Grudem's Shift on Admitting Paedo-Baptists

If what was not clear to Grudem in 1994 were the compelling reasons why a Baptist fellowship might restrict the practice, then all that has really happened is that Grudem has begun to think more like a Southern Baptist—whose sanctification by electro-shock therapy approach leaves much to be desired. The passage he cited from Galatians 3:27, while compelling to the conscience of a believing parent, must be tempered by the sum total of all scriptures on the matter, just like any other issue. The question is not: Is there a compelling reason for credo-baptists to restrict the other practice? We have already established why both sides do what they do in their respective churches, and that they have a number of real Bible verses on which to stand. The question is: Do these passages and the inferences from them stand equal to or stand over the teaching of Romans 14 on debatable matters? If this truly is a secondary issue, then I would ask whether Paul makes the removal of these stumbling blocks a superior ecclesiological principle than the freedom (equally purchased by Christ, I admit) to practice only one. That is to treat the matter more biblically (and systematically). I believe that once we look at the extended passage in Romans 14, we find that Christ values the cultivating of an atmosphere where secondaries are truly secondary and where we teach charity in all things over and above our ability to soak or sprinkle people into the kingdom.
After reading Piper's response, it is clear that the issue goes further than attempting to be fair to both positions and acknowledge the validity of such a baptism, down into whether or not one can even be admitted as a member (and presumably be permitted to take communion)! This is a startling direction for Grudem to move toward; though, as Piper suggested, it may be a mere "slippery" couple of sentences. The original post on this by Justin Taylor may be viewed at http://theologica.blogspot.com/

A doctrine is of secondary importance if its acceptance does not compromise the core meaning of the Christian faith—God, Christ, Scripture, and Salvation. Neither of these two practices seem to (while the baptismal regeneration practices of Catholic, Restorationist, and High Liturgical Protestant groups do), and that is why the acceptance, or at least “tolerance,” of both of the two orthodox forms is not only exegetically preferable, but good for the church. It creates health (particularly as we consider the church in a post-Christian era, which is not even a blip on Grudem’s screen) by raising up Christians whose minds are built to tear down the real enemy and to be comfortable in their own skin. Discomfort (not merely fighting, but any itching of the intellect) over secondary matters cultivates an inferior thought world and an uncharitable spirit, and creates exactly what we witnessed in twentieth century Fundamentalism—a church that cannot compete in the real world, and sends the message to our children in a thousand unforeseen ways that we cannot and ought not compete “out there.” If we follow this “change of mind,” then we take a step back toward the dark, stale night of Fundamentalism. Let’s also remember that Grudem’s change of mind on this issue came during a period of migration from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School to Phoenix Seminary in which he started hanging out with all those usually warm-hearted Reformed Baptists. If he could not find common ground with them over the continuation of the gifts, then perhaps he could find agreement with them on something. Having said that, I still say his Systematic Theology is the best contemporary one around.

http://www.thewellboise.com/