Two Baptist Perspectives on Baptism

Wayne Grudem (Wikipedia | Theopedia), a Baptist professor at Phoenix Seminary and theologian in the Evangelical Free Church of America, argued in his Systematic Theology that mode of baptism should not be a point of division regarding church membership.

He has since changed his position and rewritten the section—seeing the position of compromise at inherently problematic based on the fact that two views on baptism as mutually exclusive.

Fellow Baptist theologian and pastor John Piper (Wikipedia | Theopedia) disapproves and has responded to Grudem’s change of thinking on the issue.

Update: Grudem responds to Piper’s criticisms.

Grudem’s Original Position

In the section entitled “Do Churches Need to Be Divided Over Baptism?” Grudem had this to say:

. . .

One way forward could be for paedobaptists and advocates of believers’ baptism both to come to a common admission that baptism is not a major doctrine of the faith, and that they are willing to live with each other’s views on this matter and not allow differences over baptism to be a cause for division within the body of Christ. Specifically, this would mean allowing both views of baptism to be taught and practiced in denominations on both sides of the question.

. . . Specifically, this would mean that Baptist churches would have to be willing to allow into membership those who had been baptized as infants and whose conviction of conscience, after careful consideration, is that their infant baptism was valid and should not be repeated. Of course, Baptist churches could be free to teach and to attempt to persuade prospective church members that they should be baptized as believers, but if some, after careful consideration, are simply not persuaded, it does not seem appropriate to make this a barrier to membership. What good is accomplished by such a barrier? And certainly much harm can be accomplished in failure to demonstrate the unity of the church and in barring from full participation in the church those whom the Lord has in fact brought into that fellowship.

On the other hand, those who believe in paedobaptism would have to agree not to put undue pressure upon parents who do not wish to have their infants baptized and not to count those parents as somehow disobedient to the Lord. There might need to be a willingness to have some kind of brief ceremony of dedication of children to the Lord shortly after they are born, instead of a ceremony of baptism, if the parents so desired. And of course both sides would have to agree not to make one view on baptism a criterion for church office or for ordination.¹

If such concessions in actual practice were made by both sides on this question, the issue might in fact diminish the level of controversy within a generation, and baptism might eventually cease to be a point of division at all among Christians.²

Grudem’s New Position

Justin Taylor points out that Grudem has recently changed his position and rewritten this portion of his Systematic Theology in the most recent printing.

Here is the relevant portion of that section:

Much progress in this regard has already been made. Christians who differ over baptism already demonstrate their unity in Christ through individual fellowship, Bible studies and prayer groups in their communities, occasional joint worship services, cooperation in city and regional evangelistic campaigns, joint support of many mission agencies and other parachurch groups, joint sponsorship of youth activities, pastors’ fellowship groups, and so forth. Although baptism remains a difference, that difference does not generally lead to harmful divisions. In fact, most Christians seem to realize that baptism is not a major doctrine of the faith.

A very few denominations have decided that they would allow both views of baptism to be taught and practiced within their denominations. The Evangelical Free Church of America (EFCA) does this, for example, as a result of a “compromise” reached in 1950 when the denomination was formed from two different groups that had different views on baptism. The EFCA allows ordination for pastors who hold to believer’s baptism and for pastors who hold to infant baptism. And they allow into membership those who had been baptized as infants in a Christian church, without requiring them to be baptized as believers before joining the church. If some parents want to have their infant child baptized and the local pastor does not hold to infant baptism, the local church invites some other Evangelical Free Church pastor who holds to infant baptism to come and baptize the infant.

Although the Evangelical Free Church continues as a strong, healthy denomination today, there still remain some difficulties inherent in this position.³ One is that there can be a tendency to minimize the importance of baptism: since members disagree on this topic, it is easier not to talk about it much or emphasize its importance.

But the most serious difficulty arises when people begin to think about what such a “compromise position” implies about the views of baptism held by the people who go along with this compromise. For people who hold to infant baptism, they have to be able to say that it is acceptable for believing parents not to baptize their infant children. But according to a paedobaptist view, this seems close to saying that is acceptable for these parents to disobey a command of Scripture regarding the responsibility of parents to baptize their children. How can they really say this?

On the other side, those who hold to believer’s baptism (as I do) would have to be willing to admit into church membership people who have been baptized as infants, and who did not make a personal profession of faith at the time they were baptized. But from a believer’s baptism position, genuine baptism has to follow a personal profession of faith. So how can believer’s baptism advocates in good conscience say that infant baptism is also a valid form of baptism? That contradicts what they believe about the essential nature of baptism—that it is an outward sign of an inward spiritual change, so that the apostle Paul could say, “As many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27).

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. It is saying that infant baptism really is valid baptism! But then how could anyone who holds to this position tell anyone who had been baptized as an infant that he or she still needed to be baptized as a believer? This difficulty makes me think that some kind of “compromise” position on baptism is not very likely to be adopted by denominational groups in the future.

