When a pastor tells you that a certain passage of Scripture has been one of the most influential on his life, and is among the most precious to him you take notice. When he says that it is a passage he thinks about, or makes reference to almost every week your ears should prick up. When he then spends just a few minutes explaining why that is so it is well worth watching. This excerpt from Jubilee’s service last Sunday is Tope Koleoso introducing communion and explaining why only one thing is necessary. The refrain “Jesus is better” which Tope took from a Matt Chandler sermon and drove home in this clip has been going round my head this week. Allow God’s Spirit to draw your heart back to Jesus through this video. If we could just learn to pursue Jesus our lives would be very different, and the world would feel the impact.

Watch on vimeo

No. 4 on the list of most-read posts on this blog appeared on August 21, 2007, and was one in a series of posts that catalogued a major debate about baptism and church membership which took place online between such theological heavyweights as John Piper, Sam Storms, Wayne Grudem, Lig Duncan, and Mark Dever.

The posts listed below were all so popular they could have made the top 30 in their own right. It’s worth reading all of them:

• The Pipers Respond to Dever in the Baptism Debate

• Wayne Grudem Changes His Mind on Baptism
• Wayne Grudem Replies to John Piper on Baptism
• John Piper Disagrees with Wayne Grudem Over Baptism Graciously
• Wayne Grudem Says Sam Storms is Right About the Lord’s Supper
• Sam Storms Feels Mark Dever is Confusing on the Lord’s Supper
• Mark Dever Joins the Grudem Versus Piper Baptism Debate
• John Bunyan and the Grudem & Dever Versus Piper Baptism Debate

The post begins as follows:

This whole baptism debate is shaping up to be very interesting indeed. It is surely the first time in living memory that those who I can only think to call the “big guns” have used the blogging medium to have a serious theological debate in front of the rest of us. While Lig Duncan and Justin Taylor have both helpfully shared a bit about what paedobaptists believe, this debate has rather been about whether our local churches must have clear stances on this issue.

Arguing for a more rigorous approach, we have seen Wayne Grudem (who also started the whole thing), Mark Dever, and his 9Marks buddy, Aaron Menikoff, while on the other side we have had comments from John Piper, Abraham Piper, John Bunyan, and now in this post, Sam Storms.

I and many others have very deliberately steered clear of joining in the debate because, for some reason, I’m finding it one that is very stimulating and interesting to observe from the touchline. It has been a model debate, and is a clear example of how we can disagree robustly on an issue while still loving and respecting each other. The following words from Sam Storms are no exception. Sam is a good friend, and has given me permission to republish the following complete article which appeared in his newsletter.

The rest of this post is taken in its entirety with permission from an e-mail from Sam Storms, who retains the copyright and is alone responsible for its content.

---

Reflections (46)

Piper, Grudem, Dever, et al. on Baptism, the Lord’s Table, and Church Membership

(Just how “Together for the Gospel” are we?)

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 (www.theologica.blogspot.com).

Recently (August 16, 2007), Mark Dever posted on this issue at the 9Marks blog (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. . . .

Read more . . . Sam Storms’ e-mail

Lig Duncan has promised us he will write more on the reasons why this debate is not an easy one to resolve. His statement got me thinking, and while I’m still resisting the temptation to state who I agree with, it has rattled around in my brain long enough for me to want to have a go at explaining why these disagreements are almost inevitable.

To me the whole issue is about something else altogether. It’s really about authority. Different understandings of how to run a local church make these differences almost inevitable. If you believe that a church should be run by its congregation, then you will be more careful about who you allow to become a member. Churches have allowed flexibility in the view of baptism in their members before, and found that over time the church has switched sides on the issue of paedobaptism versus credobaptism. It is interesting that the congregation of John Piper’s church has, so far, refused to allow him to follow his convictions on this issue. In fact, it is more surprising in a way that Piper feels the way he does, given that he has a congregational form of church government, at least on paper.

If your church is run by local elders, and the congregation can only show their dissent by speaking to their leaders or eventually by leaving, I can imagine that leaders may be more relaxed about allowing members to have a different viewpoint, presumably while insisting that future leaders will have a similar perspective to the existing leaders.

