I’d Rather Be an Arminian?

"the alternative is to preach an inconsistent, diluted, confused message, which focuses more on man than on God."

What do you think of unity with arminians? Could and should reformed and arminians evangelize unbelievers togheter? Why/Why not?

This is one of important issue I am considering and also practically going to face in reality in this period, I would like to know what is your point of view too.

God bless

Francesco:

That is an important consideration. I spent a great deal of time overseas doing just that. It is difficult but not impossible because we share the belief that man has no hope save in Jesus Christ. How we define that may come off quite different, however.

In my essay I am not arguing that we should cut off fellowship with those who differ from us on the doctrines of grace, but am merely pointing out that this is significantly more important than our different views on baptism.

In such a instance as yours, you will have to decide based on whether you are confusing those you proclaim the gospel to because you are giving two very different perspectives at once. Aside from trying to persuade your Arminian friend with the Scripture you may consider going your seperate ways when it comes to the working of evangelism, but only if the hearers are getting mixed messages and go home more confused than assured.

I appreciate your post and the posts of your other bloggers. I can see by looking at your profiles that you come from many different backgrounds. Can you please post a similiar post on "gifts of the Spirit" and Reformed theology. Being PCA, finding charasmatic and reformed thinking is new to me.

John, this is actually an issue for many Baptist folks these days, and I'm glad you brought it up. Many of us find ourselves in synergistic churches and no where else to go in terms of a Reformed Baptist congregation, often unless we drive an hour or more away from home. The level of frustration is quite high in some places.

Also, some Baptists to whom I have spoken myself have reported that one of the reasons they return to synergistic churches is because their Presbyterian brethren try to "convert" them to paedobaptism and this eventually wears then after awhile, and they begin feeling like second class citizens. I realize that varies from individual to individual and church to church, but the point I'm making is that charity extends in both directions.

Personally, I've often thought to myself that it would be rather nice if some our PCA churches, if they find they have large numbers of Baptist folks coming to them to get out of synergistic churches, would help out their Reformed Baptist brethren by, perhaps, farming out their T.E.'s on occasion to help lead a Reformed Baptist fellowship group once a week in view of calling a Reformed Baptist pastor for them at some point, much like the old circuit riders would sometimes come, preach, establish a church, then wait for an established pastor to come and lead them before moving on to a new town. In my home state, NC, that's how many churches were started in the Colonial and Antebellum periods. We Reformed Baptists have a tendency to look to our Presbyterian brethren as our bookish, smart cousins, and we greatly admire you for having preserved the Reformed faith so well. We really could use a hand with the formation of our churches, and I sometimes wonder if it might not be a good idea to, on a case by case basis, toy with the idea of a PCA church helping seed a Reformed Baptist church for the very reasons you outline. They could help start a Reformed Bapt. study fellowship and nurture it into a local, autonomous church as a church plant, providing leadership and organization for them until they can call their own pastor/elders.

What is one to do if, for example, one has convictions about baptism and wishes to leave his synergistic church and yet go on to seminary? Will a Presbyterian church or session recommend such a person to seminary from their own fellowship knowing he is a Reformed Baptist among them who came to them out of solidarity for Reformed theology, ethics, and principles, but disagreeing about baptism? For example, if John is Reformed and wants to go to seminary in a couple of years and is planning to do so and leaves Synergist Baptist to join with Reformed Presbyterian down the street, and he chooses to attend RTS or Westminster as a Reformed Baptist (vs. Presbyterian), could that local church in good conscience, all other things being equal, recommend John to that seminary?

I understand that the PCA does not require its members to be paedobaptist, but it does require it of its elders, and I presume licentiates and candidates? How then does it not violate the confessional standard of the local church or session with respect to such a situation?

I'm asking, because, to be very honest, I'm in this situation myself. The closest Reformed Baptist congregation is very small and unstable, meeting in a hotel on Sunday morning, a disused church on Sunday night, and at different homes on Wednesdays. They have also written premillenialism into their church confession, and, as amil, I couldn't join them in good conscience, as I believe strongly in agreeing to the confession of your local church when you join their local covenant.

