Seems to me, though, that there’s a third sense — distinct from, but closely related to, the first — of “union with Christ” that’s rarely spoken of (at least in those terms): that union with Christ that comes by being united to a local church. That union can start at a number of points in one’s life. For some, it begins at infancy when their parents raise them in the church. (And for those of us in the Reformed tradition, that union is signified and sealed at a child’s baptism.) For others, it begins after they’ve been connected to a church through regular participation with them and have formed good relationships with and within that body, whether or not they yet believe. (There’s something to be said for “belonging before believing.”) For still others, it could begin after they’ve already come to faith in Christ (through a parachurch organization or having the Gospel proclaimed to them by a friend), and then they find a church to be a part of.

It’s interesting to me that, in all three of the above examples, this sense of union with Christ is wholly independent of whether or not an individual has yet (or will ever) come to believe the Gospel. If that’s the case, is it really union with Christ?

I’d say “yes.” Union with Christ’s people is indeed true union with Christ. No, it’s not salvific union, just as salvific union isn’t the same as eschatological union… but it’s true union with Christ nonetheless. Maybe it’s a difference of degree — or something like the difference between dating, engagement, and marriage. (Not a perfect analogy, I know.)

Just some scattered thoughts. Am I out to lunch? Is it too confusing to use the term in this way? What do you think?

@RaeWhitlock: “The preaching of the Word of God *is* the Word of God.” (#)

After which, I went to the living room to hang out with Amy for a few hours, and then went to bed. What I woke up to this morning on Twitter were a few surprised and surprising responses . . .

@sagethefool: @RaeWhitlock Who in the world said that? In what context could that possibly be true? (#)

@TravisSeitler: @RaeWhitlock That is theologically (and just plain logically) wrong. (#)

@rschmidtberger: @RaeWhitlock do we really want to say that the preacher’s words are Gods words? ideally sermons should be full of biblical truth (#)

Understandable responses, though. A lot of guys (and gals, for that matter) have said some pretty whack stuff under the guise of “preaching”. Surely we don’t want to attribute the words of some of those jokers to God himself, right?

So where’d this audacious and almost-heretical-sounding phrase come from? Glad you asked. It’s from an early Reformed confessional document called the Second Helvetic Confession.

In context . . .

THE PREACHING OF THE WORD OF GOD IS THE WORD OF GOD. Wherefore when this Word of God is now preached in the church by preachers lawfully called, we believe that the very Word of God is proclaimed, and received by the faithful; and that neither any other Word of God is to be invented nor is to be expected from heaven: and that now the Word itself which is preached is to be regarded, not the minister that preaches; for even if he be evil and a sinner, nevertheless the Word of God remains still true and good.

Neither do we think that therefore the outward preaching is to be thought as fruitless because the instruction in true religion depends on the inward illumination of the Spirit, or because it is written “And no longer shall each man teach his neighbor…, for they shall all know me” (Jer. 31:34), And “Neither he who plants nor he that waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth” (I Cor. 3:7). For although “No one can come to Christ unless he be drawn by the Father” (John 6:44), And unless the Holy Spirit inwardly illumines him, yet we know that it is surely the will of God that his Word should be preached outwardly also. God could indeed, by his Holy Spirit, or by the ministry of an angel, without the ministry of St. Peter, have taught Cornelius in the Acts; but, nevertheless, he refers him to Peter, of whom the angel speaking says, “He shall tell you what you ought to do.”

Context makes it more clear. When a preacher preaches Scripture in such a way that is faithful to its true meaning, we can be assured that the Holy Spirit is at work, and that his people are receiving the very Word of God from his mouth. This does not mean that preachers are infallible or incapable of error. By no means. What it does mean, though, is that hearers of that Word can and should be assured that, so long as the Bible is preached faithfully, God himself speaks to them in the preaching event.

Perhaps a way to phrase it that’d be more readily understood by today’s readers would be “The Word of God preached is the Word of God.” I dunno. I like the original phrasing, myself.

Thoughts?

