Baptism and Church Membership - Again

Justin Taylor highlighted a revised section in Wayne Grudem's latest edition of his (magnificent) Systematic Theology text in which Grudem, reversing his position from a previous edition of the book, now argues against open membership (the idea that baptist churches should admit paedobaptized believers into church membership). Here's the heart of Grudem's reasoning:

But the most serious difficulty arises when people begin to think about what such a “compromise position” implies about the views of baptism held by the people who go along with this compromise. For people who hold to infant baptism, they have to be able to say that it is acceptable for believing parents not to baptize their infant children. But according to a paedobaptist view, this seems close to saying that is acceptable for these parents to disobey a command of Scripture regarding the responsibility of parents to baptize their children. How can they really say this?

On the other side, those who hold to believer’s baptism (as I do) would have to be willing to admit into church membership people who have been baptized as infants, and who did not make a personal profession of faith at the time they were baptized. But from a believer’s baptism position, genuine baptism has to follow a personal profession of faith. So how can believer’s baptism advocates in good conscience say that infant baptism is also a valid form of baptism? That contradicts what they believe about the essential nature of baptism – that it is an outward sign of an inward spiritual change, so that the apostle Paul could say, “As many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27).

For someone who holds to believer’s baptism, admitting to church membership someone who has not been baptized upon profession of faith, and telling the person that he or she never has to be baptized as a believer, is really giving up one’s view on the proper nature of baptism. It is saying that infant baptism really is valid baptism! But then how could anyone who holds to this position tell anyone who had been baptized as an infant that he or she still needed to be baptized as a believer? This difficulty makes me think that some kind of “compromise” position on baptism is not very likely to be adopted by denominational groups in the future.

John Piper, an articulate advocate of open membership, replies to Wayne Grudem. I offer just one question regarding Piper's reply, and would be most grateful if any who are more knowledgeable on this matter could fill us in. Piper claims, "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 preemptive excommunication."

I wonder: Does this line of reasoning have historical precedence?

This is a complicated matter, and both sides have inherent difficulties. I previously offered these thoughts.

(HT: JT)