The next closest Reformed Baptist congregation is 45 minutes to an hour away in the next city. I really like the folks at one of the local PCA congregations a lot. They're 15 minutes from home. The worship is theocentric, the sermons are excellent, they truly live what they believe, and they take their church covenant seriously. They're known as a congregation of "hippy Calvinists" here in town. I have nothing but good things to say about them. Currently, I'm a member of a Southern Baptist congregation that has lots of problems. Our pastor is Reformed, but the church is unwilling, and he's frustrated with them himself. They have a bloated membership roll, 2/3 of which is enrolled in Sunday School, and 1/3 of which show on any given Sunday. Folks can attend church for months and then drop out without a bit of followup. I don't find this at all acceptable, and, like many Reformed Baptist folks in these situations, tire of feeling like an alien among our own brothers, because, when we voice concerns about it, the people genuinely don't understand why we don't find such practices acceptable.

If we talk about what we believe, we are even shouted down in some situations. I've even been asked to teach classes and then been told not to mention certain things, because they are "controversial." As I told them, I don't see the five points everywhere, and I don't mention them all the time (no Calvinist should) but God's mercy, sovereignty, etc. are in nearly every text of the Bible in some way. Calvinism, in that sense is a worldview, and I will draw from it to frame what I teach. I would be less than truthful if I didn't. I've also been told to pretend everybody in class is a new Christian and doesn't know anything. I find that insulting to their intelligence, particularly since I have a teaching background professionally anyway. If I pretended that was the case with my students at the beginning of a course and at the end of the course, I would never move them from point a to point b and they would fire me. Baptist folks seem to think treating folks like that is a virtue not a vice. I've observed, on the other hand, my PCA brethren learning historical theology during their Sunday School classes. In my Mom's non-Reformed Bible church, they are being taught church history and biblical hermaneutics on Sunday nights. If we bring this up at the denominational level or in a church, folks will shake their heads and say, "Yes, we don't do a good job with discipleship," but then they never do anything about the problem. That's partly because "conversion" is defined as "making decisions," and "evangelism" is considered separate from "discipleship." In the Reformed churches I've attended and in the books on evangelism I've read, these two concepts are intimately united. One does evangelism by making disciples; one does not make disciples after doing evangelism and getting them to make a decision.

In the SBC, our own leaders are preaching sermons against our beliefs and misrepresenting them egregiously. In the past four months, I have heard very prominent SBC 5 pastors preach anti-Calvinist sermons or take pot shots at Reformed theology from their pulpits or at conferences, misrepresenting either Reformed theology itself or biblical truth or both in the process. The president of the denomination wrote against Calvinism in his church's newsletter calling it hte death of evangelism and missions and, according to the author of an academic paper he used for part of his paper, he misrepresented the content of that paper. I've confronted one of them in email discussions and all he can do is send back an emotionally laden jeremiad saying that Calvinism's logic end is the death of evangelism and missions and that he wouldn't be preaching against Calvinism if those people in the seminaries (professors and students) didn't "attack" him when he was there (Nevermind that he was "attacked" for lying about Calvinism from his own pulpit and refused to interact with any of them on campus when asked nicely). The end result is that the SBC itself is becoming increasingly polemic on both sides.

After this last interaction with this particular person and the way it was handled, I've decided that I'm done with playing missionary in my own denomination and local church. I'll continue to help Founders in whatever way I can, and I may decide to attend Southern Seminary, but I'm strongly contemplating Westminster, although, due to financial reasons (I'm saving $), I won't be able to go until 2007 or 2008 at the latest (though if you went by my libary's contents you'd think I had already been there). The bottom line for me is that I'm trying to choose a local church that is as congruent with my theological and ethical convictions as possible. In an ideal world, there would be a Reformed SBC church that adheres to the 2nd London Baptist Confession in town and I would go there. To coin a phrase, "I just don't see that happnin'," because I live in an area where, how shall I say, dispensational soteriological innovations are the rule of the day.