Anyway, I preached at my church again this morning, this time from Psalm 19.  I’d post the audio again, but the recording ended up being very echo-y and practically inaudible.  So, I’m posting the manuscript that I worked from.  Feel free to read, comment, critique, etc.

——————-

Psalm 19

To the choirmaster. A Psalm of David.

The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
Day to day pours out speech,
and night to night reveals knowledge.
There is no speech, nor are there words,
whose voice is not heard.
Their voice goes out through all the earth,
and their words to the end of the world.
In them he has set a tent for l the sun,
which comes out like a bridegroom leaving his chamber,
and, like a strong man, runs its course with joy.
Its rising is from the end of the heavens,
and its circuit to the end of them,
and there is nothing hidden from its heat.

The law of the Lord is perfect,
reviving the soul;
the testimony of the Lord is sure,
making wise the simple;
the precepts of the Lord are right,
rejoicing the heart;
the commandment of the Lord is pure,
enlightening the eyes;
the fear of the Lord is clean,
enduring forever;
the rules of the Lord are true,
and righteous altogether.
More to be desired are they than gold,
even much fine gold;
sweeter also than honey
and drippings of the honeycomb.
Moreover, by them is your servant warned;
in keeping them there is great reward.

Who can discern his errors?
Declare me innocent from hidden faults.
Keep back your servant also from presumptuous sins;
let them not have dominion over me!
Then I shall be blameless,
and innocent of great transgression.

Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
be acceptable in your sight,
O Lord, my rock and my redeemer.

Consider these scenarios.

• A teenage girl — jaded by years in a legalistic church, she has proclaimed herself an atheist, but still feels the pull some of ultimate reality.
• A criminal serving a long sentence — he flips through a Bible sent to him by his sister, but fails to understand what he’s reading, though he wants to.
• A presbyterian elder — he knows Scripture well and gives his people wise counsel, but still feels far from God himself.

These diverse folks all share something in common: they feel a longing for God, but sense nothing from him but distance. Absence.

Often, even if we’re believers in Christ, there are times that God seems far off. Unknown and unknowable. As we come to the 19th Psalm, I want us to see that because God graciously reveals himself to humankind, we can know and worship him.

Here’s David, worshiping God in song, praising him for his self-disclosure. This man, who once asked God “how long will you hide your face from me”, is here not only worshiping, but leading God’s people in praise for his presence and nearness. Like us, David’s congregation (Israel) gathered weekly for the worship of God, and like us, there were certainly those among their number who sensed nothing of God but absence. Yet they lifted their voices and sang these words, despite their heartache, and I want us to be encouraged to do the same. The three ways God has revealed himself that we’re going to look at this morning are creation, Scripture, and Christ.

Creation

First, because God graciously reveals himself to humankind in creation, we can know and worship him.

Take a look at verses 1-6. David is painting a vivid picture for us of the created order itself declaring the works of God. In verse 2, he writes “day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge”. Now, to the original audience, the language of creation’s speech being “poured out” day to day would have evoked images of the continual bubbling up of a spring. It’s saying that creation, by its very existence, is constantly and continually testifying of the greatness of its Creator. Then, in verse 3, he says that “there is no speech, nor are there words whose voice is not heard”. What’s he saying? He’s saying that nature speaks of God in such a way that everyone “hears” it.

This is also seen in the New Testament. Turn with me to Romans 1, verses 18-20.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Well, that’s a downer, isn’t it? Here we are, talking about God’s glory revealed in creation, and suddenly all this talk of wrath and ungodliness and unrighteousness rears its ugly head. But what does it say? Here we have not the glory of God being revealed from heaven, as it is in Psalm 19, but the wrath of God. Why? Because, as our earlier text says, creation constantly testifies of God’s goodness and power, and though everyone “hears” it, not all “listen”.

We all know the difference between “hearing” and “listening”, don’t we? I’m certain that all of you parents can testify to this. I have a daughter. Her name is Zoë. She has (in the past) been a perfect example of how one can “hear” without “listening”. On more than one occasion, she’s been wrapped up in some enthralling activity . . . usually watching SpongeBob Squarepants, when Amy or I have told her to do something.