There are also differences about how the local church is viewed, and how tightly defined doctrinally church memberships should be. I think that one thing we can all agree on is that there are genuine Christians who differ from us theologically. I, for one, have a very loose definition of a Christian. When the Bible says, “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9), who am I to add further conditions?

However, I do believe that faith in Christ should be accompanied with trust in his Word and a humble submission to it. Thus, sometimes I find the boundaries of precisely who is saved and who is not hard to define. In fact, I do not feel that it is my job to say definitely that an individual is a genuine Christian or not. It is because of this grey area that many will place a further level of limits on church membership. Thus, a local church will usually define what it thinks is a Christian in good standing a little more tightly than the lowest possible denominator of professed faith in Christ. This makes sense, not least because it would exclude someone living in blatant sin while claiming to be a Christian. There are surely few churches that would allow membership to everyone who claims to be a Christian.

But for many the local church is not simply a collection of everyone we believe to be saved and in a good standing before God. For most churches there are secondary doctrines used as identification markers. As a result, some will define their membership requirements to include agreement with some of these doctrines. This is to protect the doctrinal integrity of the local church and becomes more important if authority in the life of the church rests with the congregation.

Since many Baptist churches in particular take a valid believer’s baptism to be the gateway to church membership, it is little wonder that many of them would deny membership to the unbaptized. Since many paedobaptist churches will recognize either believer’s or infant baptism as valid, it is no wonder that they allow people who hold to both perspectives to become members.

Similar issues arise about the Lord’s Supper. People have differing perspectives about who should be allowed to partake. In a large church it can be next to impossible to manage a communion service which is in any way closed, so it often becomes a free-for-all. The issue of who can take the Lord’s Supper then becomes an irrelevance. In smaller churches, frequently leaders believe that some care should be taken about to whom the Lord’s Supper is administered. If the Lord’s Supper is seen as a meal for church members rather than any professor, is it any wonder that some get to the position that those who do not qualify for membership in a local church should not share the Supper with that church?

In short, I believe that these kinds of decisions should be taken by the local church’s leadership teams. I would not presume to tell them how they should act. I respect their right to have differing opinions and to change those opinions, as both Grudem and Piper have done.

As Duncan was insinuating, for those who truly believe in the truth of the Bible and the importance of doctrine, it is no surprise, given our fallibility, that we have different doctrinal positions and different opinions about how to act in the local church in light of those differences. Ecumenicalism hides our differences in order to pretend we are one. True biblical unity acknowledges our differences, respects them, and goes on to partner for the sake of the Gospel. We may find that we can partner only to a certain extent with some, since to go further would require us to compromise our convictions, which although secondary, we should not be forced to give up. Thus a complex web of partnerships will emerge, some closer than others. It is not wrong for us to agree to partner in some ways, but not in others, with those with whom we differ on many issues.

I hope that makes some sense, although I am sure that Lig will do a better job of explaining it!

Lig Duncan has responded resoundingly to both sides of the debate about whether he should be allowed to join a Baptist church. He argues that these differences are important and demonstrate a passion for truth that is critical. Here is just some of what he says:

“. . . let me say that 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. Let me attempt to begin to explain.

The unity of T4G is not a unity in spite of doctrinal differences, in which we gain unity by downplaying doctrine, minimizing ecclesial differences and going with a lowest common denominator. Our unity is instead a unity of respect for the truth and for truth-in-practice, that sees in each other such a dogged commitment to God’s Word in both faith and practice that we want to be together promoting biblical Christianity, even in the points of principle on which we seriously disagree . . .

I would never want to say to Mark or Al, “I will be with you ‘Together for the Gospel,’ as long as you relinquish your Baptist principles or as long as you do not follow your Baptist convictions in church practice.” No, it is precisely their love of truth and their desire to see Gospel truth and love worked out practically in the life of the local church which causes my heart to love them as Jonathan did David.

I love Mark and Al’s deep concern for truth and biblical church practice (even and especially at the points in which they disagree with me). I love the fact that they are not willing to compromise on points of biblical conviction, and yet at the same time they work so hard to promote principled unity. I love the fact that even though they believe me to be in serious error on this issue of baptism, they truly love me, constantly co-labor with me (and invite me to do the same with them), and reach out to numerous other non-Baptist evangelicals regularly, deliberately, nationally, and internationally to build biblical consensus and cooperation among the churches. To know Mark and Al is to know two men of unshakable conviction and broad sympathy, and I deeply value that.