I do believe that God is slowing reforming the church in some quarters. These issues would not have risen to the level of being confronted by the SBC leadership if that was not the case, and interest in Reformed theology seems to be rising. I pray, along with some others, that the Lord will send a second reformation among the churches. At least in my own current denomination, 100 years of revivalism has given us churches with bloated rolls and members who are kept in ignorance. Add to that a leadership that wants you out and calls your theology, and I quote here: “aberrant, illogical, backwards, prideful, elitist, abusive, and slanderous" and you're ready to go. I have no desire to be part of a local church where such things are said from the pulpit by men who should know better and how act as if they are not answerable to those whom they slander in such a way.

Chris:

Yes, it is fairly new to me as well, but I have seen a growing number of churches which hold to both. (i.e. embrace Reformed soteriology and certain gifts), but usually not Reformed ecclesiology. More like Reformed Baptists in ecclesiology.

You may be interested in this interview:
(here)

I apologize on behalf of the Baptist that made that remark to the Presbyterian brother. Being a confessional Reformed Baptist myself, I value Presbyterians greatly. I read their books, listen to their teachings, and respect their point of view. In fact, if one of my daughters ever came home one day and said she met a (good quality) Presbyterian man, I'd be in full support of their marriage. Certainly one of us is right and the other is wrong, regarding baptism, and I dont want to diminish it's importance. But we have so much else in common. In a day when evangelicalism has gone wacky, Presbyterian and RB's need to stand side by side, in our reformation and puritan tradition.

Thank you for your response.
I am considering this very carefully.

I think is quite inevitable to give two different messages, expecially if you are asked questions by people with whom you are speaking...

Moreover, it's also the manner of evangelizing that is different, because the vision is different, as you know.

I will reflect upon this important issue, and see what practically happens trying to evangelize togheter with arminian brothers...

Thanks, God bless you

John,

Thanks very much for this post. I very much agree, and appreciate the partnering together of credo and paedo baptists in upholding the doctrines of Grace that takes place both on this blog and as displayed on the links to various articles/sermons/books on Monergism.com. Coming, as I do, from an area where reformed doctrine is somewhat scarce, it's like a refreshing drink of cool water to the soul just to find like-minded believers and churches faithfully proclaiming a God-centered soteriology and a Biblically informed anthropology. I am thankful for that work of God, where ever I find it - it is so encouraging. I do come from a credo-baptist belief myself, but consider that I am blessed indeed to have friends and read books by men of God from the Presbyterian side of things. Blessings to you and all those who post here.

As a Presbyterian I appreciate my reformed Baptist brothers & sisters.
I'll discuss baptism, but it is not a test of fellowship or orthodoxy.
I learn a lot from Reformed Baptists.

As long as we debate our differences in the same spirit we would debate issues within Presbyterianism (or the spirit in which we ought to, as none of us are perfect), we can sharpen each other.

I'll be checking back here often-it looks like a worthy use of my time oonline.

thank you thank you thank you

As a Reformed Anglican (and was there originally any other sort?) I find myself perfectly at home with my wonderful Reformed Baptist friends and appreciative, in particular, of those who first convinced me of the Doctrines of Grace (i.e. James White at Aomin).

As a credo-covenantal Baptist who is “trapped” in a Arminian/Pre-trib/PDL/EG mega-Baptist church I thank Gene Bridges for his comments since they accurately reflect my views and position. I have, for more than 20 years, taught a men’s Sunday morning Bible study where every lesson, to the best of my ability, is consistent with the doctrines of grace. It is not done in secret and any church member is free to take any objections to my teaching to the church leadership. As far as I know, no one ever has and each year the church votes to reaffirm my teaching position. So, that’s one reason I stay. Another reason is that I have never been required to give assent to Arminian/Pre-trib/PDL/EG teachings. Third, my leaving this local congregation would have no effect on changing the teachings. Fourth, while the pastor is preaching I can pray that the Holy Spirit will reveal to him the great truths of the doctrines of grace. Frequently, while preaching, the pastor will come to the edge of the abyss of monergism and I pray that the Holy Spirit will push him into the abyss. If I’m not there then who’ll pray for his eyes to be opened? I could add some other reasons but these will suffice to explain my staying put for now.

