In a treatise from 1673 called “Differences about Water Baptism No Bar to Communion,” John Bunyan (the Baptist author of “The Pilgrim’s Progress”) justifies why “I throw out baptism” (ie. credobaptism) as a requirement of church membership.” He argues that “faith and holiness” should be the only grounds of receiving members. And then of paedobaptist members, writes: “We indulge them not; but being commanded to bear with the infirmities of each other, suffer it; it being indeed in our eyes such; but in theirs they say a duty, till God shall otherwise persuade them. If you be without infirmity, do you first throw a stone at them: They keep their faith in that to themselves, and trouble not their brethren therewith: we believe that God hath received them; they do not want to us a proof of their sonship with God; neither hath he made water a wall of division between us, and therefore we do receive them.”[1]
The whole treatise is worth reading. But it shows an acceptance of the matter at hand by one of the most pre-eminent Baptists, and at the beginning of the movement.
In the modern day, John Piper sought to establish the same principle in his church, but had to back down due to resistance.[2] He writes: “When I weigh the kind of imperfection involved in tolerating an invalid baptism because some of our members are deeply persuaded that it is biblically valid, over against the imperfection involved in saying to a son or daughter of the living God, “You are excluded from the local church,” my biblical sense is that the latter is more unthinkable than the former. The local church is a visible expression of the invisible, universal, body of Christ. To exclude from it is virtually the same as excommunication. . . .Very few, it seems to me, have really come to terms with the seriousness of excluding believers from membership in the local church. It is pre-emptive excommunication.”[3]
From a paedobaptist perspective, we also find the deeply respected John Frame write: “I wish there were a way that believers holding different positions on this matter could belong to the same church. But that doesn’t seem to be a widely held position in the evangelical church today.”[4]
Of course, one joy of independent churches is that they can shape their policy to what they are convinced is right, irrespective of denominational requirements. And what follows attempts to outline the biblical grounds for a dual policy position, and deal with its various possible applications. It is written in a spirit of brotherly love for those who disagree, but with Piper, my view would be that a failure to welcome those of both convictions into membership is serious indeed in the eyes of the Lord.
1/ Visible unity is paramount in the New Testament.
Any argument must be from principle not pragmatics, asking “what would the apostles have done?” And here we need to recognize that unity is a theological and doctrinal matter, not merely something nice to aspire to.
Its importance could not be higher. Speaking of Christ uniting Jews and Gentiles by their common faith in him, Paul writes: “[God’s] intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms.” (Eph 3v10). These words look back to 2v11-22 which speak of how Christ’s blood makes one out of the two, and forward to 6v12 which tells us the “rulers and authorities” encompass evil spiritual beings (although perhaps also angels). In other words, Paul’s point is that where those Satan has divided are united by the gospel, demonic powers look on and see a testimony to the wisdom of God in reversing the fractured nature of the fall through his Son. In other words, the unity between Christians proves that “God’s purposes are moving triumphantly to their climax.”[5] What tragedy then, when unity is not on display, as it undermines this cosmic witness!
The primacy of unity is evident in Christ’s final public prayer the night before he died (John 17v20-23). It is dominated by a concern that future believers should be one and “brought to complete unity,” but here so that the “world will know” that Jesus was from the Father. In the context of John 13v34-35, this is likely because of the supreme way that unity bears witness by showing disciples loving each other. Note that this love is “as I have loved you,” which Christ’s example shows means an acceptance and welcome of those who we may consider are getting things wrong, and at personal cost to oneself. It begs the question: If Christ has welcomed a believer into intimately close fellowship as one body with himself, who are we not to welcome them into such close fellowship with us?
2/ Such unity is to be displayed within the local church.
This is key to recognize in this matter. It is common to assent to all this, but then say this is expressed as Christians of different streams get on as brothers and sisters. However, that is hardly expressing the sort of sacrificial bearing with one-another that is the dominant theme of love between Christians within the New Testament.
Moreover, as Ephesians 3 shows, the uniting of Jews and Gentiles is the primary model for this unity in the New Testament, and the books of Ephesians and Romans are very clear that this should be evident within congregations. And so, after a section on love and turning from the desires of the flesh, Paul gives a whole one and a half chapters to the challenges to this unity in the Roman churches (Rom 14v1-15v22).
3/ Such unity requires permitting believers to act on conscience in disputable matters.
