Thread: 1689 LBC on Regenerate Church Membership (26.2; 26.6; 27.2)

26.2 All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.

26.6 The members of these churches are saints by calling, visibly manifesting and evidencing (in and by their profession and walking) their obedience unto that call of Christ; and do willingly consent to walk together, according to the appointment of Christ; giving up themselves to the Lord, and one to another, by the will of God, in professed subjection to the ordinances of the Gospel.

27.2 Saints by profession are bound to maintain an holy fellowship and communion in the worship of God, and in performing such other spiritual services as tend to their mutual edification; as also in relieving each other in outward things according to their several abilities, and necessities; which communion, according to the rule of the gospel, though especially to be exercised by them, in the relation wherein they stand, whether in families, or churches, yet, as God offereth opportunity, is to be extended to all the household of faith, even all those who in every place call upon the name of the Lord Jesus; nevertheless their communion one with another as saints, doth not take away or infringe the title or propriety which each man hath in his goods and possessions.

Regenerate church membership speaks of the true church of Christ; the invisible church. Regenerate church membership is actually presumed regenerate church membership. 26.3 of the 1689 LBC articulates that even the purest church is a mixture of truth and error. Acknowledging the limitations of finite man in knowing the exact spiritual condition of each professed member, we trust that a credible profession of faith is indicative of that spiritual condition. The fact that there are impostors - goats among the sheep (1 JN 2:19; Jude 4) - is proof of our fallibility in ascertaining the hidden things of the heart. It does not, however, change the fact that the body of Christ, the invisible church, is made up only of those who have been born again.

In the spirit of Rev. 2:2, the church is to be diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph. 4:3). Questionable teachings are to be tested (Acts 17:11), and sin confronted (Matt. 18:15-20). The church must proceed guided by the truth of the Word and the power of the Spirit, knowing that hell itself cannot overcome it (Matt. 16:18). But hell will try, both outwardly and inwardly. Outwardly through the attacks of the wicked who make no pretense of worshipping our God. Inwardly through ravenous wolves who seek to destroy the body by subterfuge, or through the ungodly ignorant who would stifle the body and make it impotent. For these reasons and more the true church is to remain vigilant and jealous for God's holiness. Better for the house of God to judge itself than to be judged because it considered His church not to be worth the effort (Rev. 2:4, 16, 22; 3:19).

By the above definition of a Saint and those in the visible congregation (profession and obedience), how does one practically distinguish between a non-Saint and a Saint who Hebrews calls "slow of learning" or "ignorant and going astray"? Might not such a person appear to have "destroyed" their profession?

Rich,

There is a difference between a person who professes Christ and struggles with sin and the professor who is given over to sin. Those who continue in sin repudiate their profession. Being put out of the church (Matt. 18) is the formal move of the church in handing such a one over to Satan. The one struggling with sin, but who displays a repentant heart, has not repudiated their profession. This is the saint who may be weak in mind, body, and faith. As I referenced in the OP, even the best of churches are a mix of truth and error; and since churches are made up of people, we can expect that the saints will likewise display truth and error.

The problem, as I see it, is that the struggling Saint may often seem to be one who has destroyed his profession. The emphasis on visible faithfulness speaks to a concern to uproot anything that resembles a weed in the garden.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

The problem, as I see it, is that the struggling Saint may often seem to be one who has destroyed his profession. The emphasis on visible faithfulness speaks to a concern to uproot anything that resembles a weed in the garden.

The Baptist paradigm for Church membership is the New Covenant identity:
Jeremiah 31:31-34 31 " Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah -- 32 "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. 33 "But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 "No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

This is in contrast to the Old Covenant paradigm of a MIXED MULTITUDE. Rich may be alluding to the parable of the tares in the field in Matthew 13 when he says:

"The problem, as I see it, is that the struggling Saint may often seem to be one who has destroyed his profession. The emphasis on visible faithfulness speaks to a concern to uproot anything that resembles a weed in the garden."

But Christ clearly teaches that the prohibition against pulling up the tares at the risk of uprooting true wheat speaks of their growing together in the WORLD rather than in the CHURCH. Thus being an injunction against the STATE seeking to banish those that the RULER would put out of his REALM.
Matthew 13:24-30 24 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 "but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. 26 "But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. 27 "So the servants of the owner came and said to him, 'Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?' 28 "He said to them, 'An enemy has done this.' The servants said to him, 'Do you want us then to go and gather them up?' 29 "But he said, 'No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. 30 'Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn." ' "
Matthew 13:36-38 6 Then Jesus sent the multitude away and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him, saying, "Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field." 37 He answered and said to them: "He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 "The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

The problem, as I see it, is that the struggling Saint may often seem to be one who has destroyed his profession. The emphasis on visible faithfulness speaks to a concern to uproot anything that resembles a weed in the garden.

Rich,

17.4 of the LBC speaks to this. A credible profession is not flawless profession, for the corruption of sin still is present.

And though they may, through the temptation of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins, and for a time continue therein, whereby they incur God's displeasure and grieve his Holy Spirit, come to have their graces and comforts impaired, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded, hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves, yet shall they renew their repentance and be preserved through faith in Christ Jesus to the end.

It is the work of the Holy Spirit to convict of sin and it's resulting repentance (indeed, all of life is repentance). The church exists to be used by the Spirit in this work. Churches that forsake or neglect their responsibility may turn a saint over to despair and unnecessary pain, but it does not lessen the saint's position in Christ. Their profession may seem to be on shakey ground, just as assurance is lacking in the mind of the saint that is ensnared by sin.

I believe what you're getting at is the saint's confidence in their profession, not whether the efficacy of their profession is real. That certainly has validity if profession is only as strong as our level of sanctification. The focus of the OP, as supported by the confession, is a regenerate church membership. I don't think that a saint who struggles in their Christian walk changes the substance of that assertion.

Originally Posted by rbcbob

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

The problem, as I see it, is that the struggling Saint may often seem to be one who has destroyed his profession. The emphasis on visible faithfulness speaks to a concern to uproot anything that resembles a weed in the garden.

The Baptist paradigm for Church membership is the New Covenant identity:
Jeremiah 31:31-34 31 " Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah -- 32 "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. 33 "But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 "No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

This is in contrast to the Old Covenant paradigm of a MIXED MULTITUDE.

I assume we agree that only the Lord knows who the Elect are. This gets precisely at the point. It's one thing to talk about the New Covenant consisting of all the Elect but you must stop there and speak only in the abstract.

The visible Church is not the New Covenant in your theology, Bob. I don't know why you would make the mistake of assuming this as I was talking about the visible Church.

With respect to the analogy of pulling up weeds I can also use the term: bruised reed or smoldering wick.

The point of my concern is expressed well by the basic misapprehension and movement between what you believe is the invisible reality of the case (the NC only consists of the Elect) and believing that this knowledge gives a Church some way of determining who is/isn't Elect. In other words where you criticize our paradigm for noting that visible Church consists of a mixed multitude in the NC, you really only escape the dilemma in theory because you have no sense of visible New Covenant as invisible Church = New Covenant.

Thus, again, the issue is the problem with a definition that tries to jump this rail. It uses the terms "profession and obedience" and, as Bill rightly notes, the Confession elsewhere even notes that a person's hardness of heart may cause temporal judgments to fall such that the Church may not be able to determine the children of God from the world on the basis of profession or obedience.