Now as to “fellowship” among those who hold different views of baptism. Certainly when we speak of non-covenantal fellowship, such as this blog or conferences and the like, and if the participants agree not to make and issue of the matter, then such fellowship would seem to be good. But when it comes to fellowship (membership) of the local church the issue of baptism is a differ matter. We are now speaking of covenanting on doctrinal matters. If one is not required to assent as to whom should be baptized and as how baptism should be administered, then any “who and how” should be acceptable and made available according to the wishes of the member. But since baptism was instituted by our Lord, we must not take such a cavalier attitude. Every local congregation should be convinced of their position, put it in their covenant, and require assent to the whole of the covenant for membership. (It is of some interest that about the only covenantal issue that most Baptist churches require is assent to credo-covenantal baptism. Of course, Reformed Baptist would be an exception to this observation.) If my only viable option for attending congregational worship was with a local church whose covenant includes paeodobaptism, then I would have to be a “permanent visitor,” for to do otherwise would violate my conscience and be sin.

As a doctrine of the local church, the “whom and how of baptism” is not to be taken lightly as centuries of debate have demonstrated.

Thanks to everyone for their excellent posts.

Gene:

I think your suggestions are excellent. I don't know how common PCA churches are in your area, but where I live I think there are only 3 in the entire state. We ourselves are short of TEs but prayerfully the Lord is beginnging to make inroads as PCA begins to plant churches up and down the west coast. I pray that Reformed Baptist congregations do likewise.

Gordon:

Thanks for your thoughts. You may belong in an synergistic church that allows you to teach and so you are probably an exception to the rule. However, this is not the case for the majority of persons in such situations. You say that baptism is a doctrinal matter. But so is soteriology. What if your church did not allow you to teach? You would likewise have to be a "permanent visitor". Could you in good conscience be a member of a church that's doctrinal confession was synergistic yet taught a believers' baptism? Most such churches are downright hostile to monergism.

In my denomination, the PCA, as a member you do not have to embrace a particular position on baptism. You can me a member of PCA and hold to credo-baptism if this is your conviction ... so there would be no violation of conscience. Only elders are required to be paedo covenantal-baptists. We should not treat as non-Christians those who differ on this issue, so to deny membership over this is tantamount to saying that they are in sin and should be denied communion. This is severely problematic imho.

John, no I would not be a member of any church that required synergism as a doctrinal matter. As a member of an SBC church I am to be guided by the BF&M which is broad enough to encompass reformed and arminian teachings. Nevertheless, I could still be removed because of conflict with what is taught elsewhere within the church. Should such a situation occur I would have to leave the church a quietly as possible, for if I were to remain it could cause discord. But, even it I stayed I would still be a member since my membership is based on a credible profession of faith and subsequent baptism by immersion. The only way I think that I could lose my membership would be actions which would call my profession in to question. I have in mind such things as the denial of the deity of Christ, denial of the physical resurrection of Jesus and the like.

I'm not sure I correctly understand what is an elder in the PCA; whether it is a clergy position or a lay position. If it is clergy then the restriction regarding paedobaptism is understandable, but if is a lay position to which any layman might aspire to, then imho credobaptist are second class Christians in your church. I also wonder if a credobaptist were in a Bible study group (or any other church activity) and the subject of baptism arose if would be acceptable for that participant to mount a strong case for credobaptism.

Would you treat a person who differed on the perseverance of the saints as you do credobaptist, or would you deny them membership which is tantamount to saying that they are in sin and should be denied communion and be treated as non-Christians? If so, IMHO, this is to make the 5th point of TULIP an essential for salvation.

If a credobaptist would not join your local church if it required assent to psedobaptism, when for that person the doctrine of baptism is not a minor point. It seems to me to allow a credobaptist to become a member of your church while holding to credobaptist doctrine seriously undermines the importance of paedobaptism.