“Pick up your toys, please, Zoë”
“Z, it’s time for bed. You need to change into your night clothes.”

No reaction.

A little louder, we say “Zoë! Pick up, please!”

Nothing.

“ZOË!”

At that point, she turns to us and says (with a little annoyance in her voice), “I heard you!” Yeah, she heard our voices, but didn’t listen and obey. Though her ears were open, her heart was hard . . . and soon the wrath of her parents was upon her. Had she listened to our voices in the first place and obeyed, things would’ve gone much better.

It’s the same with how God has revealed himself to us through creation.

Now, what are we supposed to do with that? Honestly, I struggled a little bit with this part. God has revealed himself to us through creation. Good. Now what? How can we apply that to our lives? Well, now we reflect on his goodness in providing this world for us. Now we appreciate and worship God for giving us the sun, the skies, the rain, and all that he’s created. 1 Timothy 6:17 says that God has “richly provide[d] us with everything to enjoy”, and that includes all of creation. Read the other creation Psalms (8, 29, 33, 65, 104). See how God’s people have praised him for creation for thousands of years, and join your voices with theirs. Creation is one of God’s self-revelations to us.

Scripture

God also has graciously revealed himself to us in Scripture, and because of that, we can know and worship him.

Let’s go back to Psalm 19 and look at verses 7-11.

David continues this song by moving from God’s general revelation to all of humanity through creation, to his specific revelation to his people through his Word. The language here is beautifully parallel:

“The law of the LORD…”
“The testimony of the LORD…”
“The precepts of the LORD…”
“The commandment of the LORD…”

Together, these terms refer to one thing: God’s Word as he has revealed it to his people, and David is extolling its virtues. For all of its splendor and beauty, not even creation has the effect that God’s Word has on us.

The Word of God revives the soul.
It gives wisdom to the simple.
The Word of God brings joy to the heart and light to the eyes.
God’s Word endures forever.
God’s Word is true, and altogether righteous, and David finishes this section by expressing his heart’s desire for the Word:

“More to be desired than gold! Sweeter than honey! In keeping them there is great reward!”

Do we delight in the Word like that?

Some of you won’t remember these, but there was a piece of technology we used to watch movies before the DVD player. It was called the “VCR”. They usually had digital clocks on them as well, but most that I saw only displayed a blinking “12:00″, meaning that the correct time hadn’t been set.

I remember our first VCR. It was around 1985. I was 6 or 7 years old, and even then, I loved technology. It might’ve been partly due to the fact that my dad was an electrical engineer, but even he couldn’t figure out how to set the clock on that darn VCR. That task fell to me, and I was glad to do it. If it involved pushing buttons, I was all over it. Pretty soon, I was an expert at everything that VCR could do. Not only could I set the time, and thus get rid of the blinking “12:00”, but I could program it to record at certain times. I knew the different recording speeds and the advantages and disadvantages of each. But did I figure it out for myself? No. I read the manual.

Now, the 30-year-old me is more like my dad than the 7-year-old me. Instead of reading manuals, now I’ll give them a cursory glance or refer to them if I “get stuck” with something. Why? It’s probably equal parts arrogance and impatience. Why bother reading a manual when I can probably just figure it out myself, right?

We can often cop the same kind of attitude, though we might not admit it, when it comes to God’s Word.

How many of us only come to the Bible when we need to be reminded of a promise from God, or when we’re facing a crisis? Now, it’s good and right to come to the Bible in those circumstances, but not those only.

Not to overstate the obvious, but this book is the Word of God! He has revealed himself and speaks to us though this book! That’s a big deal! Read it! Study it! Memorize it! Obey it! Believe it! Not only when times get tough, but when times are good. We’re fooling ourselves when we act like the Bible is only useful in difficult times. In bad times, our reaction may be to run to God in our despair, but in good times, we may not even see our need for God in the first place. Which is worse?

Scripture is one of God’s self-revelations to us.