However, we should still be thankful that believers who differ on the issue of baptism can have wonderful fellowship with one another across denominational lines, and can have respect for each other’s sincerely held views.

Read the whole section at Justin Taylor’s blog.

Piper’s Response

John Piper, who is a very close friend of Grudem’s, responds, “Wayne, Wayne, Wayne, why did you rewrite page 983?”

In the first edition, Wayne answered that question no. In the new edition, he does not answer it. He concludes, “Some kind of ‘compromise’ position on baptism is not very likely to be adopted by denominational groups in the future.” That’s probably true.

But, with that cautious comment on what is likely to be, rather than what ought to be, the new section has lost the prophetic, biblical force of the original edition. Evidently, Wayne is not so sure any more that we should make the effort to overcome the divisions among evangelicals for the sake of welcoming true brothers and sisters as members in the local church. I think his first edition was closer to the biblical balance.

. . .

I would gladly admit Ligon Duncan or Sinclair Ferguson or R. C. Sproul or Philip Ryken to membership at Bethlehem (if I were allowed by our constitution), and in doing so I would not be giving up my view on the proper nature of baptism.

. . .

Admitting a conscientious paedobaptist to membership in a Baptist church would not say that the infant baptism is valid. What it does say is: “Your mistaken understanding of baptism and the invalid baptism that follows from it are not the kind of disagreement, mistake, and failure that we are going to use in defining the meaning of the local church. We view you as a brother whose resting place is Christ alone, through grace alone, by faith alone, to the glory of God alone. You are in the Body of Christ. You may be in this body of Christ.”

. . .Turning the tables, I would say that when a person looks a true and precious brother in the eye and says, “You may not join this church,” he is doing one of two things: Seriously diminishing our spiritual union in Christ, or seriously minimizing the importance of church membership. Very few, it seems to me, have really come to terms with the seriousness of excluding believers from membership in the local church. It is preemptive excommunication.

Read all of Piper’s response and his additional material.

Grudem’s Response

Grudem responds to Piper’s criticisms, admitting that his own wife agrees with Piper. He makes five points:

1. I do not see denial of church membership as “virtually the same as excommunication,” nor do any of the Baptist churches known to me.
2. But there is a still a clear difference between members and non-members. Unbaptized believers are not members, so they cannot be elders or church officers. They cannot speak or vote at church business meetings. In other words, they can have no formal, recognized part in determining the ongoing policies and teachings of the church.
3. There was an unexpressed assumption in my discussion, an assumption which your response makes clear to me. I did not express it because it is so commonly assumed in nearly all churches. The assumption is this: Baptism is required for church membership.
4. It may be that someone would want to start a new denomination in which baptism is not necessary for church membership. Or people may decide to change their church constitutions so that baptism is no longer required for membership. . . . In that case, I suppose a (hypothetical) Baptist church could say to someone, “We require baptism for church membership, unless you disagree with our view of baptism.”
5. I think the reason churches throughout history have required baptism for membership is that the New Testament so clearly makes baptism the public act that every believer undergoes at the outset of the Christian life. . . . There is no such thing in the New Testament as an unbaptized person being an active member of any local church. So how could we say today that we should start allowing unbaptized persons to be members of our churches? But that (it seems to me) is what my earlier position, and your current position, would have to say.

Read the whole response.

More Information

See the following sources for additional information:

• Grudem on baptism in his Systematic Theology (Amazon | Google Books | Libronix)
• Grudem on baptism in his updated Systematic Theology
• Justin Taylor: Grudem’s Change of Mind regarding Differences on Baptism within a Local Church
• John Piper: Response to Grudem on Baptism and Church Membership
• Wayne Grudem: Wayne Grudem’s Response to Piper
• John Piper earlier on baptism and church membership

Poll

What do you think about this? Do you find yourself more in agreement with Piper or Grudem.

The Free Presbyterian Church takes a similar position. I worshiped with the believers at Faith Free Presbyterian Church in Greenville, SC for several years. The primary teaching elder was a credobaptist, while the others were paedobaptists. (They also differed on millennial positions.) Their differences, however, didn’t result in any kind of division within the church or the denomination, nor did it result in the minimizing of the importance of baptism.

Notes

1. Note that my proposed first steps toward less divisiveness over this question do not include asking individuals on either side to act in a way that would violate their own personal convictions: I am not suggesting that those who hold a Baptist view personally begin baptizing infants when the parents request it, or that those who hold a paedobaptist view personally begin baptizing those who make a profession of faith and request baptism, even though they had been baptized as infants. [↩ back]
2. Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: IVP; Zondervan, 1994), 982–3 (Amazon | Google Books | Libronix). [↩ back]
3. I did not realize this difficulty when I first published this book in 1994. I have revised this entire section for the 2007 printing. [↩ back]

Like this post? Subscribe to our feed .