Gene:

An additional response to something you mentioned in your post...

you said >>>>>What is one to do if, for example, one has convictions about baptism and wishes to leave his synergistic church and yet go on to seminary? Will a Presbyterian church or session recommend such a person to seminary from their own fellowship knowing he is a Reformed Baptist among them who came to them out of solidarity for Reformed theology, ethics, and principles, but disagreeing about baptism? For example, if John is Reformed and wants to go to seminary in a couple of years and is planning to do so and leaves Synergist Baptist to join with Reformed Presbyterian down the street, and he chooses to attend RTS or Westminster as a Reformed Baptist (vs. Presbyterian), could that local church in good conscience, all other things being equal, recommend John to that seminary?

Gene, I attend RTS and know for a fact that they receive Reformed Baptists. And yes, I believe they could do so in good conscience.

Gordon

You said>>>> Would you treat a person who differed on the perseverance of the saints as you do credobaptist, or would you deny them membership which is tantamount to saying that they are in sin and should be denied communion and be treated as non-Christians? If so, IMHO, this is to make the 5th point of TULIP an essential for salvation. There was disagreement among Arminius' followers on this one.
-------------------------

There are plenty of persons who I would consider Arminians who are members of PCA churches.

Re: Perseverance of the Saints. In particular persons who reject perseverance are in essence saying that they must maintain their own justification before God, for if they commit certain sins they can fall away, which would mean that Christ's work of atonement was not sufficient to save. That specific Arminian doctrine, thus, comes very close to affirming some Roman Catholic heresies. Only some Arminians actually embrace this, however.
---------------------------

You said >>>>>If a credobaptist would not join your local church if it required assent to psedobaptism, when for that person the doctrine of baptism is not a minor point. It seems to me to allow a credobaptist to become a member of your church while holding to credobaptist doctrine seriously undermines the importance of paedobaptism.
------------------

Our local church does not require assent to paedobaptism to become a member. Nor do I believe it undermines it, but allows for conscience on matters such as these which are not requirements for salvation. The gospel is what unites us. Rather, it seems with reason to believe that if we all had to agree on every single doctrinal issue in existence then we would frankly have no churches at all. We could all be forced to worship by ourselves at home. For I am certain that there is not one person at your church where you are in complete doctrinal agreement on every matter. To propose that there are no distinctions at all between primary and secondary matters would prove an impossible task. But if you were to embrace credo-baptism as a primary doctrine then, my guess would be that, you would never step into a Presbyterian church to begin with.

There are several persons in our congregation who are Reformed Baptists by conviction. Perhaps they would go elsewhere if there were such a place, but they choose to be with us because the other churches in the are area simply dreadful doctrinally.

My post was to simply point out the fact that Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians are VERY close doctrinally .... much closer than those who embrace a synergistic scheme. So I was simply surprised to hear some persons feel that baptism is a greater uniter that what we believe about the grace of God.

Gene, I attend RTS and know for a fact that they receive Reformed Baptists. And yes, I believe they could do so in good conscience.

Thanks, John. Yes, I realize that RTS and Westminister receive Reformed Baptists. Here, RTS Charlotte doesn't actually have a track for RB's at this time. (Not that it's a big deal mind you, because I that's because they are relatively new to NC; as an RB, I'm sure you understand that I tend to give preference to seminaries that are Baptist or have an RB track). I'm asking, if you can clarify, could the local PCA church, if I joined, in good conscience recommend me to SBTS, RTS, or wherever knowing am a Reformed Baptist and do not agree with the WCF in that regard. I know the seminary itself has no problem with RB's. I just want to be sure that would not put that local church in an awkard position with respect to their confessional position. Does that make sense?

Gene:

Perhaps it would be best if I do not presume to speak for all PCA churches regarding their practices. .

It should be noted, however, that when we joined the local PCA church here in Portland, that I was a "heels-dug-in" credo baptist. My local church then warmly recommended me to RTS for seminary. As far as I know, my pastor did this in good conscience, as it should be.

And, for the record,as a member of the PCA I would much prefer going to a Reformed Baptist church any day over a liberal or synergistic Presbyterian church (of which there are many) who practiced covenant baptism. I feel a much greater kinship and doctrinal integrity among those with whom I have solidarity in soteriology if I were forced to choose.