There are actually good reasons why this debate should not be an easy one to resolve . . . “

In news that will shake the blogosphere, Justin Taylor has not only shown that he is with Sam Storms on these issues, he has exclusively revealed that Lig Duncan was not baptized as an infant! Anyone questioning his commitment to the Presbyterian cause would no doubt be told “It wasn’t my fault my parents didn’t baptize me!” which perhaps to a credobaptist is precisely the point! Anyway here is what Justin said:

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!

In the comments section of Sam Storms’ contribution to the baptism debate is a comment that is too good to leave there. Here is what the commentator said:

Adrian,

I think Sam might be misunderstanding Mark’s position. He keeps referring to the idea that Mark would deny a [paedobaptist] (visiting his church, maybe even speaking in his pulpit) access to communion. Hence Sam writes:

“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. But Mark is in print saying something entirely different:

“Questions of visitors coming occasionally to the table may be separated from the question of Christians regularly coming as members under the care and guidance of that particular congregation. Such occasional communion may be considered as similar to occasional pulpit fellowship, or other kinds of Christian cooperation between congregations that may not agree on secondary matters, but that would agree on the primary issue of the gospel. On the issue of pulpit fellowship with those who have not been baptized as believers, see Dagg, Church Order, 286—298. Dagg concluded that it was not inconsistent for a Baptist congregation to allow someone to preach to it and yet for the congregation to deny that same paedobaptist minister membership in their Baptist congregation.”

Mark Dever, “Baptism in the Context of the Local Church” from Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ, footnote 16. p. 341.

To use Sam’s analogy, Mark may occasionally have a paedobaptist visit his church and preach (and/or take communion). This is an expression of fellowship and togetherness! But he wouldn’t have them come and preach weekly, nor would they join his church, nor would they be allowed regular, consistent continual attendance at the table.

Sam may still not agree with Mark’s position, but it seems he needs to state it more carefully before he attacks it,

Or, am I the one that’s getting this wrong?

Tom (promiseskept.wordpress.com)

Sam Storms has replied as follows:

Tom,

Thanks for your comments on my article. There appears to be some confusion on the point you raised. I’ve actually written to Mark for clarification on his view, and if it becomes clear that I’ve misrepresented what he believes, I’ll make immediate corrections in what I wrote.

But in the meantime I should point out that both Mark and Al Mohler were quite clear in their public comments at the T4G forum that a paedobaptist would not be permitted to participate in the Lord’s Table at their churches. You rightly point out that the footnote in Mark’s article appears to suggest that he might allow “occasional” participation by a paedobaptist. But this creates problems of its own. What constitutes “occasional”? Once? If once, then why not twice? If twice, then why not three times? Who draws the line and on what basis? It quickly becomes rather arbitrary, does it not?

It seems to me that if a paedobaptist is EVER disqualified from the table (simply for being a paedobaptist), he/she is ALWAYS disqualified from the table. Whatever it is that makes their subsequent and repeated presence at the Table unbiblical and wrong would make their initial and even “occasional” presence unbiblical and wrong.

What do you propose be said to a paedobaptist who has been granted access to the Table once or twice and then comes a third time? “I’m sorry, sir/madam, but although we didn’t regard your convictions as worthy of disqualification before, now we do. You weren’t in sin by partaking of the elements before, but you are now. Furthermore, although WE weren’t in sin by allowing you to partake before (on ‘occasion’), we would be in sin if we let it continue.” Is this really what we glean from the NT concerning celebration of the Table?

So, my point is simply that if a paedobaptist is welcomed by God to the Table once, he/she is welcomed by God at all times (assuming, again, that he/she is not under discipline). Otherwise you put the credobaptist in the rather awkward (and what seems to me unbiblical) position of compromising on his/her convictions out of compassion or friendship, but only once or twice, i.e., only “occasionally,” and then expecting them to do what they really believe is right and closing the Table to any further participation by paedobaptist believers.