Consequently, I maintain that the definition sounds useful but proves more theoretical than actual because it is an arbitrary decision to decide who has fallen under God's displeasure for sin and is still a Saint and who has fallen away because they were never regenerate.

Finally, I'm aware of the fact that the Parable of Wheat and Tares speaks of the world but disagree with your understanding of the text. Be that as it may, the principle is well established in Hebrews and throughout the NT of restoring the hard hearted.

Consequently, I maintain that the definition sounds useful but proves more theoretical than actual because it is an arbitrary decision to decide who has fallen under God's displeasure for sin and is still a Saint and who has fallen away because they were never regenerate.

Rich,

There are two things running concurrently when the issue of a regenerate church membership is discussed. The first is soteriological in nature; i.e. the elect of God. As I am willing to admit, God is the only one who knows with certainty who is elect. That said, the Baptist view of the New Covenant is that its legitimate members are those who are born from above. This could easily lead into a discussion of the nature of the New Covenant, and the differences between Baptists and Presbyterians on New Covenant inclusion, but it would lead the thread down a whole other path. The second issue about regenerate church membership is the practical aspect. Baptists and Presbyterians share the same limitations regarding perfect knowledge. Both of us must rely on external evidence that validates a profession. Even an adult who was baptized as a child cannot escape this. Profession of faith does not necessarily have to be a one time event. Christians display a profession through sanctified living (Gal. 2:6). When sin rears it's ugly and destructive head in the life of a saint, both camps will counsel the person similarly. Baptists will point to the promises contained in the gospel, which the saint professed to believe. Presbyterians will point to that same promises of the gospel as represented in their baptism.

As far as an, "arbitrary decision to decide who has fallen under God's displeasure for sin and is still a Saint and who has fallen away because they were never regenerate" how does this differ from the prevalent Presbyterian view? Unless and until an individual is put out of the church, we are to appeal to them as a brother. If he is in sin we call on him to repent (Matt. 18). If he turns back we have won our brother (Matt. 18:15). Instead of an arbitrary decision we have detailed instructions from scripture. Of course, God knows the hidden things of the heart. He knows who is His. His sheep hear His voice, even if they wander off the pasture for a time.

John 7:24, "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment."

James 2:9, 12, 13, "But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors... So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment."

Concerning excommunication I believe Paul gives us explicit direction in 1 Corinthians 5 on who we should eat and not eat with.

(1Co 5:7) Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

(1Co 5:8) Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

(1Co 5:9) I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

(1Co 5:10) Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.

(1Co 5:11) But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

(1Co 5:12) For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

(1Co 5:13) But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

When I get more time I am going to make a blog entry how the New Covenant defines a Covenant Child. I think Alan Conner did a good job of that in his book.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Originally Posted by rbcbob

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

The problem, as I see it, is that the struggling Saint may often seem to be one who has destroyed his profession. The emphasis on visible faithfulness speaks to a concern to uproot anything that resembles a weed in the garden.

The Baptist paradigm for Church membership is the New Covenant identity:
Jeremiah 31:31-34 31 " Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah -- 32 "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. 33 "But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 "No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

This is in contrast to the Old Covenant paradigm of a MIXED MULTITUDE.

I assume we agree that only the Lord knows who the Elect are. This gets precisely at the point. It's one thing to talk about the New Covenant consisting of all the Elect but you must stop there and speak only in the abstract.

The visible Church is not the New Covenant in your theology, Bob. I don't know why you would make the mistake of assuming this as I was talking about the visible Church.

With respect to the analogy of pulling up weeds I can also use the term: bruised reed or smoldering wick.

The point of my concern is expressed well by the basic misapprehension and movement between what you believe is the invisible reality of the case (the NC only consists of the Elect) and believing that this knowledge gives a Church some way of determining who is/isn't Elect. In other words where you criticize our paradigm for noting that visible Church consists of a mixed multitude in the NC, you really only escape the dilemma in theory because you have no sense of visible New Covenant as invisible Church = New Covenant.

Thus, again, the issue is the problem with a definition that tries to jump this rail. It uses the terms "profession and obedience" and, as Bill rightly notes, the Confession elsewhere even notes that a person's hardness of heart may cause temporal judgments to fall such that the Church may not be able to determine the children of God from the world on the basis of profession or obedience.

Consequently, I maintain that the definition sounds useful but proves more theoretical than actual because it is an arbitrary decision to decide who has fallen under God's displeasure for sin and is still a Saint and who has fallen away because they were never regenerate.

Finally, I'm aware of the fact that the Parable of Wheat and Tares speaks of the world but disagree with your understanding of the text. Be that as it may, the principle is well established in Hebrews and throughout the NT of restoring the hard hearted.

Rich, I am not sure why my comments would cause such agitation. They were specifically expounding upon LBC 26:2 which addresses the paradigm for understanding who it is that ought to be brought into the membership of the church. Again, Baptists see the pattern to be modeled as the NC identification of those, and only those, who personally know the Lord. That is the pattern and we, with all of our finite limitations, seek to use that pattern rather than the OC pattern.

Now certainly there will be mistakes made by fallible shepherds using either pattern. But that there will be many more admitted into the fold who do not know the Lord using the Old Covenant pattern as contrasted with the New Covenant pattern must be readily apparent to all.

I fear that what this does, practically speaking, is make the criteria for church membership whether or not you're already a disciple. If that were truly the case, we wouldn't have seen so many join the church in the NT. The Ethiopian eunuch? We'd have to look at him awhile. The Philippian jailor? He have to show more fruit in keeping with repentance.

You know, because I'm Presbyterian, that I'm all for protecting the flock from within or without. But some things are God's to sort out. That doesn't mean that we allow just anyone in; or, once they're in, they can never be put out. There are keys to the kingdom and they need to be exercised.

But Rich's point is that if Christ will not crush a bruised reed, or quench a smoking flax, then why would we be so harsh?

Additionally, how far do we go? Do we come along side? Do we weep long hours? Do we look for them in the distance, waiting to see if they'll come home? Do we go rescue them from the pit should they wander? Regenerate church membership will be more impatient, and less gentle, IMHO. What's the use to take time with someone we don't believe is elect? After all, the NC (as it is interpreted by RB) is full of people who do not need to be taught, or corrected, or rebuked. They're the perfect sheep, they never really need care, or can care for themselves.

No, the fact is that we are all like sheep who go astray from time to time. And what we fail to realize when we talk about invisible things, is if a person were able to see into my innermost soul, they would probably say I'm not elect. All the fruit in the world cannot cover a sin-sick soul from God's gaze. If we could have His sight, then perhaps we could have a church where everyone is who they seem to be. But the fact is, we do not have that sight, and we, especially the Reformed, have a tendency to be quick to judge if we are not mature in our faith.

Some of these things need to be left to God. And He will most certainly deal with them. See Matthew 7:21-23 and 25:31ff.

Obviously He's given us some sense of who is a sheep and who is a wolf. And we should take care to exercise the keys. But it's not always so easy to tell a sheep from a goat, especially when we are so prone to judge harshly. We need, rather, to pray and seek the Lord. Let's worry about those in the church, disciple, and care for them. God will sort out the rest.

