks.org

Maybe it simply worth noting that there is a long history, first in England, then in the States, of Baptists addressing the question of whether the unbaptized should be accepted into the membership of Baptist churches. To put it in a less sterile way, should the church really be split over a difference in baptism?

The most famous account, and one that Mark has lectured on in academic circles, involved the famous tinker from Bedford, John Bunyan. The author of Pilgrim’s Progress defended his practice of allowing the paedo-baptists to join Bedford Baptist Church in Differences about Water Baptism No Bar to Communion (1673). Bunyan offered ten reasons to allow the unbaptized into membership. First, both the baptized and unbaptized are subject to Christ. Second, Eph. 4:1-6 points to one baptism that unifies all believers. Third, all believers share faith in the essentials—life, death, resurrection of Christ. Fourth, a church should not deny communion to someone with whom God has communion. Fifth, a lack of water baptism does not “unchristian” anyone. Seventh, love trumps division. Eighth, churches are wrong to separate over more serious matters than baptism (1 Cor. 3:1-4). Ninth, denying church communion is tantamount to denying the privileges and blessings of salvation. Tenth, it is contemptible to cast off a saint from church communion.

William Kiffin challenged Bunyan in his own day, but a hundred years later another Baptist minister, Abraham Booth, challenged Bunyan’s arguments in A Defense for the Baptists (1778). Not surprisingly, Booth lacked something of Bunyan’s flourish; Booth’s arguments are simple and straightforward. First, the New Testament presents Baptism as a necessary prerequisite to the Lord’s Supper. Second, the necessity of Baptism ought not to be left up to the individual’s conscience (as Bunyan had argued). The church must retain the right to exercise God’s commandment in a matter as clearly prescribed as the subject of baptism. To prioritize an individual’s conscience over biblical teaching threatened the entire dissenting movement of which Booth was a part. This is very interesting. According to Booth, to allow unbaptized persons into the church on the basis of their convictions contrary to the congregation’s teaching threatened the very integrity of the church. His church might as well hang up its separatist credentials and join with the Church of England:

For if it be lawful to dispense with an appointment of God, out of regard to our weaker brethren; we cannot reasonably think it unlawful to practice the appointments of our National Church . . . And if we may safely connive at one human invention; why may not the Church of England make what appointments she pleases? (Defense for the Baptists, Baptist Standard Bearer, 50-51)

What observations can be made based on this discussion? Regarding the first question, Bunyan sought out certain themes in Scripture that seemed to contradict denying membership to a Christian: unity and love being the primary ones. Next, he traded on the emotional weight of these themes and prioritized them above other apparently contradictory ones: obedience [to the command to be baptized] and truth [regarding the necessity of baptism preceding communion]. Booth saw something greater at stake in the discussion than simply whether a few Baptist churches would become mixed. Churches prizing the conscience of the individual above the clear teaching of Scripture threatened leaving their young Baptist roots. This, of course, is eventually what happened to Bunyan’s church. Not during his time, but a few church splits later, Bedford Baptist became Bedford Congregationalist.

Time to bring this to an end. I'd still like to discuss in another post trends in America including two Baptists, Dagg and Dargan, an interesting event in the 1820s where a Congregational and Baptist association sought to become one for the purpose of evangelism in the Northeast, as well as Watts Street Baptist, a church in North Carolina that changed its baptism policy nearly forty years ago. After that, it will be a good time for me to offer some reflections on the current discussion.

Baptism, Church Membership and Congregationalism

by mdever @ http://www.blog.9marks.org

OK, I'm on vacation with my family, but I took print-outs of the Piper/Grudem exchanges on baptism and chruch membership. 9Marks guys, can we weigh in on this? What would you add to, disagree with, nuance in this argument?

Baptism SHOULD be required for church membership:

1) Because Jesus clearly commanded baptism and to disobey this command is sin [whether intentional or not]. To continue in such an unbaptized state is unrepentant sin [whether intentional or not]. Thus, no careful paedo-baptist will follow John P's apparent "generosity" about membership. That is, they will never knowingly admit someone to the Lord's Table that they understand to be unbaptized (even if they took that evangelical Quaker or believing Salvationist to be their brother or sister in Christ). John P wants us to admit to the Lord's Table those that he and we all agree are not baptized. John has no doubt that infant baptism is not baptism. He is solid on that point. But I think that actually leaves his position unusually open to other difficulties--knowingly admitting the unbaptized to regular communion. I simply don't want to take the responsibility to so disregard Jesus' commands (not that John P intends to in anyway disregard Jesus' commands). I especially don't want to do this in what has been an area of relatively unanimous Christian agreement from Jesus til now. Baptism precedes the Lord's Table. MUCH more could be said on this, but it probably already has been.