Christ

Finally, God has graciously revealed himself to us in the person of Jesus Christ, and because of that, we can know and worship him.

Turn to Acts 17 with me. We’ll be looking at verses 16-31.

Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of idols. So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and in the marketplace every day with those who happened to be there. Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also conversed with him. And some said, “What does this babbler wish to say?” Others said, “He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities”—because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection. And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? For you bring some strange things to our ears. We wish to know therefore what these things mean.” Now all the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there would spend their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new.

So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, for

“‘In him we live and move and have our being’;

as even some of your own poets have said,

“‘For we are indeed his offspring.’

Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”

Here, we have the Apostle Paul, after Jesus graciously and forcefully converted him, preaching to some Athenians at the Areopagus, which was a place for people to meet and dialogue on various philosophies. He was in Athens, waiting for Silas and Timothy so they could continue their journey, and along the way, he saw this altar inscribed with the words “TO THE UNKNOWN GOD”. Now I can just imagine Paul, being the Gospel preacher that he was, seeing such a wide open door and saying “oh come on, this is too easy.”

He begins speaking to them, using their belief in this “unknown god” as a starting point to launch into the Gospel of Christ. He even goes as far as quoting their own poets to them, taking a verse that was most likely about Zeus and essentially saying “this is true, but not of Zeus”. He finishes with the demands of the Gospel: in order to know this God you worship as unknown, you must repent and believe in the one God has raised from the dead – Jesus Christ.

The Athenians’ worship of the “Unknown God” was like walking around a somewhat familiar room in pitch black darkness. You know that there’s a couch somewhere, and you’re pretty sure you remember a table and some chairs, but all you can do in the dark is grope around for something to hold onto. Admittedly, this is a better starting point than being in a pitch black room that you think is empty, only to stumble over what’s there, but not as good as having a light turned on.

This is what Paul does for the Athenians here, and it’s what God does for us by ultimately revealing himself to us in the person of Christ. In creation, we’ve been given just enough light to know that there is a God. In scripture, we’re pointed to the light switch. In Jesus, we have light.

So what do we do with this? As verse 30 says, we repent and believe in Christ. We follow him in obedience. Without Jesus, any efforts we can make to know and worship God fall short. We can marvel and appreciate creation all we want. We can read the Bible from cover to cover, but without repentance — turning away from our sin and turning toward Jesus in belief — we only know enough to invoke God’s wrath . . . not receive his forgiveness.

Repent and believe today.

Conclusion

Turn back to Psalm 19 with me one more time. Let’s look at verses 12-14.

Who can discern his errors?
Declare me innocent from hidden faults.

Only through Jesus can we be declared innocent from all of our faults, hidden and seen.

Keep back your servant also from presumptuous sins;
let them not have dominion over me!

Only through Jesus can we be freed from the dominion of sin.

Then I shall be blameless,
and innocent of great transgression.

Only through Jesus can we be blameless and innocent of transgression, great or small.

Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
be acceptable in your sight,
O Lord, my rock and my redeemer.

And only through Jesus are the words of our mouths and meditations of our hearts acceptable in the sight of God.

“Know therefore that the Lord your God is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations . . .” – Dueteronomy 7:9

After getting angry, calming down, and then thinking about it, I think that the answer is “yes”.

(Obviously, Zoë’s not an “infant” at five, but for the sake of this discussion, her upcoming baptism falls under what most people call “infant baptism” — that is, baptism given to the children of believers, usually soon after their birth.)

Baptism — whether it comes after someone has made a profession of faith or it comes after someone’s being born into a Christian home — is baptism.  The bifurcation between “infant” baptism and “believer’s” baptism is the creation of a false dichotomy.  Both are covenant baptism.

I think I’m going to pick up where I left off in the long-forgotten series of posts on Baptism to flesh this out.

So, which is it?