In Christ,

KC

Originally Posted by rbcbob

Rich, I am not sure why my comments would cause such agitation. They were specifically expounding upon LBC 26:2 which addresses the paradigm for understanding who it is that ought to be brought into the membership of the church. Again, Baptists see the pattern to be modeled as the NC identification of those, and only those, who personally know the Lord. That is the pattern and we, with all of our finite limitations, seek to use that pattern rather than the OC pattern.

I don't think Rich is agitated. He's just trying to engage. He explained that he's attempting to use categories you define, not those he imposes. If he's frustrated, its because instead of answering him within your own definitions, you may be assuming he challenges you with an external critique.

Here's what I'm interested in:

Originally Posted by rbcbob

Now certainly there will be mistakes made by fallible shepherds using either pattern. But that there will be many more admitted into the fold who do not know the Lord using the Old Covenant pattern as contrasted with the New Covenant pattern must be readily apparent to all.

I would like to see specifically that bold statement defended, biblically. That is not a premise I am willing to grant, as if it were just "obvious to every fair minded person," or some such.

Since the difference you spelled out in the previous paragraph between "the New Covenant pattern" vs. "the Old Covenant pattern" is part of your special claim, it won't do simply to assert it as the basis.

Well said Bruce. I'm not agitated. I do agree with Bruce that the premises shift and it makes it difficult to interact. If you want to talk about the Elect then talk about the Elect but don't be surprised when you jump to visible Church practice and no premises have been introduced to qualify your behavior. I'm trying to internally understand the paradigm.


Using your premises:
1. The New Covenant consists of the Elect alone.
2. We don't know who the elect are.
3. Since we don't know who the elect are, we'll do the next "best thing", which is consider only those whose profession and conduct has not indicated to us they are not unregenerate and make them Church members.
4. But some elect look like the unregenerate.
5. Some unregenerate are baptized (but we did our best not to)
6. The visible Church is not the New Covenant

Thus, Jer 31 does not apply to the visible Church.

In other words, it is not a very long jump to look at the passage you quoted from Jeremiah 31 or the passage that Randy quoted from 1 Cor 5 and say to yourself: "Ah, see, this is saying that only the Elect are in the New Covenant Church..."

Yet the minute you leave your Bible and look up to the people around you there is an immediate problem: you have no idea who is in the New Covenant. At that point, the "...we'll do the best we can to match the ideal New Covenant that we can..." model sets in.

I would simply like to know the exegetical standard for concluding that your NT standard yields to greater "reliability" than the OT standard (especially since, didactically, God blamed a lack of training and discipline in the home for apostasy). How would a person who needs to be rebuked for his long time hard-heartedness look different than one who was clearly unregenerate? How does the Church know who is a smoldering wick and who never had a flame? How does the Church know who is obviously regenerated by their conduct and profession and those that will appeal to the same to Christ on the Last Day and be told to depart from Him because He never knew them?

This is so core to the defintion above, that it is surprising to me that nobody ever lays it out clearly so that the criteria can be defined.

One last question:

But that there will be many more admitted into the fold who do not know the Lord using the Old Covenant pattern as contrasted with the New Covenant pattern must be readily apparent to all.

Is the "fold" the New Covenant or the visible Church? I thought Christ's sheep were only those in the NC and, consequently, even if a Baptist Church inadvertently baptizes a false professor, does this increase the "fold" according to your understanding? It makes the visible Church bigger but the visible Church is not the New Covenant.

I fear that what this does, practically speaking, is make the criteria for church membership whether or not you're already a disciple. If that were truly the case, we wouldn't have seen so many join the church in the NT. The Ethiopian eunuch? We'd have to look at him awhile. The Philippian jailor? He have to show more fruit in keeping with repentance.

Kevin,

I believe there is a misunderstanding between a credible profession and progressive sanctification. A person who confesses faith in Christ will be questioned by the elders to make sure it is a genuine profession. This does need to be a lengthy period of time. It can be as simple as understanding the basics of law and gospel. There is no scriptural warrant to examine their lives beyond this. Once we are satisified that their profession is real (to the degree any of us know for sure) we will accept the person into the church via baptism. You do the same for adult converts, so there really shouldn't be any disagreement on this point.

Sanctification is a different matter. Not every professor is a possessor. A seemingly credible profession may be proven false by a person who leaves the faith (1 JN 2:19). Each situation has to considered separately; but sanctification is not a requirement for membership, nor is a discipleship evaluation period. Believe and be baptized.

Originally Posted by Herald

I fear that what this does, practically speaking, is make the criteria for church membership whether or not you're already a disciple. If that were truly the case, we wouldn't have seen so many join the church in the NT. The Ethiopian eunuch? We'd have to look at him awhile. The Philippian jailor? He have to show more fruit in keeping with repentance.

Kevin,

I believe there is a misunderstanding between a credible profession and progressive sanctification. A person who confesses faith in Christ will be questioned by the elders to make sure it is a genuine profession. This does need to be a lengthy period of time. It can be as simple as understanding the basics of law and gospel. There is no scriptural warrant to examine their lives beyond this. Once we are satisified that their profession is real (to the degree any of us know for sure) we will accept the person into the church via baptism. You do the same for adult converts, so there really shouldn't be any disagreement on this point.

Sanctification is a different matter. Not every professor is a possessor. A seemingly credible profession may be proven false by a person who leaves the faith (1 JN 2:19). Each situation has to considered separately; but sanctification is not a requirement for membership, nor is a discipleship evaluation period. Believe and be baptized.

Do you agree with Bob, then, that profession is a better guarantee of introducing less into the "fold" (if that's possible) under the NT paradigm? In other words, the parable of the Sower comes to mind where 2 out of the 4 types of seed yielded temporary fruit.

In other words, is the "make sure we have the fewest number of non-Elect in the visible congregation" the controlling paradigm?

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

The problem, as I see it, is that the struggling Saint may often seem to be one who has destroyed his profession. The emphasis on visible faithfulness speaks to a concern to uproot anything that resembles a weed in the garden.

I have heard people use this before. But in Jesus' parable of the wheat and the tares, the field is the world, not the local Church.


Mat 13:38 The field is the world

Jesus is not forbidding Church discipline or excommunication (which He explicitly commands later), but He is forbidding the use of physicality in the furtherance of the Kingdom. Think "inquisition", and the Salem witch trials. these people were not just told "you are no longer welcome at this assembly, until you publicly repent". They were killed, or, "Plucked out of the world".

And before you say "That's a stretch", remember that the 1st century environment was something entirely foreign to ours today. Such brutality was common.

I know this is not really the point of the thread: just wanting to clarify the "plucking weed" idea is not something that applies to the local church.

Is the "fold" the New Covenant or the visible Church? I thought Christ's sheep were only those in the NC and, consequently, even if a Baptist Church inadvertently baptizes a false professor, does this increase the "fold" according to your understanding? It makes the visible Church bigger but the visible Church is not the New Covenant.