The bottom line is this. If you believe the Bible forbids that a paedobaptist should be granted access to the Table, then abide by your convictions. Aim for consistency. Don’t try to make everyone feel better by saying, “Well, for the sake of ‘fellowship’ and in order to avoid giving offence to those we regard as ‘friends,’ it’s o.k. this one time. And maybe we’ll stretch it to twice, but after that we’ve got to stand firm on what we believe is biblical.”

Again, thanks for your comments. I hope this helps bring some clarity to the issue.

Sam Storms

In light of Sam Storms’ contribution to the great baptism debate yesterday, Wayne Grudem has sent me an e-mail which includes an extract from his Systematic Theology which, unlike his perspective on baptism and church membership, has not changed recently.

The rest of this article was written by Wayne Grudem and is published with permission:

Just for the record, I am already in print agreeing with what Sam Storms says on this question. (And, I would add, in the case of convinced paedobaptists, I would argue, as does my friend Sam Storms, that they should surely be allowed to participate in the Lord’s Supper for their entire lives as non-members of the church, but as genuine believers and members of the universal body of Christ. I think the negative symbolism of not allowing these believers to partake of the Lord’s Supper is surely something that Jesus did not intend in instituting this ordinance.) Here is the section from my Systematic Theology (it is on pp. 996-997 in both the old and new (2007) printings). My own view is expressed in paragraph 3:

D. Who should participate in the Lord’s Supper?

Despite differences over some aspects of the Lord’s Supper, most Protestants would agree, first, that only those who believe in Christ should participate in it, because it is a sign of being a Christian and continuing in the Christian life. Paul warns that those who eat and drink unworthily face serious consequences: “For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died” (1 Corinthians 11:29-30).

Second, many Protestants would argue from the meaning of baptism and the meaning of the Lord’s Supper that, ordinarily, only those who have been baptized should participate in the Lord’s Supper. This is because baptism is so clearly a symbol of beginning the Christian life, while the Lord’s Supper is clearly a symbol of continuing the Christian life. Therefore if someone is taking the Lord’s Supper and thereby giving public proclamation that he or she is continuing in the Christian life, then that person should be asked, “Wouldn’t it be good to be baptized now and thereby give a symbol that you are beginning the Christian life?”

But others, including the present author, would object to such a restriction as follows: a different problem arises if someone who is a genuine believer, but not yet baptized, is not allowed to participate in the Lord’s Supper when Christians get together. In that case the person’s non-participation symbolizes that he or she is not a member of the body of Christ which is coming together to observe the Lord’s Supper in a unified fellowship. (See 1 Corinthians 10:17: “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.”) Therefore churches may think it best to allow non-baptized believers to participate in the Lord’s Supper, but to urge them to be baptized as quickly as possible. For if they are willing to participate in one outward symbol of being a Christian, there seems no reason why they should not be willing to participate in the other, a symbol which appropriately comes first.

Of course, the problems that arise in both situations (when unbaptized believers take Communion and when they do not) can all be avoided if new Christians are regularly baptized shortly after coming to faith. And, whichever position a church takes on the question of whether unbaptized believers should take Communion, in the teaching ministry of the church, it would seem wise to teach that the ideal situation is for new believers first to be baptized and then to partake of the Lord’s Supper.

UPDATE
In January 2008, the following post was identified as the 4th all-time most popular post with readers of this blog. The 5th most-read post was “Steve Chalke and the Lost Message of Jesus.”

The 4th most widely-read post was one in a series of posts that catalogued a major debate about baptism and church membership, and took place online between such theological heavyweights as John Piper, Sam Storms, Wayne Grudem, Lig Duncan, and Mark Dever. The posts listed below were all so popular they could have made the top 30 in their own right. It’s worth reading all of them:

• The Pipers Respond to Dever in the Baptism Debate

• Wayne Grudem Changes His Mind on Baptism
• Wayne Grudem Replies to John Piper on Baptism
• John Piper Disagrees with Wayne Grudem Over Baptism Graciously
• Wayne Grudem Says Sam Storms is Right About the Lord’s Supper
• Sam Storms Feels Mark Dever is Confusing on the Lord’s Supper
• Mark Dever Joins the Grudem Versus Piper Baptism Debate
• John Bunyan and the Grudem & Dever Versus Piper Baptism Debate

***************