Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice. And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you. Therefore be imitators of God as dear children. And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma.
Date: December 3, 1993
To: Doug Wilson
From: Bob Callihan, Fred Kohl, Terry Morin
SUMMARY of the following document:
You, the principal teaching elder in CEF, have changed your doctrinal stance on baptism and church membership so that it is in conflict with past CEF teaching and beliefs, the current CEF Statement of Faith, the CEF Constitution, and the unchanged doctrinal beliefs of the other three elders. We four elders have studied and discussed this for most of this year, and are at an impasse. Fred, Terry and Bob believe the baptistic teaching ministry should be restored to CEF in line with her position. Though we four stand together in fellowship, the doctrinal difference is governmentally untenable. We want to continue to work together with you, so in this document we do three things: (1) we state our case, and (2) we present our decisions, and (3) we provide some free time for you to consider the matter further over the next three months by reducing your assignment load. We are fully convinced that restoration of baptistic teaching and preclusion of further paedobaptistic teaching and counselling are necessary, and that requires that one with paedobaptist convictions not dominate the teaching ministry of CEF. We request that you consider our decisions and proposal in the light of the love and high regard that we hold for you, for CEF, and for the office we share, and most of all for our Father.
I.Background:
You brought the matter of your seriously favorable consideration of paedobaptism to the attention of the elders in March of this year. You informed the other three that you had been studying paedobaptism for some time, were in the process of writing about it, and were likely to convert to that theological position. The elders began praying together about the matter, reading, conversing in special meetings, and writing to one another on the subject. Fred, Terry and Bob have not changed their positions, remaining unanimously persuaded of the baptist position (believer's baptism) that CEF has held since its beginning. Last spring, you informed us, with grace and humility, that you had converted to paedobaptist belief. You informed us that you were willing to submit to our decision to the extent of resignation from eldership. Your theological change, and the elders' study of the matter, were first announced at the June mens' meeting. The elders continued to pray together, read, discuss and write. Each elder has presented his case to the others. The overriding concern of all the elders throughout has been for the spiritual protection and edification of the saints and witness of CEF.
The elders have informed the men, at each monthly meeting, that we were considering the paedobaptism issue, and have promised to inform them when we were in a position to do so. They have been expecting something definitive from us for some time. We believe that is needed quickly. In your hands is a discussion of the status of the matter, with a request for your assistance in the appropriate, albeit difficult course of action for the elders.
II.Official CEF Position on baptism and church membership
Paedobaptist theology differs from baptist theology in its concept of (1) subjects of baptism and (2) church membership. The teaching ministry is dominated by a reformed paedobaptist elder. However, the historical position of CEF, earlier held by Doug, and as currently represented by the beliefs of the CEF Statement of Faith, the CEF Constitution, and by the majority of the elders, has been and still is baptistic:
A.The Statement says that baptism constitutes a witness to the condition of the baptized one.
"We believe baptism in water and the Lord's Supper to be external signs of internal, spiritual, and historical realities". (Article II, Section D)
The paedobaptist position holds that baptism in water is not an external sign of an internal, spiritual reality, given that the terms "internal", "spiritual" and "reality" refer to the condition of the one baptized, as they did when the elders of CEF approved the Statement of Faith, and Constitution, and as Bob, Fred and Terry still affirm.
One of the clear features of the New Covenant which was anticipated in the Old Testament and foreshadowed in features of the Old Covenant is the cleansing of the covenant member from unrighteousness. The foreshadowing of this great blessing is seen in the various Levitical washings, and the anticipation of it is seen in texts such as Zechariah 13:1, “In that day a fountain shall be opened for the house of David and for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness.” The cleansing and purifying associated with the coming of the New Covenant was pictured in launderer’s soap, a fountain, sprinkling, and other washing or baptismal activities. Long before Pentecost the association between heart cleansing and water washing was firmly established in the Scriptures and in the religious culture of the Jews. The Jews expected, no doubt from passages such as Malachi 3, that when Elijah returned to prepare the way for Messiah he would introduce a baptismal ordinance. When John, the Baptizer, met with Pharisees from Jerusalem their question was, “Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet? (John 1:25)” It was natural these Pharisees would believe that the coming of Messiah involved a new baptismal ordinance, so they were understandably indignant that someone not associated with the Messianic advent would presume to baptize.
Use of the terms baptism or baptize in the context of the New Covenant show close association between water baptism and the heart cleansing of the baptized person[1]:
“Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, 21 and having a High Priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water" (Hebrews 10:19-22).
Who are those who have an interest in the blood of Jesus? Who are those who have been united with Him in His death? Who are those represented by God’s High Priest? Who are those exhorted to draw near in full assurance of faith? Only the baptized, whose hearts are clean. The description given here of a baptized Christian is thoroughly inconsistent with the baptism of an unbeliever.
A second passage which reflects the association between heart cleansing and water baptism is 1 Peter 3:21:
“There is also an antitype which now saves us; baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
Peter’s parenthetical qualification is significant: the term baptism here refers to the washing of regeneration accomplished by the Holy Spirit, not the initiatory rite. This distinction was necessary because the New Testament writers closely associated the two activities, choosing one word to describe them both. In reading the New Testament it is not difficult to confuse the washing of regeneration with the washing in the Jordan. Such confusion dominates Christendom. The majority of paedobaptists do not make the distinction which Peter makes in this verse[2]. They make the same error as did Simon Magus, when he thought that the promise of the Spirit was bestowed by human hands. It is an understandable error, considering the way in which baptism in water and baptism in Christ are used in the same breath in the Scriptures. But what is thoroughly foreign to the New Testament is the application of the waters of baptism to unbelieving people. It is thoroughly foreign to the Scriptures to refer to baptism as “an objective, divine testimony to the fact that sinners need cleansing from defilement and can be justified only by faith in God’s gracious promise and work.”[3] It is thoroughly foreign to the Scriptures to insist that participation in the sign of water baptism is not a testimony to the present condition of the inner man, as do you and other paedobaptists. The baptistic view of the initiatory rite avoids both of these ditches, affirming in opposition to nonreformed paedobaptists that water baptism is not the instrument of the washing of regeneration, and affirming in opposition to reformed paedobaptists that there is a clear scriptural association between the act of baptism and the baptized person’s actual professed union with Christ.