2) Because according to the New Testament, it is not merely the elders, but the entire membership of the local church that bear responsibility for establishing and patrolling "border & boundary" issues of discipline (Mt. 18; I Cor. 5) and doctrine (Gal. 1; II Tim 4). I think John P recognizes the importance of unity among such a responsible body, but he understands [I think] the local congregation NOT to be this responsible body, but rather the active followers of the elders--but merely followers. A congregationalist on the other hand (as Baptists have traditionally been) understands that it is the congregation who must ultimately establish such issues. John P would NOT want such divisions on baptism in the body that he takes to be the final earthly adjudicatory--the elders--and neither would we Baptists. The difference is, we think that body is the congregation as a whole, led by elders, yes, but only with the necessary and Biblical consent and cooperation of the congregation. (So, in classic terms, John would be an independent, but not a congregationalist.)

Much more we could say here, but, reader, please keep in mind that this is written by one who loves John Piper, appreciates his ministry (see earlier blog post) and who is planning to have an Anglican Dean and a Presbyterian former Moderator of the General Assembly preach in his Baptist pulpit in the next few months. There is a great unity in active cooperation, honoring, encouragement and love that is not broken by our lamentable temporary separation over local church membership.

A Red Herring in the Baptism / Membership Debate

By Paul W. Martin @ http://preacherthoughts.blogspot.com

The interesting debate concerning whether or not a Baptist church should allow into membership convinced paedobaptists is heating up again.

It began with Wayne Grudem’s new edition of his systematic theology, wherein (as nicely highlighted by JT) Grudem reverses from his previous position. Now he argues that unity in a local congregation between paedobaptists and credobaptists is not wise or really possible.

John Piper weighed in almost immediately pointing out some disagreements and Grudem replied with a defense of his reversal.

Not to be outdone, Mark Dever stirred the pot a little more with his post that supports Grudem’s side from a congregational/Baptist model. Although Mark did write while on vacation and I think he can offer more.

As for me, it seems that the Grudem/Dever side (or maybe we should just call it the “non-Piper side” since Piper seems to be standing quite alone on this matter!) always comes back to the same argument. In an over-simplified form, it states: “If we let paedobaptists become members, they will eventually take over the theology of the local congregation and pull them away from their Baptist distinctives.”

You know, this may be true.

Or it may not.

But consider this.

How many local churches remain steadfast to the Gospel for more than one or two generations? Honestly, there are very few. And that problem is created by a lack of indoctrinating and “entrusting to faithful men” more than anything else! To suggest that barring paedobaptists from membership will “preserve” the local Baptist church is a red herring and needs to be removed from the discussion.

For my part, I would much rather see our church fellowship with a godly, Calvinistic, theologically-robust, Gospel-driven, Christ-centered, sanctified Paedobaptist congregation any day... than sidle up to a worldly, atheological, man-centered Baptist “church.” And I think most of the “non-Piper side” would agree with me – hence, Together for the Gospel.

I wonder if part of what drives the non-Piper side is fear - the fear of losing people or losing an entire church in years to come? If that is the case, then we need to apply our robust theology to the matter. One: God has determined the future in its entirety and no matter what steps I take now, I will be a complete failure at managing from the grave. Two: If I am faithful, like the Apostle Paul, to train and equip the next generation of leaders (which includes a whole lot of teaching on the meaning and nature of credo- baptism...) then I have fulfilled my ministry.

_____________________________________________________________________

In reference to my post on baptism / church membership yesterday, a commenter asked for some kind of proof that those against the idea of opening church membership to convinced, saved paedobaptists fall back on the red herring of “What Might Happen If...” I think there have been many such instances, but here is one from print from my friend Mark Dever. Contextually, he is including paedobaptists in his category of “unbaptized.”

“When a noncongregational style of government is adopted, the acceptance 0f the unbaptized into membership may seem initially without effect. But a subtle indifference to doctrine may be communicated. Furthermore the bulk of members may come to hold the allowed exception, and the teaching ministry of the church on this—and other—points may begin to stray. Such a tendency would not be unprecedented in the history of once great evangelical churches.”

Mark Dever, “Baptism in the Context of the Local Church” from “Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ” p. 342