I was prompted recently to remember a on online conversation from the old DerekWebb.com forums (around 2004, I think) that had a profound effect on how I saw corporate worship. In it, a friend said something that I never had previously seen or heard articulated — that the so-called “seeker-sensitive” model of doing church that’s so dominant in evangelical America is wrong-headed and that when the church gathers, it does so for worship and teaching, not for evangelism. That statement knocked me for a loop, as I’d been pretty entrenched in the “gotta win souls, gotta get ‘em to walk the aisle or pray the prayer” culture for most of my life. At the same time, it really resonated with me, as I was already convinced that Hybels/Warren seeker-driven “worship” was inadequate. (It didn’t help that the church that I was a member of at the time was then preparing to go through Warren’s “40 Days of Purpose” dreck.) God really used that one post to start me on the road to learning about, embracing, and valuing corporate worship as more than just a time to “win souls”.

So now, it’s three years later. I’ve learned a lot, matured a little (I hope), and I find myself at a tension between the two schools of thought. I’m starting to think that to reach either conclusion is to embrace the same false dichotomy (albeit on different ends of the spectrum). This dichotomy suggests (or outright states, in some extreme cases) that while the Gospel message of Christ’s burial, death, and resurrection (accompanied by the Spirit) is what convinces the unbeliever and brings him into relationship with Christ, it’s something else — something “more” — that empowers the believer to then live as Christ calls him or her to live. That the Gospel is our entryway into the family of God, and after we’re in, we move beyond the Gospel to more “advanced” Christianity of some sort.

Regardless of how well-intentioned this is, it’s moralism at best, and at worst, gnosticism. The fact is that the Gospel that converts the neophyte “seeker” is the same Gospel that empowers the most mature believer to live day-by-day as Jesus calls. There’s a story that’s been told numerous times of the great Reformer, Martin Luther. In the church that he was pastoring, preached the Gospel to his congregation, week after week after week after week. His people wondered why they couldn’t move on. Surely we get the Gospel by now, Pastor! Why do you keep preaching the Gospel every week? His answer: “Because every week, you forget it.” We never move beyond the Gospel because the Gospel is what grounds us.

Now, this isn’t to say that every week, a simplistic “Gospel” message from John 3:16 is to be preached. Not at all. But too often, passages that don’t explicitly say the words “Jesus” or “Christ” are preached in such a way that robs them of meaning and reduces them to moralistic platitudes (ie: “How to live a victorious life”, “How to have a good marriage”, “Why we need prayer in schools”, etc). We seem to forget what should be obvious: that the Bible — the entire Bible — is about JESUS. This means that every passage of scripture, including those from the Old Testament, can and should be preached in such a way that points to Christ as glorious and the only solution to our problem. Take, for instance, the “unauthorized (or strange) fire” incident in Numbers 3 in which the priests Nadab and Abihu were charbroiled for not worshiping God as He had told them — it would be easy, especially for Presbyterians like myself, to preach a sermon entirely focused on the Regulative Principle with absolutely no Christ! But Jesus is there! God’s wrath justly burns against us as it did against Nadab and Abihu, and like them, we should be consumed. But no . . . Christ took that upon himself on the cross, and upon Christ the flames of God’s wrath are burned out, never again to be ignited against those who belong to him.

Jesus is there.

Therefore, it would seem to me that our worship and our preaching should be neither seeker-focused nor believer-focused, but Gospel-focused. We preach the Gospel every week from whatever passage of Scripture we’re in, and then allow (and expect) that Gospel to have its intended effect on each one there, whether believer or “seeker”. We need to let go of the either/or mentality.

Links for ya . . .

RSS feed
Subscribe w/ iTunes
iTunes Store link

Check it out.

gracecentral.org

There are still a few glitches and kinks that need to be worked out here and there, but . . . it’s up. And it’s about eleventy bazillion times better than having a site that hadn’t been updated since October 2005.

And speaking of Grace Central . . . we started a new series tonight in Colossians. I’m pretty excited about it. Lots of parallels and similarities between the context the church in Colossae was in, and our own (young church, very diverse congregation, etc). Should be good.

Now, the matter goes to the congregation for nominations and elections (all taking place over the next couple of months). The elders-elect (and deacons-elect, if any) will then be ordained and installed, and Grace Central will be officially be organized as a particular church of the PCA. After that, the real work begins.

