John Piper Proposes Accepting Members Who Hold to Infant Baptism

It sounds like Bethlehem Baptist is somewhat following in the footsteps of Wooddale Church of Eden Prarie, MN. Both are Baptist General Conference (BGC) churches. Bethlehem and Wooddale are approximately 10 miles apart here in the Twin Cities. From Wooddale's website, here are their membership requirements:

http://www.wooddale.org/guest_center/FAQ/membership2.asp

Notice that they have more than one category of members; and notice the difference in regards to baptism requirements between a "Church Member" and a "Fellowship Member". Also notice the differences in membership category rights & privileges in the last section of the webpage.

 

Interesting. Personally I do not agree with the idea that the requirements for being a member of the greater body of Christ, or "universal Church" as some call it to be the same as that of a local church.

This certainly would go against historic Baptistic practice which is to allow only those who have been immersed in the wates of Belivers Baptism to be members of the church.

I do appreciate John Piper and his ministry, and will continue to listen to his messages and read his publications.

 

John Piper ...

... My opinion is based mostly on my contact with his followers and my only real exposure to him has been through some sermons. I have never considered him to be Baptist.

But if one believes in covenant theology, infant baptism is a natural progression.

 

I don't think it was ever intended in the New Testament to equate the so-called "universal church" with the local church. Just how far will the local church go just to attract members? What will be the next doctrine we are expected to sacrifice? Does membership of a church become the priority? Are we stamping numbers for the sake of numbers themself?

Is not baptism a step of obedience, and not just a sign of what we have experienced in the new birth? If so, then we are admitting disobedient believers to the local church. What message is this sending?

Frankly, I have mixed feelings on this, but I am also confronted mentally about such a compromise of beliefs. I joined the Anglican Church in my community, but not because I changed any of my baptist beliefs, including baptism by immersion of the right candidate, but I wrestle with it every day in my own mind and conscience.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Is the next proposal a name change from Baptist to Presbyterian?

 

They can do whatever they want as a independent baptist church as far as I am concerned, I'm sure John Piper was staying up late worried about that one!

Seems to me what they are doing is creating a chasm between "elders" and "regular folk" with this change in their constitution. To what end? Isn't it enough to define the elder role and leave the baptism issue alone? I guess not.

I have come to believe that you can either be reformed or baptist, but you cannot be "reformend baptist". I read somewhere "..either you will love the one and hate the other or hate the one and love the other". It is obvious that Bethleham Baptist is firmly pointed in the direction of being reformed rather then baptist.