,
11 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
A few thoughts on this article by Sam Emadi.
1/
1/
If I understand Sam's argument, individual Baptists may, in their private capacity, regard paedos as true Christians, but Baptist churches must, as a matter of theological principle, declare on behalf of Jesus that paedos are NOT members of the kingdom. 2/
That logic is ia big part of what drew me to open membership. I didn’t want Baptist churches, as an institution, to in essence formally and publicly excommunicate all paedobaptists. IOW, open membership is an attempt to resolve the tension Sam identifies in his conclusion. 3/
It resolves the tension by adopting the category of "valid but improper" or "true but irregular" or by distinguishing between essential features of baptism and accidental. But I want to give Sam credit for clearly stating the tension. 4/
However, when he says “Baptists have always affirmed that infant baptism is in fact no baptism at all,” Sam is begging the question. 5/
First, it’s not true historically; there have always been open membership Baptists who have regarded infant baptisms as valid but improper (or something similar). 6/
Second, in the present debate, this is one of the major areas of dispute. Can we apply categories of “valid but improper," which BOTH sides employ on some issues, to the issue of baptism. Thus, to treat "paedo = no baptism" as a common axiom doesn’t work. 7/
An under-emphasized area of this debate is the definition and role of conscience. Sam says that Baptists shouldn’t bend or be forced to bend their consciences to accommodate paedos. To me, that’s a very strange way to describe this debate. 8/
As a Baptist, I’m not bending or violating my conscience in accepting paedos into membership. My conscience is perfectly clear on the matter. 9/
If Sam feels conscience-bound to institutionally declare paedos outside the covenant community, then he should continue to do so. But no one is forcing anyone to do anything; instead, we’re seeking to persuade others of our position. 10/
Finally, lurking beneath the surface seems to be what and how much of ecclesiology is a matter of divine law (& therefore conscience-binding) or matters of prudence & good order (& therefore adiaphora). But I’m not about to get into that discussion on Twitter. :) <fin> 11/