Do read Romans 14v1-15v22 before reading on. Jews evidently felt they could not eat meat or drink wine for fear of being tainted if they had been used in pagan religion. And so, they were seeking to apply the principles of the Mosaic law. This was also evident in their desire to hold certain days as sacred. As that is said to be holding a day as “special” and “to the Lord,” we can conclude they were wanting to keep the Mosaic Sabbath which the law designated “holy to the Lord.” What this tells us, is that the disagreement in the Roman church was over how to interpret scripture and understand the relationship between the old and new covenants.
And what is Paul’s response? Importantly, chapter 16 reveals there were various house churches in the city. But what he doesn’t do is say that one group should go and join a church practicing the Gentile way and the other to one practicing the Jewish way. We must realize how appalling Paul would have seen such a suggestion because, as we saw in Ephesians 3, this would undermine the church’s witness to the demonic powers - and as Christ taught, to the watching world.
Rather Paul teaches: First, each should accept the other without quarrelling or condemning them, because the Lord has accepted them and they are accountable to him not each other. Second, each should nevertheless think the matter through, so they are convinced in their own mind and do whatever they do “to the Lord.” Third, none should cause a brother or sister to stumble in the faith by so pressing the issue that it distresses them - which would be unloving, or might cause them to act against their conscience - which would be sin. And so, he concludes that as believers, we should follow Christ by not seeking to please ourselves by forcing others in the local church to our view, but rather bear with what we consider to be their failings.
4/ Such unity is to be maintained so that God is truly glorified.
Paul follows these instructions with a prayer: “May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you the same attitude of mind toward each other that Christ Jesus had, 6 so that with one mind and one voice you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 7 Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God.” (Rom 15v5-7) He then gives a litany of Old Testament scriptures emphasizing how Gentiles were to join with Jews in praising God.
In context, the “same mind” here doesn’t mean total agreement, but the same attitude of accepting each other despite differences. And the reason is so that there might be a united worship of God, with “one voice.” Again, this emphasizes the importance of unity despite differences within distinct congregations so that their praises do truly ascend as one. And as we saw in Ephesians 2-3, this is in many ways the goal of the gospel. As Revelation 7 shows, the end is to see those from all peoples worshipping the Lord. The point is that the apostles taught that local worshipping congregations were to give a foretaste of that. But in this present age of sin and confusion, maintaining that requires overlooking differences between them. And the implication of Paul’s argument is that when we don’t, this is truly terrible as it means that God is not glorified in the way he should be – by a diverse but united group of worshippers, who honour him and display his power specifically by how they bear with one-another in love!
5/ Such unity flows from a proper application of salvation being by grace.
The fact that Paul sees this acceptance of those with whom we differ as a critical area of godliness, is evident in his giving it so much space, but also by his immediate outline of his desire that through his preaching of the gospel “the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.” (Rom 15v15). This means one’s readiness to act in this way in this way couldn’t be more important, as it is a matter of offering God the sanctified worship of an obedient life. And how does the gospel bring such a way of life into being? The whole letter outlines it.
First, all peoples are sinful, subject to God’s wrath, and so in need of being justified by faith (chapters 1-4). And Paul specifically applies this to challenge “boasting” (Rom 3v27). That boasting was of Jews in having the law. But the principle also applies to boasting that one’s views set them above others. The point is that justification by faith levels all Christians as it means that whatever our differences, we are all acceptable to God who has accepted us. Second, all of faith have been brought to life by the Spirit, are therefore children of God, and destined to reign over the world to come (chapters 5-8). This has similar implications. Third, all who are the Lord’s are his by his choice, not by their own desire or effort, and that this displays his kindness and mercy (chapters 9-11). Here, again, Paul challenges “arrogance” (11v20). This time it is of the Gentiles in considering themselves above the Jews.
The point is that throughout, Paul is preparing the way for chapters 12-16, including its largest section, which we have seen is on unity within the local church between those who differ. And so his argument in chapters 14-15 rests on the levelling power of salvation being by grace, and of God’s equal acceptance of believers. And the implication is that a failure to practice his teaching in 14v1-15v16 is again, hugely significant. Not only does it mean that God is not glorified as he should be, but also that the gospel of grace is undermined.
6/ Maintaining such unity is of the utmost importance.