Rich,

The fold is only the invisible church. In. A generic sense we may refer to the local church as the body of Christ because we ultimately cannot distinguish between wheat and tares. But this isn't a matter of terminology, which both sides can stumble over. It's about the nature of the New Covenant. Who is in the New Covenant? That's the real issue.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Originally Posted by Herald

I fear that what this does, practically speaking, is make the criteria for church membership whether or not you're already a disciple. If that were truly the case, we wouldn't have seen so many join the church in the NT. The Ethiopian eunuch? We'd have to look at him awhile. The Philippian jailor? He have to show more fruit in keeping with repentance.

Kevin,

I believe there is a misunderstanding between a credible profession and progressive sanctification. A person who confesses faith in Christ will be questioned by the elders to make sure it is a genuine profession. This does need to be a lengthy period of time. It can be as simple as understanding the basics of law and gospel. There is no scriptural warrant to examine their lives beyond this. Once we are satisified that their profession is real (to the degree any of us know for sure) we will accept the person into the church via baptism. You do the same for adult converts, so there really shouldn't be any disagreement on this point.

Sanctification is a different matter. Not every professor is a possessor. A seemingly credible profession may be proven false by a person who leaves the faith (1 JN 2:19). Each situation has to considered separately; but sanctification is not a requirement for membership, nor is a discipleship evaluation period. Believe and be baptized.

Do you agree with Bob, then, that profession is a better guarantee of introducing less into the "fold" (if that's possible) under the NT paradigm? In other words, the parable of the Sower comes to mind where 2 out of the 4 types of seed yielded temporary fruit.

In other words, is the "make sure we have the fewest number of non-Elect in the visible congregation" the controlling paradigm?

The church has no business in establishing some sort of spiritual litmus test in order to welcome a new saint into fellowship beyond what scripture teaches. If you believe and are baptized you are welcomed into the visible body of believers. That elders would interview a candidate for membership to make sure they can articulate the basics of their faith is reasonable and biblical. Anything beyond that is reserved for sheperding the flock.

Originally Posted by Damon Rambo

I have heard people use this before. But in Jesus' parable of the wheat and the tares, the field is the world, not the local Church.

Originally Posted by Herald

Rich,

The fold is only the invisible church. In. A generic sense we may refer to the local church as the body of Christ because we ultimately cannot distinguish between wheat and tares.

Just wanted to point this out.

Originally Posted by Herald

But this isn't a matter of terminology, which both sides can stumble over. It's about the nature of the New Covenant. Who is in the New Covenant? That's the real issue.

What is the real issue? What does New Covenant composition have to do with the local Church as that is what this thread is about. There is an application or connection being drawn between New Covenant composition and local Church membership. Profession and obedience are seen by some as connecting them. Yet, as you note, no real litmus test is to be applied to ascertain regeneracy.

Does NC membership bear at all upon decisions to admit or bar from local Church membership? If not, then "Who is in the New Covenant?" really is not the issue at all.

Rich,

I made the statement about the NC being the issue because of where I perceived the thread was heading. But since you asked...

All who are regenerate are in the NC. I think we would be agreed on that. ONLY those who are regenerate are in the NC. On that we would disagree. The visible church is made up of those who are both regenerate (in the NC) and some who are false saints. The invisible church is made up only of those who are regenerate and, consequently, in the NC. Again, we should be agreed. Our disagreement is including individuals in the NC in the absence of a profession. Baptists believe a credible profession is imperfect evidence of regeneration. Because Baptists believe in a NC church, and since only the regenerate are in the NC, we admit into membership those who profess to be in the NC. In that sense the NC and regeneration are inexorably linked.

The more I study and read threads like this one the more Baptist I become. Thank you all for posting with charity and clarity.

Originally Posted by Herald

Kevin,

I believe there is a misunderstanding between a credible profession and progressive sanctification. A person who confesses faith in Christ will be questioned by the elders to make sure it is a genuine profession. This does need to be a lengthy period of time. It can be as simple as understanding the basics of law and gospel. There is no scriptural warrant to examine their lives beyond this. Once we are satisified that their profession is real (to the degree any of us know for sure) we will accept the person into the church via baptism. You do the same for adult converts, so there really shouldn't be any disagreement on this point.

Sanctification is a different matter. Not every professor is a possessor. A seemingly credible profession may be proven false by a person who leaves the faith (1 JN 2:19). Each situation has to considered separately; but sanctification is not a requirement for membership, nor is a discipleship evaluation period. Believe and be baptized.

I would like to know what scriptural warrant we have of our being satisfied that their profession is real. Pentecost welcomed 3000 souls into the young church, and with no sitting down to evaluate and check them out for a time. I realize that Presbyterian elders want to know the person and hear their profession, and I believe generally this process does not take too long. But I also have had experience, ever so briefly, with Reformed Baptists. (I know a RB pastor who would not baptize my children on their profession of faith, so, that is the basis of my statements. He did want to see evidence of progressive sanctification.) And really, if we're talking about regenerate church membership, then we want to know that the thing signified has already been done before we apply the sign, contrary to many places in Scripture. We want to see some proof that they're born again, before we apply the sign that they have been born again. That really is all it boils down to.

But we're supposed to make disciples, not just baptize them once they already are. I have been baptistic most of my life, and I can tell you that that is the way it is in most baptistic churches. You have to show for yourself that you have learned enough to be a disciple before you can be discipled. And I was raised in a Christian home.

That turns on its head the command given by God to teach our children when we lie down, when we rise up, when we walk along the way, etc.

To be honest, if the apostles could not tell the sheep from the goats, then how can we? At least we know with Paul that he would reason with those who were going astray; that he would plead with them, and I'm sure, spend many tearful hours praying for them. But I really can't believe he would have barred the door from their ever having entered, knowing what he knows now.

If we can't see the invisible church, then we ought not to concern ourselves with trying to maintain it. God knows who are His. If He tells us, that is His prerogative. But He doesn't share that secret knowledge with us, so we need to disciple everyone we can, and welcome them into the discipline of the church. If they go out from us, it should be after we've pleaded with them, and spent many hours praying for them. But we shouldn't look back at all, or rethink who we allow in the doors. We should invite everyone to the wedding feast knowing that some will not come, some will come but will not have put on their wedding clothes, and even some more will come and be welcomed to the feast as family. But we don't know who these are. No matter how much fruit we inspect or how discerning we are.

In Christ,

KC

To break it down.

Premise 1:

Originally Posted by Herald

All who are regenerate are in the NC. I think we would be agreed on that.

Premise 2:

Originally Posted by Herald

ONLY those who are regenerate are in the NC.

Premise 3:

Originally Posted by Herald

The visible church is made up of those who are both regenerate (in the NC) and some who are false saints.

Premise 4:

Originally Posted by Herald

The invisible church is made up only of those who are regenerate and, consequently, in the NC.

Premise 5:

Originally Posted by Herald

Baptists believe a credible profession is imperfect evidence of regeneration.

Conclusion:

Originally Posted by Herald

Because Baptists believe in a NC church, and since only the regenerate are in the NC, we admit into membership those who profess to be in the NC. In that sense the NC and regeneration are inexorably linked.

The problem with your argument is that you introduced a premise in your conclusion that has not been established, by Scripture, as a valid premise.

In fact, by your Confession, you need to add "...who profess to be in the NC and obey thereunto..."