BUT . . . the studying, training, and meeting up with the guys every Saturday morning at 7:30 over the past eighteen months is over. And it paid off.

(Thanks to everyone who prayed for me.)

(Disclaimer: As most of you know, I’m a convinced paedobaptist. But don’t discount my thoughts for that reason! There are plenty of better reasons to do so. Keep in mind that these are convictions that I held as a credobaptist as well.)

There’s been a lot of talk recently in the reformed blogosphere (“Reform-o-sphere”?) and elsewhere regarding the relationship between the Sacraments and church membership . . . and particularly how a church’s view of baptism should affect admission to membership and/or the Lord’s Table. Guys like John Piper, Wayne Grudem, Mark Dever, and Ligon Duncan have participated in the conversation. (Josh Harris also preached a relevant sermon recently.)

This is my paltry attempt at joining the conversation.

The Big Question at hand is this (as Wayne Grudem puts it in the 2007 edition of his Systematic Theology) — “Do churches need to be divided over baptism?” More specifically, “how should ‘Believers-Only Baptism’ (ie: baptist) churches deal with sincere Christians in their midst whose convictions on baptism differ from their own?”*

Now, admittedly, as recently as five years ago, I had no context for this Big Question. I grew up in a denomination in which baptism and church membership were not necessarily linked, and I didn’t really see the big deal. When I was baptized at the age of 19, I had been a believer since age six, had been partaking in the Lord’s Supper since about age 10, and had already been a member of my local church for two years. (And now that I think about it, my motivation for being baptized was less about obedience to Christ and more about trying to look “spiritually mature” to a girl at my church that I had my eye on. Ahh, the folly of youth!)

The Big Question became a little more relevant to me in March of 2003. Amy and I were living in Jackson, TN and were looking for a solid church to worship with. After a not-great experience at one church, we were providentially led to Northbrook (a Southern Baptist congregation). We almost immediately knew that this would be our church home. Only one thing concerned me as I looked over the church’s Statement of Faith — to be a member, one had to have been baptized already. Not only that, but if you were baptized as an infant, it somehow “didn’t count”. If someone who was baptized as an infant wanted to join, he or she would have to be baptized again (or more accurately, “baptized, for real this time”). Even as one who believed at the time that baptism should only come after a profession of faith, denial of membership to genuine Christians didn’t seem right. Scripture tells us that there is but “one baptism” – not different baptisms depending on your station in life.

(Yes, I’m well aware that something not seeming “right to me” is no indication of whether it’s actually right not.)

The Big Problem (related to the Big Question) is this: credobaptists, by and large, believe any baptism that comes before a credible profession of faith to be invalid. Null. Void. No baptism at all. Does it really have to be this way? Should it be this way?

I’m gonna say “no”. Even though baptism is an act of obedience from us to Christ, it’s also (and I’d also say, primarily) a means of grace from Christ to us. Even if we can manage to get baptism wrong (or in the wrong sequence), do we really believe that God’s work in baptism is stifled by human error? To illustrate it in a different way . . . Amy and I had Zoë before we were married. We got that in the wrong order and plainly contrary to what scripture teaches. Still, despite that, were we not a family, even before we got married? Should Zoë have done what Nicodemus incredulously asked and re-entered the womb, in order to be “born again”, this time into the “legitimate” Whitlock family?

Even without the obvious physical impossibility, it’s ridiculous to even consider. She is our daughter, and no less our daughter, regardless of when she passed through the waters of childbirth. Why, then, do we sometimes require genuine sons and daughters of God to again pass through the waters of birth into His family, when they’ve already passed through years before?

More in this series to come.

(*: Yes, there’s another side of the equation which asks “how should paedobaptistic churches deal with those in their midst who believe that only those who give a credible profession of faith should be baptized”? That question is much more easily resolved, as every paedobaptistic church I’ve ever heard of also baptizes new converts. For them, the question is not “have you been baptized as a believer”. It’s “have you been baptized”.)