Here, let’s return to Ephesians. After Paul’s affirmation of unity displaying God’s wisdom to the demonic powers, he prays for the love that would ensure it, and then continues with these words: “As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. 2 Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. 3 Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” (Eph 4v1-6)
There are a number of things to note: First, we are to “make every effort” to maintain unity. It may be easier to have a more exclusive view of church membership, but that doesn’t mean effort shouldn’t be made for something more biblical. Second, the basis of unity is “the Spirit.” This is critical for our argument. The basis of unity is explicitly not one’s views of secondary matters, but one’s having the Spirit and so already being spiritually united to all other believers. The only basis for unity in the Ephesian church then, is being a true believer which is to be evidenced in faith and obedience. Third, this is highlighted by the repeated use of “one” that follows: “one” body, Spirit, hope, Lord, faith, baptism, God and Father. And if someone responds on the mention of baptism that paedobaptists haven’t been properly baptized and so are exempt from this unity they profoundly miss the point Paul is making. His point is simply that baptism is an expression of belonging to Christ, and so all Christians should be able to unite in the local church on the simple fact that they are all Christians already united by the Spirit and members of Christ’s body. To argue that Paul’s use of baptism here is restricted to a particular view of baptism, would seem to imply that those not baptized in this way do not likewise share everything else in the list and so are not truly Christian. And it is to go against his whole point that it is unity in the Spirit that is the defining principle. Here, consider Paul’s words when Christians were aligning with different teachers (and perhaps their different teachings). With a hint of frustration he declares: “Is Christ divided?” (1 Cor 3v13).
The implication in all this, is that the only grounds for denying someone membership of a church is that they are evidently not a believer. We might borrow words from the marriage service: “what God has joined together, let no-one put asunder.” If two believers are united by the Spirit and so fellow members of Christ’s one body, then the church has no right to keep them from worshipping together in the same congregation.
On this point, it is worth noting how mixed the apostolic churches were. The Corinthian churches seemed to include members who were quite godless and practiced baptizing for the dead without Paul urging their exclusion (1 Cor 15v29). If he was prepared to allow such members, are we really to exclude those who may be much more faithful, but differ on this one issue? And we should note that by excluding them, a church may well be casting them adrift in a town where there is no faithful gospel fellowship for them to be part of – a particularly serious act by Christ’s church. Or there is the bizarre alternative a friend experienced in Ireland where there were lots of Presbyterian immigrants. His Baptist church had around twenty member, but forty other committed believers (if I remember rightly) who were excluded from membership and so proper involvement in the life of their church because they were paedobaptists.
Application.
I hope the applicability of all this is to some degree already evident. But we can seek to work things out as follows.
1/ Should baptism be regarded as a disputable matter like those in Romans 14-15?
One might object by saying it is a matter of obedience or disobedience to Christ’s command and so more weighty than the issue in Romans 14-15. But the detail of these chapters shows that what Paul means by a “disputable matter” (“difference of opinion” ESV) is not merely a matter of personal conscience. The Jewish Christians thought the Gentile believers were compromising the principles of the law by not abstaining from what might be unclean, and disobeying God by not keeping the Sabbath? This is surely why Paul rebuked them for “judging” the other. No, what seems to have made it disputable, was that there wasn’t a consensus on it as there was over the sort of moral matters outlined in 13v9-14, and perhaps that this was more about ritual than ethics.
A further objection is that Paul is dealing with matters already present in a church rather than a sacrament or ordinance that defines entry into it. But almost every potential application will be different in some way. Yet, as with all biblical interpretation we are seeking to apply principles. And Paul’s emphasis is on whether or not we accept those whom God has accepted and give space for them to act according to conscience when they differ in how to interpret the scriptures on secondary matters. Spiritually, the paedobaptist or credobaptist has already been welcomed by God through faith and union with Christ. So, denying them membership on grounds of a disputed practice violates Paul’s explicit commands in these verses.
I cannot therefore see any good reason that baptism should not be considered a “disputable matter.” In which case, we should reiterate what Paul teaches: First, those of both views should be able to co-exist in the same church rather than create churches according to their own conviction. Second, each should accept the other without quarrelling or condemning them, because the Lord has accepted them and they are accountable to him not each other. Third, each should nevertheless think the matter through, so they are convinced in their own mind, and so do whatever they do “to the Lord.” Fourth, none should cause a brother or sister to stumble in the faith by so pressing the issue that it distresses them - which would be unloving, or might cause them to act against their conscience - which would be sin.