Premise 1-4 only tell you that you don't know who is in the NC but then you are jumping to the conclusion of admitting to the visible Church (not the NC) those who profess and obey.

What is lacking in the argument are these didactic principles, derived from the Word:
1. A command to the Church to match the identity of those baptized with the composition of those who are Elect.
2. That profession is seen to be the "imperfect means" for establishing that group and none other.
3. If the desire is to match the composition of the visible Church to the composition of the NC then what criteria are used to confidently distinguish between the "bruised reed" and the unregenerate.

If you can provide the didactic principles then the practices may be said to be inexorably linked.

Kevin,

Three thousand souls coming to faith at one time is certainly not normative. Would you agree with me that Acts records a transitionary period in the young New Testament church and that we need to proceed cautiously when something is not normative? I would daresay that if three thousand people came to faith at one time in a reasonably sized town that the normative function of the church would be, at a minimum, stressed. But if we must stay in Acts, I can think of a few interesting passages. I'll start with the passage you mentioned.

Acts 2:41 41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

Received first --> Baptism --> added to the church

Acts 5:14 14 And all the more believers in the Lord, multitudes of men and women, were constantly added to their number;

Believe --> added to the church

Acts 8:36-37 36 And as they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, "Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?" 37 And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

Believe --> Baptism

Acts 10:47 47 "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?"

Received the Holy Spirit (after/during regeneration) --> Baptism

Acts 16:33-34 33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. 34 And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.

Believed (verse 34) --> Baptism

Ephesians 4:4-6 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

one Lord (through Who salvation is possible) --> one faith --> one baptism

Outside of Acts 2 & 5, membership in the church is assumed once baptism was administered even if there was no church present in that area. As I said earlier, Acts is a transitional period in which the church was being established in prior unevangelized areas. Many times those that were converted were the first members of that local church.

Kevin, as to your anecdotal accounts, how can they be responded to? I am not an apologist for those Baptist churches who have fuzzy soteriology and ecclesiology. I came out of that background as well; but instead of heading into Presbyterianism, I decided to become a Reformed Baptist. Reformed Baptist churches, along with many Founders churches, are recapturing solid Baptist distinctives that have been blurred over the past 100+ years.

I know a RB pastor who would not baptize my children on their profession of faith, so, that is the basis of my statements.

Nor was my daughter allowed to be baptized at five years old after she "said the prayer" in kindergarden. Why? Because she had absolutely no idea what she had done. The pastor came to our house to talk with her and she just thought Jesus was akin to Santa Claus. I am grateful my pastor refused to baptize her at that time.

To be honest, if the apostles could not tell the sheep from the goats, then how can we? At least we know with Paul that he would reason with those who were going astray; that he would plead with them, and I'm sure, spend many tearful hours praying for them. But I really can't believe he would have barred the door from their ever having entered, knowing what he knows now.

If we can't see the invisible church, then we ought not to concern ourselves with trying to maintain it.

I believe my position, and that of Reformed Baptists in general, is being mischaracterized. You already came out in support of the Presbyterian practice of verifying a credible profession:

I realize that Presbyterian elders want to know the person and hear their profession, and I believe generally this process does not take too long.

You then tried to disparage how Baptists do it by injecting anecdotal evidence. If you come to my church we don't "take too long" either. If you can articulate your faith, and don't inject some obvious theological land mine into the discussion, we will accept that. We will accept you as a sheep. I've been saying that in various ways throughout this thread. I'd really like Presbyterians to acknowledge that. The only time we'll question whether a sheep is a sheep is if we find ourselves in advanced church discipline, where the individual has refused to repent and stands on the cusp of being put out.

Originally Posted by Herald

Kevin,

Three thousand souls coming to faith at one time is certainly not normative. Would you agree with me that Acts records a transitionary period in the young New Testament church and that we need to proceed cautiously when something is not normative? I would daresay that if three thousand people came to faith at one time in a reasonably sized town that the normative function of the church would be, at a minimum, stressed. But if we must stay in Acts, I can think of a few interesting passages. I'll start with the passage you mentioned.

Nowhere in the pastoral epistles, from which we would derive normative practices, do I see anyone telling anyone else to be careful who we allow in the door. Paul does tell Timothy to beware certain individuals, but he doesn't tell him to not let them in.

Additionally, ministers and elders are responsible for what they teach and what they teach others to do. There is NO prohibition anywhere in Scripture that says God is going to hold these men accountable for anyone they let in the door. There are no judgments against any leader of the church for who they baptize, if they show themselves to be false. God does not throw the minister away with the false professor, unless the minister is not known to the Lord either. So this is a false dilemma.

God is not going to hold someone guilty for who they let in the door, but we do see what happens to teachers who will not allow anyone to come in. They end up like the Pharisees.

Outside of Acts 2 & 5, membership in the church is assumed once baptism was administered even if there was no church present in that area. As I said earlier, Acts is a transitional period in which the church was being established in prior unevangelized areas. Many times those that were converted were the first members of that local church.

Yet, would you not agree that you are calling normative how the church grew in that time period. If you are going to say that believe=be baptized, then you are saying that it is normative for baptism to be professing believers only.

Kevin, as to your anecdotal accounts, how can they be responded to? I am not an apologist for those Baptist churches who have fuzzy soteriology and ecclesiology. I came out of that background as well; but instead of heading into Presbyterianism, I decided to become a Reformed Baptist. Reformed Baptist churches, along with many Founders churches, are recapturing solid Baptist distinctives that have been blurred over the past 100+ years.

I can only use them to show that this is the ultimate end of your assumptions. If you assume that you must only allow those regenerate in your midst, then you will, by default, create a false dilemma, and criteria for church membership, which isn't exactly biblical.

Nor was my daughter allowed to be baptized at five years old after she "said the prayer" in kindergarden. Why? Because she had absolutely no idea what she had done. The pastor came to our house to talk with her and she just thought Jesus was akin to Santa Claus. I am grateful my pastor refused to baptize her at that time.

Which exercises faith? Making sure your daughter is a believer before applying the sign, or trusting God that He will work by His Spirit in due season? One looks at the profession for assurance, the other looks at God's promise. I know that may be a gross generalization, because I am not saying you don't trust in God for your daughter's salvation. But if her actions or profession ease your mind and give you even an ounce of assurance prior to applying the sign, you're trusting in something that could be fleeting, especially in a child.

We do not allow children to join the church based upon what they have done, we allow them to join the church based upon what God has done in the family. And we trust that He will continue His work through the means of grace.

I believe my position, and that of Reformed Baptists in general, is being mischaracterized. You already came out in support of the Presbyterian practice of verifying a credible profession:

I realize that Presbyterian elders want to know the person and hear their profession, and I believe generally this process does not take too long.

You then tried to disparage how Baptists do it by injecting anecdotal evidence. If you come to my church we don't "take too long" either. If you can articulate your faith, and don't inject some obvious theological land mine into the discussion, we will accept that. We will accept you as a sheep. I've been saying that in various ways throughout this thread. I'd really like Presbyterians to acknowledge that. The only time we'll question whether a sheep is a sheep is if we find ourselves in advanced church discipline, where the individual has refused to repent and stands on the cusp of being put out.

