Since it is clear this conversation is at an end, let me change the subject. (sorry , Rube) Rev. Brown, I thank God that He has granted your congregation much fruit and I pray He continues to do so. I enjoyed last Lord’s Day eve and I regret I did not get to participate in the conversation more at that time. I pray we will be able to fellowship more in the future. Perhaps I will see you at the upcoming Reformation conference at New Life.

Grace and peace in Christ.

But why would you assume that he is not a convert?

Because baptism and church membership are intertwined, as you yourself said. The refusal on the part of an adult to take on baptism upon his alleged confession is a high handed rebellious act. This is a different thing altogether from a Baptist who has the conviction that his children should confess Christ before baptism.

Paul’s admonition concerning the weaker brother comes to mind. The one who says, “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!” is wrong. Making laws where God gives liberty is sin just as rejecting God’s command to baptize your children is sin. But what did Paul say we are to do with these weaker brothers? Purge the evil from among us? Or did he exhort us to be careful lest the weaker brother be destroyed by our knowledge (1 Cor 8)?

Why do make a distinction between an adult baptism and the baptism of a covenant child?… when Scripture teaches that there is only one baptism.

I think we both make the distinction, don’t we? The case of the Baptist parent is not sufficient grounds to bar him from the Church Universal, while the case of the adult “convert” refusing baptism is sufficient grounds. I think we agree on this. There isn’t a local church in the world who would receive an unbaptized “christian”. If they would, I would say their lamp stand is long gone.

We both believe there is only one baptism. Where we differ is that I don’t believe the Baptist who makes a distinction between adult baptism and the baptism of a covenant child thereby disqualifies himself from fellowship with those of us who believe there is only one baptism.

Further, I don’t see how infant baptism is in mind when Paul exhorts the Church on the basis of her one baptism. It seems to me that you are doing exactly what the apostle Paul forbade when he exhorted the Church toward Christian unity on the basis of their one baptism. Is the baptism of a brother by a Baptist minister not sufficient to grant him access to his Lord’s Table when he visits his local URC? Would you admit Spurgeon or Piper or MacArthur to their Lord’s Table were they to visit you one Lord’s Day morning? How is this not making a distinction between baptisms contra Ephesians 4:5?

We shouldn’t communicate him in the first place.

But if they are members of the Church Universal, and you have agreed that they are, then they are already in communion with all the members of the Church Universal. If you do not let them commune with you, you are effectively excommunicating them.

That is what the Presbyterian churches represented at the Westminster Assembly used to do. I think you need to ammend the WCF in order to remain consistent with your view.

The Reformers rejected that Baptists are in the Church, so their practice of not communicating Baptists doesn’t correlate to us if we believe Baptists are in the Church. Ecclesia Reformata, Semper Reformanda! :)

The problem is that we WOULD excommunicate someone for refusing to submit to the elders (Heb 13.17). What you are arguing is that it is OK to refuse to submit on this issue, for it is not – in your view – a disciplinary issue.

What I am arguing for is that the overseers of the Church ought not to make it an issue of discipline, but rather they ought to pursue the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. They should suffer long with their weaker brethren in the case of all sin that is not grounds for dismissal from the Church Universal. If one is in the one holy catholic and apostolic Church, he is to be extended the right hand of fellowship.

Love covers a multitude of sins. This doesn’t mean that anything goes, of course. But it does mean that we can tolerate one another’s *certain* sins, and I would argue those certain sins to at least consist of sins done in ignorance. Does not our Great High Priest do the same for us? It would seem again that your standard is higher than our Lord’s.

But why would you assume that he is not a convert? Because he refuses to submit to the Word of God that the elders confess? If so, then why do make a distinction between an adult baptism and the baptism of a covenant child? Why is not permissible to refuse baptism as an adult, but it is permissible to refuse baptism for the child of a believer? Why is not permissible for a session to permit an unbaptized adult into membership, but it is permissible for a session to gainsay their confession and permit an unbaptized covenant child into membership? You are essentially making a distinction between an adult batpism and an infant baptism, when Scripture teaches that there is only one baptism (Eph 4.5) just as there was only one circumcision.

Why should we excommunicate a brother from a local church for holding a certain conviction if said conviction is insufficient grounds for excommunication from the one holy catholic and apostolic Church?

We shouldn’t communicate him in the first place. That is what the Presbyterian churches represented at the Westminster Assembly used to do. I think you need to ammend the WCF in order to remain consistent with your view.

The problem is that we WOULD excommunicate someone for refusing to submit to the elders (Heb 13.17). What you are arguing is that it is OK to refuse to submit on this issue, for it is not – in your view – a disciplinary issue.

You asked and answered,

Would MacArthur allow an adult into membership who had not been baptized? Of course not. No Baptist would.

Certainly not, and neither should he. Neither would a Presbyterian. I don’t see how this refutes the view that all those in Christ by faith belong at the same table.

An adult “convert” refusing baptism is not a convert at all and therefore is not in Christ by faith. But an adult Baptist who has the conviction that his children ought not be baptized until they confess Christ, while in error, is still in Christ by faith, are they not? (I believe at the debate, you conceded this point.) If they are in Christ by faith, and if we are in Christ by faith, then we are untied *with them* together in Christ. We have inward communion *with them* in Christ and this inward, universal union is to be expressed outwardly via table fellowship. We have no right to ban them from our membership roles or our Lord’s Table on the sole basis of their said conviction. Thank God the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus still takes away the sins committed in ignorance.

You also said,

When confessional Reformed and Presbyterian churches withhold the covenant sign from those who belong to the church (i.e. the children of believers), they deny the covenant theology and system of doctrine they confess.

Or, they confess with their confession that, “grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto [baptism], as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it.” I confess with the WCF that it is a great sin to neglect baptism, including that of children. That is not the question. The question is whether or not this sin done in ignorance is grounds for excommunication. If you believe Baptist churches are in the one holy catholic and apostolic Church *with us*, then you admit that this sin is not grounds for excommunication. Enter the quote of John MacArthur mentioned above. Why should we excommunicate a brother from a local church for holding a certain conviction if said conviction is insufficient grounds for excommunication from the one holy catholic and apostolic Church?

But this just begs the question. Would MacArthur allow an adult into membership who had not been baptized? Of course not. No Baptist would. Why not? Because baptism and church membership are intertwined.

When confessional Reformed and Presbyterian churches withhold the covenant sign from those who belong to the church (i.e. the children of believers), they deny the covenant theology and system of doctrine they confess.

In other words, I think that baptism should be either at birth or at profession, but never at any other time, lest it lose its significance to the baptisee.

This kind of seemed to be a joke, unless what you really mean is that I must submit to the doctrine of paedobaptism even though I myself wasn’t baptised as an infant

Well, I was just joking, but one of the Q&A was, essentially, if you’re going to be strict about it, do you make a difference between those who have kids that need baptizing, and those for whom it’s a moot point (the index card literally read “GERIATRIC BAPTISTS?”)

In earlier times, when the pastor traditionally lived in a rectory next to the church and the congregants all lived in or near the same neighborhood, that was much more feasible. These days, when people are a little more geographically disparate, it’s easiest just to perform the sacrament on Sunday morning when everybody’s already there anyway.

I’m just guessing here, but it seems like it might be at least part of the reason.