2/ Shouldn’t baptism be seen differently because it affects the individual church’s polity and theology?
But everything affects and implies something. Not welcoming those of a different conviction on baptism also teaches something about the nature of the church. It teaches that God is not as concerned for unity as he is, and that those of different views are not equally welcome in the body of Christ when they are. And so, the question is this: Does shaping one’s church to welcome those of both views more faithfully express its true nature than shaping it in a way that excludes those of a different view? This is the point John Piper touched on in the quote we began with. Put simply a church’s polity and theology should be one that gives gospel unity its proper place. This is why a church moving to dual policy should not be apologetic about how this might affect its public identity. It is seeking to be a better expression of what church should be not a compromised one. Putting that another way, the awful irony is that tying membership to a particular conviction about baptism in order to protect the nature of the church actually undermines its true nature.
And in terms of teaching on baptism, why shouldn’t an eldership exemplify a right gospel humility by teaching that this is an issue on which bible-loving Christians disagree, and encouraging their congregation to do some work in thinking it through for themselves?
I was converted into a Baptist church and baptized as an adult without ever being told others hold a different view that I should consider. Now knowing the biblical arguments for paedobaptism I consider that to have been (unknowingly) dishonest and over-confident. When Paul does speak of Christians being contentious, he settles it by saying “we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God” (1 Cor 11v16). But on the matter before us, the churches of God have had different practices for centuries. I can think of no other issue, other than one’s view of the Sabbath perhaps, that Bible Christians have differed on for so long – almost 500 years. Given this, there is a real danger of arrogance in simply teaching one’s view to a congregation rather than acknowledging the differences. And it is an even greater tragedy to find that some who do this have never really studied the alternate view thoroughly enough. Given the many who think differently, it is possible they may be in the wrong and so teaching people in error – a most serious thing.
If the Lord in his wisdom has chosen for this issue to lack the scriptural clarity for the post-Reformation church to be one of mind on it, then surely it is better to humbly teach one’s own view whilst helping people consider the best proponents of the alternative. Surely this is also a better way to instruct them in a mature godliness of character too. And by welcoming those of both views into church, surely it also gives the congregation a more biblical view of what the church actually is. This would not leave a confused church, but one whose members are far clearer than most on what Christian unity entails, and in the end, far more thought-through on their own view of baptism, better enriched in their fellowship, and more formed in what it is to live in humility and love with each other.
As for what is taught about who are church and new covenant members: There are issues of theology and practice. At the level of theology, the same gospel humility could be seen in explaining both views when teaching on such matters. Of course, paedobaptists may want only their view to be taught and be concerned that credobaptist children are being given an erroneous and spiritually damaging view of their place before God when young. Likewise, credo Baptists may want their view only to be taught and be concerned that baptizing babies is spiritually dangerous in encouraging false assurance. And both may worry that the alternate view may make their own children feel left out or confused. However, this is just where thoughtful and gracious teaching can help them to a more mature position.
At the level of practice, policies could be drawn up that seek to best adopt the principle of allowance inherent in Romans 14-15. The fact is that many Baptist churches do allow children to pray, read or even serve in the church on the presumption that their fledgling faith is genuine even though they haven’t yet got to an age judged sufficient for baptism. And as such, it can still be said of them that if their faith is genuine, they belong to Christ and so his church just as would be said for the children of paedobaptists. So, differences on how children are described is most acutely felt when they are so young that they are not able to express any response to Christ. But here it only really matters for the parents who are well able to consider both views. And where an older child or adult within the church seems to be unbelieving, whether they are considered a lapsing covenant member or one who has never been a covenant member, the response of church will be the same – to urge them to repentance and faith. Having said all that, the language used at baptisms (whether at infancy or profession) would need to be considered and sensitive to how it is heard by those of a different persuasion.
3/ But how practically can a church incorporate both views?
One scenario is that the leadership holds one particular view and seeks to persuade prospective members of it, yet allows their membership even if they are not persuaded or are left confused but for reasons of their background feel uncomfortable changing their practice. This is commendable in expressing a true welcome and showing concern for the conscience of those involved (Rom 14v14-21). But the one-sided nature of the instruction means I do not feel it does enough justice to Paul’s concern that everyone “should be fully convinced in their own mind.” (Rom 14v5), and could easily lead to those of alternate views feeling undue pressure to do something they are uncomfortable with, which Paul is also concerned about (Rom 14v19-23). In practice it could also leave them feeling a sort of second-class member if they don’t abide by the leaders’ views.