But what proof do we Presbyterians look to in order to verify? In the OPC, we ask four specific questions, which, when answered in the affirmative, we receive them into the communion of the saints. They have answered that they will submit in the Lord to the government of the church, and that they will heed its discipline should they be found delinquent in doctrine or life. What other things do we need? Do we need to make sure they can submit, but making a case against so that they submit? Do we try to catch them in any sin to see if they will immediately repent. No, we allow them to live and serve among us. This is the pattern of the NT. And when they are found delinquent in doctrine or life, they are dealt with appropriately, to, hopefully, their restoration. But if needs be, they will be put out from among us. But why go to such great lengths to bar the door, especially when there is no explicit command to do so?

Now the OP expressed the concept of regenerate church membership. Correct me if I am wrong, but if you are going to argue for such membership, then you must go to these lengths in order to find out if the person is really regenerate.

But in the end, you will be fooled. You may be able to see some, but you won't see all. Martin Luther said something to the effect that he will be suprised by two groups of people in heaven, those he thought would never make it, but did, and those he thought were sure to make it, but didn't. And the most surprising of all is that he made it. That's our situation and we cannot do anything about it except for watch and pray.

Paul's words are so warm, "And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will."

We have no idea who will turn from sin unto God. So we should not put a stumbling block in their way, but be gentle and kind to them. Why should anyone want to come into the church, if they must pass the test first? Let them come in first, have a drink of cool water, be refreshed in their soul, hear the word's of the savior, and contemplate their position before their creator. If they hear that they must provide proof of gospel obedience first, they may seek another place.

Again, I am not saying you are advocating what I've experienced. But my statement to you is that this is the ultimate end of your thinking.

In Christ,

KC

If we can't see the invisible church, then we ought not to concern ourselves with trying to maintain it.

And yet for some reason, a consenting, but non-professing, spouse would be refused baptism....

Originally Posted by kceaster

Additionally, ministers and elders are responsible for what they teach and what they teach others to do. There is NO prohibition anywhere in Scripture that says God is going to hold these men accountable for anyone they let in the door. There are no judgments against any leader of the church for who they baptize, if they show themselves to be false. God does not throw the minister away with the false professor, unless the minister is not known to the Lord either. So this is a false dilemma.

God is not going to hold someone guilty for who they let in the door, but we do see what happens to teachers who will not allow anyone to come in. They end up like the Pharisees.

KC

Kevin, I strongly disagree with your assertions. As pastors we are indeed held responsible for the integrity and safety of the flock.


Acts 20:27-31 27 "For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God. 28 "Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29 "For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 "Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. 31 "Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.

Acts 2:41 - 3:1 41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. 42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. 43 Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. 44 Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, 45 and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need. 46 So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.
There seems to be a clear sequence in Acts requiring BELIEVER’S baptism wherein the obedient convert, having exercised faith in Jesus follows Christ’s command to be baptized.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

This BELIEVER’S baptism presupposes (1) the sovereign work of the Spirit in regeneration, (2) the faith and (3) repentance of the candidate for baptism

Acts 8:36 Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?" 37 Then Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

Acts 10:47 "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?

Acts 18:8 Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.

Since, as Baptists, we understand that it is believers who have been (in the inscrutable workings of God’s sovereignty) made members of the New Covenant. As elders charged with shepherding the flock of God how are we to discern who those are who have trusted Christ to the saving of their souls?
We do so by resorting to the Scriptures of the New Covenant and “ … by good and necessary consequence which may be deduced from Scripture”.
Paul, upon encountering “DISCIPLES” in Ephesus finds their conversion and subsequent baptism doubtful. He questions them; preaches Christ to them and THEN baptizes them.

Acts 19:3 And he said to them, "Into what then were you baptized?" So they said, "Into John's baptism." 4 Then Paul said, "John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Kevin,

You said:

Nowhere in the pastoral epistles, from which we would derive normative practices, do I see anyone telling anyone else to be careful who we allow in the door.

Would you please point to one thing said by me that indicates otherwise? Words mean things.

There is NO prohibition anywhere in Scripture that says God is going to hold these men accountable for anyone they let in the door.

Again, would you please show me where I said or even inferred that pastors/elders are accountable for who they let in the door?

If you are going to say that believe=be baptized, then you are saying that it is normative for baptism to be professing believers only.

Yes, I am.

If you assume that you must only allow those regenerate in your midst, then you will, by default, create a false dilemma, and criteria for church membership, which isn't exactly biblical.

For the third time, when have I have said or inferred that we must allow only those who are regenerate in our midst?

Which exercises faith? Making sure your daughter is a believer before applying the sign, or trusting God that He will work by His Spirit in due season? One looks at the profession for assurance, the other looks at God's promise. I know that may be a gross generalization, because I am not saying you don't trust in God for your daughter's salvation. But if her actions or profession ease your mind and give you even an ounce of assurance prior to applying the sign, you're trusting in something that could be fleeting, especially in a child.

Kevin, it's obvious you do not understand the Reformed Baptist position on baptism or visible church membership.

As for the rest of your post, what the OPC does is not germane to this discussion (no disrespect to my OPC brethren). You have created a caricature of how Reformed Baptists handle everything from membership to baptism. I believe I have been clear and concise in my previous posts and don't feel inclined to repeat what I've said.

Originally Posted by Houston E.

If we can't see the invisible church, then we ought not to concern ourselves with trying to maintain it.

And yet for some reason, a consenting, but non-professing, spouse would be refused baptism....

Trey, you act as though this shocks you. Name me one Reformed Baptist church that would willingly apply the sign of the New Covenant to a professed unbeliever.

Originally Posted by rbcbob

Kevin, I strongly disagree with your assertions. As pastors we are indeed held responsible for the integrity and safety of the flock.

Acts 20:27-31 27 "For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God. 28 "Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29 "For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 "Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. 31 "Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.

I would humbly assert that you hadn't read all my assertions.

Of course pastors and elders are to care for the flock. And certainly this does include protecting the sheep from within and without. But this does not mean that under-shepherds of the Lord Jesus Christ are to bar the door from those who sincerely want to come in. This sincerity may be more, it may be less. But there is no condemnation against any minister or elder when he brings a sheep into the fold. It's what he does with them afterwards...

And I would also assert that the minister or elder has very little to do with the integrity of the flock. He cannot account for all the souls, he can only do his best to feed and care for them. But in the end, if they are false professors, it is not his burden to bear, unless he knowingly allowed the sheep to stray.

Acts 2:41 - 3:1 41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. 42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. 43 Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. 44 Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, 45 and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need. 46 So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.
There seems to be a clear sequence in Acts requiring BELIEVER’S baptism wherein the obedient convert, having exercised faith in Jesus follows Christ’s command to be baptized.

I have no problem with believer's baptism in adult converts.

This BELIEVER’S baptism presupposes (1) the sovereign work of the Spirit in regeneration, (2) the faith and (3) repentance of the candidate for baptism.

I would say it is more assumption than presupposition, but okay. In assuming, we are expecting the Holy Spirit to work in due season. We do not look for proof that He has been working, other than hearing the confession of faith, which can be sincere or not. But we are not checking for the fruit of progressive sanctification, only the gift of repentance, which again, may or may not be sincere.

If this is really the way you look at it, then you can't possibly believe in regenerate ONLY membership. There is no way of knowing whether or not a person is sincere in their confession of faith.