B.Likewise, a baptistic understanding of the definition of a Christian is given in the Statement of Faith:
"We believe that a man becomes a Christian when the Holy Spirit regenerates him and he submits, in faith, to the Lord Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1:1). He has become a disciple of Jesus Christ, and seeks to live in submission to His Word."
Paedobaptists routinely refer to the infant children of a believer as "church members", "disciples" or "Christians". You have claimed that: “the apostles permitted infant membership via circumcision in first-century Jewish New Covenant assemblies.” Please consider again the text from which you inferred this premise:
"On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19 When he had greeted them, he told in detail those things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, "You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; 21 "but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs". (Acts 21:1821)
What does the text say? It says that James and the elders in Jerusalem had heard a rumor that Paul was teaching Jews among the Diaspora to cease the circumcision of their children and to cease walking according to the customs of Moses. What is the historical context of this passage? Paul is in Jerusalem in June of 58 A.D. for the fifth time since his conversion, for the purpose of delivering a free-will offering for the use of the poor saints in Jerusalem, and in order to fulfill a vow (one of those customs of Moses). The immediate concern of the elders in Jerusalem was not the issue of Gentile membership in the New Covenant, contrary to your representation of the historical context. That issue was settled years before, in A.D. 50, at the council in Jerusalem, whose proceedings were recorded for us in Acts 15. The writer of Acts tells us as much in Acts 21:25:
"But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.”
The issue before the elders was a rumor about Paul’s teachings to Jews concerning circumcision and other customs of Moses. The recommendation of the elders, and one in which Paul cooperated, was that Paul submit to a particular custom of Moses held in high esteem as a means of refuting the slander that Paul had repudiated his status as a Jew. From the text we may infer that the elders and apostles firmly defended the responsibility of Jewish parents to circumcise their sons and to walk according to the other customs of Moses. To infer anything more from this text is historical fiction. The text says nothing about the membership of Jewish infants in Christian churches.
The question you posed, i.e. What was the membership status of infants in Christian churches?, is a good question, but the answer to it is not in Acts 21. Neither is it to be found by analogy with the Jewish synagogue. The Jewish synagogue was the product of an apostate nation in exile. As an institution it is without biblical warrant. You have appealed to Peter’s sermon in Acts 2:37-39:
“Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" 38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 "For the promise is to you and to your children [teknon, offspring], and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”
What does this text say? It says that the promise of the Holy Spirit is given to the Jewish hearer, to his offspring, and to the gentiles. On what basis is the promise to be received? The text says that the promise is to be received on the basis of evangelical obedience, i.e. they are to obey the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and be baptized in His name. That is the basis on which the Jewish hearer, his offspring, and the gentiles are to receive the promise. There is no indication in this text that the offspring of Jews, of whatever age, receive the promise on any other basis than that of evangelical obedience.
The text which comes nearest to addressing the status of the offspring of a believer is 1 Corinthians 7:14:
“For the unbelieving husband is sanctified[made holy] by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified[made holy] by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.”
The status of the children[teknon, offspring] is not the focus of Paul’s argument. The passage is a response to an unstated question on the legitimacy of mixed marriages, and on the character of the marriage covenant between a christian and a pagan. In first-century Corinth, as throughout the rest of the world since then, it was frequently the case that only one spouse in a marriage became obedient to the faith. What was the now unequally-yoked spouse to do? Should they follow the following example set in Ezra 9 and 10?
"When these things were done, the leaders came to me, saying, "The people of Israel and the priests and the Levites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands, with respect to the abominations of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites. 2 "For they have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, so that the holy seed is mixed with the peoples of those lands. Indeed, the hand of the leaders and rulers has been foremost in this trespass." (Ezra 9:12)
“Now therefore, let us make a covenant with our God to put away all these wives and those who have been born to them, according to the advice of my master and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law.” (Ezra 10:3)
If a Corinthian pagan husband became obedient to the faith and then read the account of Ezra, should he conclude that he, being holy seed, must “put away” or divorce his pagan wife and give his wife full custody of the offspring of this now unclean marriage? The apostle Paul says no, and teaches that the husband’s membership in the New Covenant sets apart the marriage, the wife, and the children, giving another example of the superiority of the New Covenant.
The only inferences one can draw from the passage are, first, the presence of a believing spouse consecrates the members of the household, and second, the members of a household in which no spouse is a believer are unclean or profane. There is no indication in this text that the unbelieving spouse and children [teknon, offspring] are in union with Christ because of the presence of a christian in the household.
C. The Constitution of CEF, on the other hand, expresses a baptistic understanding of the nature of church membership:
"All who profess faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 10:9-10), who live in our geographic region (Ephesians 1:1), and who submit themselves to the government of CEF (Philemon 2; Hebrews 13:7,17), are members of this particular portion of the visible church." --Article I, Section A.
In the above statement, the term "who profess faith in the Lord Jesus Christ" is the baptistic expression, e.g. this permits membership of professing believers only. The Christian church is the household of faith, and as such is composed of those who have obeyed the gospel. Most of the discussion under B(above) applies here as well.