More preferable would be that the leadership holds one particular view which is stated, welcomes those of both into membership, and encourages them after that to weigh both views for themselves and act according to what they conclude. This is less pressurized, and as outlined above, in my view a more gentle and humble approach.
Of course, for a credobaptist church the sticking point would arise in both these scenarios when a paedobaptist parent has a child they want baptized. Given the theology of unity or the local church outlined above, and the fact that baptism marks entry into the church, I cannot conceive it could be right to send a family that belongs to the church to another church to have their child baptized. Rather, Romans 14-15 persuades me that it would be a particularly gracious application of its principles to allow the family to act according to their conscience within the church, just as the Gentiles had to allow the Jews to keep their Sabbaths and the Jews to allow the Gentiles to eat their meat. Depending on the scruples of the elders, the baptism itself could be done by a credobaptist elder being gracious if their conscience allowed it, or a paedobaptist member under the elders’ supervision. Both would seem preferable to getting a minister from another church in to do it. However, if credobaptist congregation members would be upset by it and couldn’t be persuaded otherwise, their conscience might also need to be respected by doing the baptism in a context where they are not present. However, this is by no means ideal as it should really be conducted in the presence of the congregation.
The ideal to my mind, would be that the leadership itself could encompass both views. Obviously an elder should not be appointed in order to ensure two views on the eldership unless they are also the best qualified to become an elder. But at the same time, it would also be a tragedy if the best candidate were not chosen because they held a different view of the other elders on this issue. If the church is one that has chosen to communicate that there are two key views and allow practice that allows for the consciences of the congregation on the matter, then I can’t see particular problems arising in the unity of the eldership. Moreover, the church’s consistency in holding to a dual policy would only be enhanced, and those of each view feel wholly and properly represented.
Conclusion.
The idea of dual-policy and practice is not a modern one. We saw as we started that Bunyan argued for it, and the testimony of the early church is that at times various views co-existed. But with the rise of denominations after the Reformation, views became more entrenched as types of churches were defined around secondary convictions. As the church now exists in a less homogenous culture in which people are increasingly mobile, those seeking membership in modern churches will inevitably come with all sorts of different views they have inherited or been taught. This makes thinking through this issue all the more important and an opportunity in adopting a dual policy or practice to return to an earlier model of church in which the biblical ideal of unity is better expressed.[6] As John Piper said: "Very few, it seems to me, have really come to terms with the seriousness of excluding believers from membership in the local church. It is pre-emptive excommunication.”[7] My prayer is that this paper helps people better come to terms with just this, and so act accordingly.
[1]https://www.chapellibrary.org/pdf/books/budija.pdf?srsltid=AfmBOoqpwfe256zu_5BV58wX1zI8xeQLDYQOfk9tA81z1gugZav4ucay accessed 10/12/25
[2]https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/a-happy-baptist-happy-to-welcome-others/#:~:text=The%20Heart%20of%20the%20Issue:%20The%20Importance%20of%20Church%20Membership&text=So%20the%20heart%20of%20the,Let%20that%20be%20clear. Accessed 10/12/25
[3]https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/is-baptism-required-church-membership/ accessed 10/12/25
[4]Frame, John. Systematic Theology, p1066
[5] O’Brien, P. The letter to the Ephesians (Pillar) p248
[6]This is not the place to discuss other secondary issues. One could see how a church could have a dual policy on things like the Sabbath, and perhaps even on certain charismatic issues. Having a dual policy on gender in leadership is however harder, as you cannot have leaders whose authority some in the church don’t accept, and you can be in a complementarian church if an egalitarian without being forced to act against conscience with respect to what you think the Bible requires. But if a group of members did feel they were sinning by not allowing women to teach both genders, a scenario could be envisaged where that was done in a group context with all who felt the same. Having said that, there has been a much greater consensus through church history on charismaticism and gender, which means the pressure to adopt a dual policy that adopts modern views of these things is not strong.
[7]https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/is-baptism-required-church-membership/ accessed 10/12/25