Since, as Baptists, we understand that it is believers who have been (in the inscrutable workings of God’s sovereignty) made members of the New Covenant. As elders charged with shepherding the flock of God how are we to discern who those are who have trusted Christ to the saving of their souls?
We do so by resorting to the Scriptures of the New Covenant and “ … by good and necessary consequence which may be deduced from Scripture”.
Paul, upon encountering “DISCIPLES” in Ephesus finds their conversion and subsequent baptism doubtful. He questions them; preaches Christ to them and THEN baptizes them.

Acts 19:3 And he said to them, "Into what then were you baptized?" So they said, "Into John's baptism." 4 Then Paul said, "John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

I will most heartily agree that the Holy Spirit can and does regenerate a person (like these in the text) at a point in time such as this. But this is not normative. Paul here did not baptize with water, but the baptism of the Holy Spirit came upon them when they heard the object of their faith preached. Their eyes were opened and their hearts received the gospel. It was a dry baptism.

However, if you are looking for this in everyone, you will rarely, if ever see it. And even if you do see it, your eyes could be deceiving you.

There is no way to infallibly know the elect, and therefore, have a regenerate only church membership. If God would have wanted His church to know infallibly, He would have given them the power to see it. But this is a mystery of God reserved for His eyes alone.

In Christ,

KC

Rich,

I believe you quoted a snippet of this part of the 1689 LBC:

26.2 All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.

The "obedience unto God by Christ according unto it" is obedience to the universal command to repent and believe. Those who are obedient to the call of the gospel may be called visible saints. The confession seems to be careful on this matter, not guaranteeing that a visible saint is part of the invisible church. We've already covered that ground -- that no one knows for certain the spiritual condition of another.

RB's look at the church, both visible and invisible, differently than Presbyterians (quite an understatement, I know). We see no problem with stating, "The visible church is made up of those who profess faith in Jesus Christ. The invisible church is made up of those who actually have placed their faith in Christ." We proceed on the assumption that those who profess actually possess unless actions and behaviors dictate otherwise. The New Covenant enters the conversation as the governing force over the invisible church. RB's are accused of a disconnect in their insistence on a regenerate church membership; with the belief that we somehow know who is regenerate and who is not. When we state that we don't have perfect knowledge in that area the question is asked, "Then how can you have a regenerate church when you don't know if all your members are regenerate?" About regenerate church membership, in my OP, I said:

Regenerate church membership is actually presumed regenerate church membership.

The church operates as though all are regenerate. The New Covenant governs the function of the visible church (how it should operate), and includes all those who are part of the invisible church. When speaking from a New Covenant perspective we would say that the invisible church only contains those who are regenerate.

Originally Posted by Herald

Kevin,

You said:

Nowhere in the pastoral epistles, from which we would derive normative practices, do I see anyone telling anyone else to be careful who we allow in the door.

Would you please point to one thing said by me that indicates otherwise? Words mean things.

I was under the assumption from a regenerate church membership, and from the LBCF stating what is a saint and what is not a saint, that you were saying a person has to be a saint before they may enter. That is what I am questioning.

There is NO prohibition anywhere in Scripture that says God is going to hold these men accountable for anyone they let in the door.

Again, would you please show me where I said or even inferred that pastors/elders are accountable for who they let in the door?

I am assuming that if churches are to maintain their purity according to the LBCF, that there is an implicit responsibility to keep the church pure by keeping those who we believe to be unregenerate, or perhaps have not shown that they are regenerate to our satisfaction, out of our midst.

Which exercises faith? Making sure your daughter is a believer before applying the sign, or trusting God that He will work by His Spirit in due season? One looks at the profession for assurance, the other looks at God's promise. I know that may be a gross generalization, because I am not saying you don't trust in God for your daughter's salvation. But if her actions or profession ease your mind and give you even an ounce of assurance prior to applying the sign, you're trusting in something that could be fleeting, especially in a child.

Kevin, it's obvious you do not understand the Reformed Baptist position on baptism or visible church membership.

As for the rest of your post, what the OPC does is not germane to this discussion (no disrespect to my OPC brethren). You have created a caricature of how Reformed Baptists handle everything from membership to baptism. I believe I have been clear and concise in my previous posts and don't feel inclined to repeat what I've said.

I do not mean to caricature anyone. I am not making fun of anyone. If you do not believe as I have put forward as "a" Reformed Baptist position, then you are believing differently than I have previously encountered.

In Christ,

KC

Kevin, in rereading the posts may I offer what I hope will be some clarifying definitions that could prove helpful?

Group 1. Members of the New Covenant = The elect from every tribe and tongue and people and nation

Group 2. Members of the local church = Those who (in the judgment of charity) are genuinely part of group 1, desire to join our church, and meet the various qualifications of our particular church (Confessional agreement, etc.)

Group 3. Others in attendance of the services but not members = all who desire to worship with us and hear the Word of God.

Originally Posted by Herald

Rich,

I believe you quoted a snippet of this part of the 1689 LBC:

26.2 All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.

The "obedience unto God by Christ according unto it" is obedience to the universal command to repent and believe. Those who are obedient to the call of the gospel may be called visible saints. The confession seems to be careful on this matter, not guaranteeing that a visible saint is part of the invisible church. We've already covered that ground -- that no one knows for certain the spiritual condition of another.

RB's look at the church, both visible and invisible, differently than Presbyterians (quite an understatement, I know). We see no problem with stating, "The visible church is made up of those who profess faith in Jesus Christ. The invisible church is made up of those who actually have placed their faith in Christ." We proceed on the assumption that those who profess actually possess unless actions and behaviors dictate otherwise. The New Covenant enters the conversation as the governing force over the invisible church. RB's are accused of a disconnect in their insistence on a regenerate church membership; with the belief that we somehow know who is regenerate and who is not. When we state that we don't have perfect knowledge in that area the question is asked, "Then how can you have a regenerate church when you don't know if all your members are regenerate?" About regenerate church membership, in my OP, I said:

Regenerate church membership is actually presumed regenerate church membership.

The church operates as though all are regenerate. The New Covenant governs the function of the visible church (how it should operate), and includes all those who are part of the invisible church. When speaking from a New Covenant perspective we would say that the invisible church only contains those who are regenerate.

Bill,

Again, you have not provided the didactic Scriptural passages to support the premises you introduced into your conclusion above. I know precisely what it is you believe but what I'm disputing is that you have the requisite didactic principles from Scripture to support your premises. It is one thing to simply assert the connection but I see no warrant for the movement from the invisible to the visible.