Per your question about what the PCA would do in certain instances... since I do not know the specific rules of the PCA General Assembly, perhaps we should ask Eric Costa, another contributor to this blog, who is, Lord willing, being ordained in the PCA this Sunday. He would know a lot more than I about such details so I will let hiim take over from here in the next post...

John W. Hendryx

Gene & John - sorry I just now got home to my computer to see this conversation. Simply, a PCA church would encourage any of its members to attend a reformed seminary if that was the member's desire. If you were a member in good standing with the church, it would not hesitate to "put in a good word" for you with the seminary, though at some point the qualification of your particular belief MAY arise in the conversation (but this would likely have no effect on your acceptance to the school, as you said before). The PCA church would encourage the student-seminary relationship because the church knows that the Gospel-instruction received at such a seminary would be of tremendous help to the student, and there is not necessarily a link between sending someone to seminary and approving them for ministry in the denomination.

If I were you I would take a serious look at Covenant seminary in St. Louis. That's where I'd go, if I could do it over again, and from what I hear their sentiments are quite in line with those expressed in this post and by the intent of the Reformation Theology blog in general - it's the Gospel of grace that unites us and overcomes our differences on matters of secondary importance.

Gordon - in the PCA there are two 'orders' of elder, the Teaching Elder and the Ruling Elder. Traditionally, the TE is a pastor/paid clergy, and the RE is a layman, though he could certainly be paid staff. Both are required at ordination to profess the faith of the WCF and its Catechisms in order to preserve the doctrine of the church (as are deacons). The fact that both are so required reflects the fact that the office of elder is viewed as one office, not two (though practically/traditionally we have the difference between TEs and REs).

The reason for this, again, is the preservation of doctrine. Someone who believes in credo-baptism is not a second-class Christian because they disagree with the leadership on matters of secondary importance - he is free to disagree in those areas, and doesn't have to have his child baptized if he doesn't want. He only cannot become an ordained officer because of the desire to preserve the doctrine of the church as a whole for future generations.

Our home group over the past few years has been split nearly down the middle over the issue of baptism, which comes up every once in a while. We usually have a vigorous discussion about it, both sides raising good points and acknowledging good points of the other's. This kind of discussion is actually encouraged at our church, and it's helpful for many to see that we can disagree about things like this and still come away loving and respecting one another as brethren in the Lord.

Good morning,
Could someone enlighten me telling me what are
"covenant baptism" and "credo-baptism" so I know waht I believe in?
Thank you.

Bertrand Challier
Home: b2rtch@networld.com

The grass is not greener on the other side of the fence.
The grass is greener where YOU water it!

Good morning,

John,
I attended an Arminian Baptist church for 6 years before God taught me His doctrines of Grace. The New England area is not the place were abundant reformed churches florish. After many months of search, I located to a free Presbyterian church which doesn't require holding to infant baptism to join. They consider this and Amil as gray areas and places we can agree to disagree. I am in a position of my children are grown at this time so I have never had to study the topic of infant baptism before but I know that it tends to bring Baptist in memory of their Catholic background in the New England area. I would much rather atten any church that taught this than free-will theology (synergism).

John

Amen.

I've heard stranger things about "Capital "R" Reformed baptists" in the past.

ps. I am credo-baptist

“Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel.” (1 Cor 1:17)

Amen

Gene,
I am in a similar situation as you. I am a reformed Southern Baptist who has been called to ministry. I am a member of a semi-pelagian Southern Baptist congregation and have talked with the pastor about my reformed theology quite a bit. While he disagrees he affirms my call to ministry and has no hesitation for recommending me to SBTS. I plan on going to SBTS in the fall semester of 2006. In between then and now I attend the local PCA church twice a month and on Sunday nights regularly and maintain good standing in the SBC church through participation in evangelism ministry and bible studies (with a group of other reformed SB's). The issue that I had to deal with when I considered going to RTS in Charlotte was what to do when I got out. It may be difficult to receive a call from a church having gone to a Presbyterian seminary. Just food for thought. I love my SBC shepherd and fellow sheep, that is why I hold true to the meaning of reformed, meaning that we reform from within.

