The conversation continues:
I might as well go all in too?
First, a bit of personal background. In August of 2005, just two days after arriving at Bethlehem for a one-year residency, I found myself in a five-hour long elders' meeting at which the now widely-known, and hotly-controversial, position paper on baptism and church membership was voted upon (with only one dissenting vote) to go to the congregation for approval (Talk about arrival trial by fire!).
For the remaining year, I sat through scholarly (well moderated) debates on the subject, and only the Lord knows how many hallway and dinner conversations regarding the proposal. From beginning to end, even though I have many paedobaptist friends (who I consider to be the Lord's children), I have not been in favor of the proposal.
Most of all, the fuel for my conviction is the unanimous testimony of the NT which clearly describes the (immersion) baptism of only believers.
Secondarily, two unanswered questions (which if answered, would really help me out, but admittedly, probably not change my mind) also contribute to my lack of support for the idea of admitting "unbaptized" persons into church membership.
So, my to all of my paedobaptist (and baptistic, in favor of accepting "unbaptized" persons into church membership) brothers and sisters, please consider these questions, and consider helping me understand the issue better.
First, a bit of personal background. In August of 2005, just two days after arriving at Bethlehem for a one-year residency, I found myself in a five-hour long elders' meeting at which the now widely-known, and hotly-controversial, position paper on baptism and church membership was voted upon (with only one dissenting vote) to go to the congregation for approval (Talk about arrival trial by fire!).
For the remaining year, I sat through scholarly (well moderated) debates on the subject, and only the Lord knows how many hallway and dinner conversations regarding the proposal. From beginning to end, even though I have many paedobaptist friends (who I consider to be the Lord's children), I have not been in favor of the proposal.
Most of all, the fuel for my conviction is the unanimous testimony of the NT which clearly describes the (immersion) baptism of only believers.
Secondarily, two unanswered questions (which if answered, would really help me out, but admittedly, probably not change my mind) also contribute to my lack of support for the idea of admitting "unbaptized" persons into church membership.
So, my to all of my paedobaptist (and baptistic, in favor of accepting "unbaptized" persons into church membership) brothers and sisters, please consider these questions, and consider helping me understand the issue better.
- Question 1: If you could not find a faithful Bible-preaching and infant-baptizing congregation in your city, would you join a baptistic church that (1) faithfully preaches the bible, (2) will lovingly, but unabashedly, seek to convince you to change your view on, and practice of, baptism, and (3) would experience a rift in the fellowship of that church because (though the church adopted the position by majority) there remains a certain percentage of the congregation that doesn't comply with the church's position to graft "biblically informed paedobaptists" into its membership?
The foundation of this question is whether or not a desire to love the congregation you are joining plays a part in your desire to be loved by that congregation as one of its members? Admission: I agree that because of a greater good, love does not always equal not hurting someone that you love.
- Question 2: If my biblically-informed conscience tells me that paedobaptism is the Lord's pleasure, then how can I (without violating my conscience) join a church where my own child (yet to be born) will not be baptized as an infant? Am I wrong for concluding that someone who comes to church membership under these auspices has a conscience that is not quite as bound in the first place if he or she is willing to join a believer's-baptism-only congregation?
The foundation of this question is whether or not someone's conscience can honestly be bound to a certain conviction from Scripture, but at the same time, not feel incumbent to practice that very conviction? Seems illogical to me, but would love to have a view from one of my paedo friends!