This thread is going along so well I am almost afraid to post.
I would like to interact however so,
Rich wrote;[summing up what was already posted]

Using your premises:
1. The New Covenant consists of the Elect alone.
2. We don't know who the elect are.
3. Since we don't know who the elect are, we'll do the next "best thing", which is consider only those whose profession and conduct has not indicated to us they are not unregenerate and make them Church members.
4. But some elect look like the unregenerate.
5. Some unregenerate are baptized (but we did our best not to)
6. The visible Church is not the New Covenant

If I were asked to comment on this it would be;
1} yes
2}We do not know for sure who the elect are> but for sure we know that God is drawing all of the elect out of the world ,and translating them into His Kingdom. Somewhere in this world the elect are visible.
When they gather together visibly we call it the church. We are given in scripture a portrait of the elect. What to look for ,and characteristics of who and what a saint is. We are given marks and signs of regeneration Usually the marks and signs are to be used for self-examination
3} As Matthew noted we are to judge righteous judgement.
Our judgements are to be scripturally based .
In Randy's post 1Cor 5 says if any man who is called a brother;

(1Co 5:11) But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

This text allows for a judgement to be made based on fruit, or lack thereof. This judgement is not God's infallible judgement but a direction to protect the actual church from false professors. Or restore one who has gone off toward apostasy,

We do not do the next best thing,and make anyone a church memeber Only God can make a dead sinner come to life as we know. We keep presenting the claims of truth to men and woman ,boys and girls until God is pleased to convert and regenerate someone.
4} santification is a process and also the work of God.
5} No unregenerate are baptized! Persons who profess to believe the gospel and show some evidence of it are baptized.
It may be that some of these individuals fail ,or come short of the promises thru unbelief. Sometimes we see this in those who fall away. Like the parable of Mt 13 indicates, or all of the Hebrews 3-4 verses we all are aware of. If any church would baptize someone in order just to say they have baptized more people shame on them.\
6}The elect who visibly assemble are the New Covenant church. The false professors, false brethren, tares, goats who assemble with the true members will not escape the judgement of God.

We are called to obey, one plants ,one waters, But God gives the increase.
A disciple is someone who follows the teaching of a teacher, good or bad
Harold Camping has disciples. there are true disciples of Jesus,and there are false disciples Jn 6:66.
We are called to be faithful not infallible.

A few thoughts before I head off to bed…

An understanding of the Reformed Baptist view of presumed regenerate church membership cannot be done without understanding the nature and scope of the New Covenant. The promises of the New Covenant are spiritual promises made to spiritual people.

1 Peter 2:9-10 9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

Unbelievers are not a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, or a people for God’s own possession. Unbelievers do not proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called (them) out of darkness into His marvelous light. Unbelievers are not the people of God. They have not received mercy. Indeed they have no “hope and (are) without God in the world.” (Eph. 2:12)

The here and now promise of the New Covenant is seen in Hebrews 8, contrasted against the Old Covenant. The recipients of the New Covenant will have the law of God in their minds and written on their hearts. The Lord will be their God, and they shall be His people. This is perfected in the eternal state, but has a foreshadow here on earth in the church.

Hebrews 8:8-12 8 For finding fault with them, He says, "Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, When I will effect a new covenant With the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; 9 Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers On the day when I took them by the hand To lead them out of the land of Egypt; For they did not continue in My covenant, And I did not care for them, says the Lord. 10 "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel After those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their minds, And I will write them upon their hearts. And I will be their God, And they shall be My people. 11 "And they shall not teach everyone his fellow citizen, And everyone his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' For all shall know Me, From the least to the greatest of them. 12 "For I will be merciful to their iniquities, And I will remember their sins no more."

The New Covenant is represented in the church through the Lord’s Supper. The cup is the New Covenant in His blood (1 Cor. 11:25-29), and is to be enjoyed only by those who are covered by His blood.

The New Testament teaches that an individual enters into the church through believing the gospel. Paul makes this clear to the church at Ephesus:

Ephesians 3:6 6 to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel,

The promise of Christ Jesus is through the gospel. This infers that it is belief in the gospel message (Rom. 10:9, 10) that allows a person to become a fellow partaker of the promise.

The 1 Cor. 11 passage is very strong in my estimation. Unbelievers and unrepentant sinners place themselves in great peril if they partake of the Lord’s Supper. If we allow someone to become a member in the absence of a credible profession of faith, we may be complicit in their bringing judgment on themselves if they partake of the Supper. I see no scriptural warrant to deny a member coming to the table unless there is knowledge that they are in unrepentant sin.

In his letters, Paul addresses the “saints.” In Romans 1 he writes, “to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints.” (Rom. 1:7) Paul’s audience was believers within the visible church. He was writing to true believers.

I’m off to bed now, but these are just a few thoughts I typed out this evening. I’ll deal with it more tomorrow.

Originally Posted by Herald

Originally Posted by Houston E.

If we can't see the invisible church, then we ought not to concern ourselves with trying to maintain it.

And yet for some reason, a consenting, but non-professing, spouse would be refused baptism....

Trey, you act as though this shocks you. Name me one Reformed Baptist church that would willingly apply the sign of the New Covenant to a professed unbeliever.

Sorry if unclear, my response was to Kevin's quote - that if his above quote were true, then there should be no problem baptizing a non-professing spouse, yet they are required to profess before baptism.

I'm with you on this one brother!

Originally Posted by Houston E.

Originally Posted by Herald

Originally Posted by Houston E.

And yet for some reason, a consenting, but non-professing, spouse would be refused baptism....

Trey, you act as though this shocks you. Name me one Reformed Baptist church that would willingly apply the sign of the New Covenant to a professed unbeliever.

Sorry if unclear, my response was to Kevin's quote - that if his above quote were true, then there should be no problem baptizing a non-professing spouse, yet they are required to profess before baptism.

I'm with you on this one brother!

Brother,

I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Blessings!

Originally Posted by Herald

A few thoughts before I head off to bed…

An understanding of the Reformed Baptist view of presumed regenerate church membership cannot be done without understanding the nature and scope of the New Covenant. The promises of the New Covenant are spiritual promises made to spiritual people.

Bill,

Your entire presentation was essentially a recapitulation of the statement: "The NC is with the Elect alone."

I've left that premise alone because there's little point in arguing that here.

You've already presented the same case:

Premise 1:

Originally Posted by Herald

All who are regenerate are in the NC. I think we would be agreed on that.

Premise 2:

Originally Posted by Herald

ONLY those who are regenerate are in the NC.

Premise 3:

Originally Posted by Herald

The visible church is made up of those who are both regenerate (in the NC) and some who are false saints.

Premise 4:

Originally Posted by Herald

The invisible church is made up only of those who are regenerate and, consequently, in the NC.

Premise 5:

Originally Posted by Herald

Baptists believe a credible profession is imperfect evidence of regeneration.

The issue is not whether you believe the NC is with the Elect alone but the premises you are introducing where no didactic Scripture has been brought to bear on how one moves from invisible to visible.

Again:

Conclusion:

Originally Posted by Herald

Because Baptists believe in a NC church, and since only the regenerate are in the NC, we admit into membership those who profess to be in the NC. In that sense the NC and regeneration are inexorably linked.

The problem with your argument is that you introduced a premise in your conclusion that has not been established, by Scripture, as a valid premise.

Premise 1-4 only tell you that you don't know who is in the NC but then you are jumping to the conclusion of admitting to the visible Church (not the NC) those who profess and obey.

What is lacking in the argument are these didactic principles, derived from the Word:
1. A command to the Church to match the identity of those baptized with the composition of those who are Elect.
2. That profession is seen to be the "imperfect means" for establishing that group and none other.
3. If the desire is to match the composition of the visible Church to the composition of the NC then what criteria are used to confidently distinguish between the "bruised reed" and the unregenerate.

What is the exegetical basis for 1-3 above?