As one who came to reformation theology out of a Baptist background, I was slow to accept paedo-baptism. However, a few years ago I fully and willing embraced the covenant baptism position in large part becuase I could not offer a reasonable answer to this question: If regeneration is completely of God, then why does the sacramental sign of that grace depend upon an act of man? That is, "Believers' Baptism" requires something of me before I can be baptized. Why?

I would appreciate reading a response to this by those who have studied far more than I have. Thank you.

Scott:

That is an excellent point but I would hope that these "comments" do not become a place to debate the merits or demerits of paedo-baptism/credo baptism. That is better left to message boards, essays, or an email exchange.

The purpose of the post was to point out the importance of areas where we have similarities, not tell the other side why they are out ot lunch and thus create fresh division over our differences. We should never play down the importance of this issue but rather we are stressing the relative importance of our unity in "sola gratia" and perhaps draw nearer to one another as a result.

jwh

John,

I pastor a Reformed SBC church plant in Henderson, NV. I have been facing this issue up front and personal in our Church. There are no PCA Church's in our city and we have a PCA family attending our Church who would like to be members. Unfortunately, our Constitution and Bylaws, Church Covenant, and statement of faith prevent them from doing just that. Having read your article and continually monitoring the circumstances at Piper's Church I have thought this through with great detail. I have three comments to offer and would like your response to them.

First, what is happening with the contemporary unity between credo and peado baptist's is unprecedented in the history of the Church. This for many is a very daunting reality. It was not long ago that we were killing each other over this issue. For some that I pastor this is cause to keep those distinctives distinctive without compromise. While I find this to be less than wise, it is, for some, a very intimidating reality...the Church just hasn't seen this...especially among baptist's. There haven't been many John Owen's reaching out to the John Bunyan's in the past. Many well intentioned baptist's feel that this opening in membership is a liberalizing of what makes Baptist's Baptist! My opinion is that this is ridiculous, but it is a very real and zealous conviction.

Second, Romans 14 broke open to me of late with something I had never noticed before. I realized, upon a recent reading of it, that Paul was not promoting unity amidst small diversity...rather, Paul is promoting unity amidst massive theological and practical diversity. You know the passage better than I do, just consider the three topics that he brings up, 1. Dietary Laws, 2. Sabbath Laws, and 3. Recognition of what is clean and unclean. The Mosaic implications of the breach of any of these laws is life and death. The sabbath laws were the ruin of entire nations, those things that were unclean were cast out of the city and fellowship! I don't know if it was explicit teaching, at least implicit teaching that led me to assume that Paul was dealing with the color of carpet, or the style of wood grain on the pew that required unity. Rather, Paul is dealing with massive hermenuetical differences on top of radically different practice that would lead the one who is free overtly contradicting prescriptions of Mosaic law. This is no small thing! In fact...while not essential, it is definitely hugely massive doctrinal distinctives that are expected to live together in love and joy in service to the glory of God. I cannot but help to think that the potential error of mode and timing of baptism can even come close to the potential ruin of one who would break the sabbath laws seeing the unbelievably hard core reaction that was demonstrated by God!

Finally, I think a lot of the contention that exists between not only peado and credo baptists, but even among the monergists and synergists is a feeling that would lead one to beleive that radical attempts toward unity necessarily results in doctrinal abaondonment. Just listening to some respond to Piper's contentions on the issue has led me to this conclusion. They feel that if they are to strike unity with a differring doctrinal position that they are destroying the absolute truthfulness of scripture. The contention, which is right, is that there is only one true interpretation. Obviously baptist's think they have it and so do the PCA folks. From a pastoral perspective I know that my baptist friends feel like they must sacrifice unity for the sake of love for doctrine. I don't know why this has to happen, especially as I read Romans 14. I try to tell them that Paul says, "You can have your cake and eat it too!" We can be hard core baby baptizing 75 point calvinists and worship side by side with a synergistic credo baptist while simultaneously upholding absolute truth and being completely committed to our convictions. I think this is why Paul in Philippians 2:12-13 says what he does. He in v.5-11 commends the mind of Christ for the purpose of establishing humble, servant minded, unity among the brethren. In v.12 Paul says..."Now do it!" Then in v.13 he says, "God will make it happen in you and He will give you the desire to do it too!" The result being this, this kind of unity must be accomplished, but we cannot, of our own strength, accomplish it while maintaing commitment to doctrine and not sliding of into ecumenical craziness! God will make it happen. We don't have to worry about loosing doctrinal distinctiveness because God is just as sovereign in unity as he is in Salvation!

