I've been a Baptist (Southern) for my entire life. Well, perhaps until recently. I'm not certain. Hence, this post. I feel like I haven't budged, and my denomination has absolutely derailed. I've noticed (over the years) that the level of disagreement and conflict among Baptists is dizzying. And something that concerns me, quite a bit, is how Dispensationalism is running RAMPANT through Baptist churches. It has effectively become a staple, it seems. (I know many here agree with it, but I cannot adhere to it.) A denomination that was once very conservative and grounded in covenant theology is now absolutely all over the place. (Can I even call it a denomination anymore? I'm not sure.) I could visit ten different Baptist churches and find 32 different theological systems. I'm looking for continuity, structure, and stability. A defined system that is adhered to. Sadly, I'm not finding this among my Baptist brothers anymore. This is what discourages me. There are confessional standards, but they've been thrown to the wayside.
To be completely candid, I'm finding some solace in Calvinism. Why not the PCA or OPC then? There's just one hangup. I have not yet found an answer for paedobaptism. And it's certainly not for lack of trying/searching for one! I see the argument for it but it hasn't convinced me. Again, I could certainly adhere to the paedo practice, but I need something more than personal opinions or tradition. If this were not an obstacle for me, I'd be right at home in the PCA or OPC. I'm looking for some input here. I need some help. I need a home!
1) At my PCA church at least, we have a couple of professedly baptist members--they just can't become elders or deacons. Or become divisive on the issue of baptism. And they have been members for many years.
If you are calvinistic in soteriology and prefer covenant theology to dispensationalism, the question it seems you are asking yourself is whether the doctrinal differences are greater between yourself and the SBC/other baptistic church (with which you are familiar) or between yourself and the PCA or OPC (with which I guess you are less familiar). Of course even if you are on balance doctrinally closer to PCA or OPC (the baptism difference being a relatively minor one), there may be other reasons, doctrinal and otherwise, to stay in the SBC or some reformed baptist church (ref. your moniker subtitle). Of course the PCA and OPC have their own problems just like every church group. And I wonder if your differences with the PCA/OPC (sister denominations that use the same hymnbook for worship) are comprised of more than baptism (e.g., form of church gov't.?).
By the way, in general terms, the OPC is a smaller denomination and holds more tightly to the Westminster Standards than the larger and mildly more doctrinally diverse PCA. The OPC may also have some who hold to Federal Vision/Auburn Avenue theology (against which latter I would warn for the essentially Lutheran on justification by faith alone apart from works of the law).
2) For what it may be worth, though I suspect you are well aware of it, immersion is a recognized & acceptable mode of water baptism in the PCA & OPC (as elsewhere among paedobaptists), and in the PCA and OPC, baptismal regeneration is rejected (leaving aside for the moment the Federal Visionists). Furthermore, PCA and OPC would of course water baptize (usually by sprinkling) adults/persons who are of age (esp. thinking of the previously "un-churched") who apply for membership having been converted as adults or persons of age. The major water baptism difference for you I think would be (1) whether the candidate for baptism can be the baby of believing member-parent(s) and (2) the theological significance of water baptism as it relates to (1--in this sentence).
3) Thus probably worth mentioning is that words for baptism in Greek in and outside the LXX/NT are patient of a broader range of mode than immersion alone (e.g., dipping and sprinkling are also used); context will either indicate mode or be ambiguous as to mode. The same word for baptism (here intended as a result of past action) is used in both Heb. 6:2 in Christian context and in Heb. 9:10 of Levitical/priestly rites, which would include sprinkling as a mode (e.g., Numb. 19:17-18 & cf. Ezek. 36:25ff). In Acts 1:5, sprinkling or dousing seem more likely pictures of Holy Spirit (not water) baptism than immersion.
Of further interest to you it seems from what you have written, one could argue that if water baptism were considered to be the new covenant fulfillment of Abrahamic and Mosaic circumcision that the parallel would have received some discussion at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) where obedience to the law and circumcision were being argued (by a Pharisaic group, v. 5) to be required for Gentile converts "to be saved" (similarly in Galatian context, Gal. 5-6): Gentile Christians don't need to be circumcised, they need to be baptized (& refutation) or the like. Yet if, as I could argue (and as others have), the Jerusalem Council (and Galatian letter) occurred early in the post-Ascension church, the issue of the baptism of children born to adult disciples of Jesus might not have arisen sufficiently in the collective consciousness of the leadership.
This argument from silence (why no "circumcision = baptism" in Acts 15 argument?) in other words may be harder to weigh than one might think. The later "prison epistle" of Paul to the church at Colossae seems to connect a spiritual circumcision with a spiritual baptism (2:11-12) as expressing the current effects of salvation in Christ even if the mode of the baptism here seems better fitted to immersion (in identification with Jesus' burial). And if circumcision is as a "sign ... of the seal of righteousness" that Abraham had by faith (Rom. 4:11), can water baptism not reasonably be viewed from a Christian parent's perspective as functioning similarly to circumcision for the children of Abraham (cf. Gen. 17:10)--not as effecting saving faith, but as a sign of the covenant, for "the promise is for you and your children" (Acts 2:39, cf. Rom. 4)?
4) One could go on in varied directions; I have been hasty in hopes of brevity. The question to you, that is, is not so much whether you are convinced of paedobaptism but whether you can sympathize with its arguments sufficient for some greater degree of ecumenical harmony as among believers. For other resources: Jay E. Adams:
The Meaning and Mode of Baptism and James M. Chaney:
William the Baptist. But these are hardly the only such resources.
But if you are "looking for continuity, structure, and stability," it might be best to stay at one church. In this life, there will always be discouragements, but by staying at one church, you limit your exposure to differences and over time (we hope) find continuity. On the other hand if you are looking for "a defined system that is adhered to," I agree it seems sad the SBC at least in your experience seems to drift from its own. Surely there are some more or less reformed and confessionally consistent SBC churches, but are there any within your reasonable reach? It seems not.