I hope this will add to the discussion. This blog site is great...keep on serving and edifying the brethren...I love it!

The PCA's stance makes sense.
The elders are both ministers/pastors (Teaching Elders)
and Laymen(ruling elders).
Now ruling elders teach and teaching elders rule--but the name references the main responsibility.
The requirement to hold to elders a higher standard on doctrines such as baptism, is biblical--as elders are held to a higher accountability.
But credo baptists may hold church membership as the Bible never requires one or the other for Church membership.

I would rather be an Arminian? That is not the typical Reformed Baptist comment I would hope. I am a Reformed Baptist and yet a lover of the Princeton Theologians, and a narrator of Puritan and Reformed sermons, most are not Baptist. This morning I am narrating "Indwelling Sin in the Believer" by John Owen for www.sermonaudio.com I am more in agreement with Iain Murray on Evangelism than even my own Reformed Baptist pastors. I could go on and on. Maybe some "Reformed Baptists" are just very uninstructed.

I too apologize for the reformed Baptist's remarks and agree with John Piper. I read and cherish many of the Presbyterian writers and White Horse Inn, RC Sproul and many other radio programs are where I have gleaned and learned much of the reformed faith.

I believe the Reformed Baptist's remarks to be a minority view in light of so many other Reformed Baptists.

I too am a reformed Baptist within the SBC denomination. It's comforting and at the same time disturbing that there are so many Baptist brothers dealing with this issue. My prayers are with you all. Has anyone heard anything about Covenant Seminary? I'm looking at seminaries right now and would be interested in hearing from anyone who has attended Covenant or who has heard anything about it. I've already visited SBTS in Louisville--fine school but I'd like some other options.

These conversations are great for those who want to think about what they believe is true in scripture. I feel and believe that pado-baptism and arminian theology both confuse the gospel. Baptism is a clear ordinace of the church and demonstrates clearly what the Gospel is. There is nothing more clear than NT baptism. It is for those who believe by faith and enter in the covenant not by baptism but by faith. Then Baptism shows the inward work of God which came by the gospel.

Arminian soteriology robes the glory of God and takes the supernatural out of the purpose of the Gospel, which is to raise dead men to life.

David:

Thanks for your input.

Those who hold to covenant baptism do not believe all persons in the covenant are elect. For example in Scripture speaking of the children Abraham circumcised into the covenant says:

"not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. (Rom 9:6-8)

The Covenant theologian would actually argue the opposite as you have, that credo-baptism is pointing to man's decision first, MAN'S ACTIVITY rather than what God has done for us. The sign and seal of the covenant of grace is, rather, about God's activity in redemeption and points to His monergistic regeneration of our souls, which He alone does, not man's activity of decision.

So instead of confusing the gospel, the CT position merely thinks of baptism on entirely different terms.

But this is not the place to debate the merits or demerits of which baptism confuses the gospel. Just pointing out that both sides have good arguments for their position, and it isn't as cut and dry as you make it.

Great Post...great website. Newly discovered. I've already added both the website and the blog to my own blog. Great stuff!

As for the topic...I'm going through a similar situation right now. Leave a large non-denominational (ashamedly reformed) church for a tiny Reformed Baptist (a member of FIRE) church.

We have the luxury of having quite a few churches in the area...trouble is we aren't church shoppers...so it may take a while to find one we can fit into and serve with...

Great comments too! I have much reading to do on Covenant Theology.

I thank God for men like John MacArthur and R.C. Sproul that can see past their theological differences...and help us laymen out!

I'll be back to this site!