CalvinandHodges
Puritan Board Junior
Hey:
Does Baptism signify membership in the Church?
Thanks,
-CH
Does Baptism signify membership in the Church?
Thanks,
-CH
Honest question for Credo-Baptists
- Thread starter CalvinandHodges
- Start date
- Status
I' am not sure exactly what you mean, but I think there is a sense in which baptism and church membership are two seperate things.
In Acts 8 after Phillip has evangelized to and baptised the Ethiopian Eunuch, the Spirit of the Lord took Phillip away, and the Eunuch went his own way. The act of baptism did not join the Eunuch to a particular church by itself. He probably attempted to join himself to a church soon after, or prehaps to start one in Ethiopia, but just after he was baptized he was not a member of any church.
Baptism is the answer of a good conscience toward God (1 Pet 3:21) and as such seems to be a personal act of obedience to God, not a way by which we join ourselves to a local church.
In Acts 8 after Phillip has evangelized to and baptised the Ethiopian Eunuch, the Spirit of the Lord took Phillip away, and the Eunuch went his own way. The act of baptism did not join the Eunuch to a particular church by itself. He probably attempted to join himself to a church soon after, or prehaps to start one in Ethiopia, but just after he was baptized he was not a member of any church.
Baptism is the answer of a good conscience toward God (1 Pet 3:21) and as such seems to be a personal act of obedience to God, not a way by which we join ourselves to a local church.
CalvinandHodges
Puritan Board Junior
Hey:
Thanks for that. Can one be a member of a church and refuse to be baptized? I think the Ethiopian is an extreme example. What about Acts 2 where it says:
Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls, vs. 41.
We should not think of baptism as one thing only, but as it is an outward profession of faith it indicates membership in the Universal Church.
Does it not?
Blessings,
-CH
Thanks for that. Can one be a member of a church and refuse to be baptized? I think the Ethiopian is an extreme example. What about Acts 2 where it says:
Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls, vs. 41.
We should not think of baptism as one thing only, but as it is an outward profession of faith it indicates membership in the Universal Church.
Does it not?
Blessings,
-CH
For the Baptists:
1689 LBCF
Compared to the WCF:
There are a few notable differences, one of which is the notion that Baptism admits one to the visible Church.
1689 LBCF
Compared to the WCF:
There are a few notable differences, one of which is the notion that Baptism admits one to the visible Church.
My point was that the Ethiopian was baptised but that didn't make him part of any particular church.His joining of a church came later after his baptism. Obviously churches should only take in as members those who give a credible profession of faith so that would answer the question about being a member and refusing to be baptised. Baptism may be necessary for membership, but I do not see that it signifies membership.
CalvinandHodges
Puritan Board Junior
Greetings:
So, if I understand it correctly, the credo-baptist does not believe that Baptism is a sign of one being a part of the Universal Church?
Let us take an example:
If a man who lived in Jerusalem, for example, then moved to the city of Antioch. I would assume that the Elders in Antioch would ask if he was baptized? If not, would they require him to be baptized before they made him a member of the church?
If baptism is not required for a person to be a member of the church, then would the credo-baptist Elder ask if the person is/is not baptized before making him a member?
Blessings,
-CH
So, if I understand it correctly, the credo-baptist does not believe that Baptism is a sign of one being a part of the Universal Church?
Let us take an example:
If a man who lived in Jerusalem, for example, then moved to the city of Antioch. I would assume that the Elders in Antioch would ask if he was baptized? If not, would they require him to be baptized before they made him a member of the church?
If baptism is not required for a person to be a member of the church, then would the credo-baptist Elder ask if the person is/is not baptized before making him a member?
Blessings,
-CH
I never said that baptism was not necessary for local church membership.
Before a new member is admitted into a church the pastor should make sure he has made a proper profession of faith in Jesus Christ, repented for all large public sins, is willing to submit to the church etc. These are all prerequisites for membership, and perhaps baptism could fall into one of these prerequisites. But baptism itself does not join a person to a local church.
I am not sure what you mean by baptism being a sign of membership in the Universal Church. There are local churches that are physical gatherings of believers and they have set membership rolls and they are responsible for making sure only those with a credible profession are admitted to membership.
There is a 'univeral church', a general assembly comprised of all of God's elect (Heb 12:23), but without undermining the importance of baptism at all, I don't see where the bible states baptism is a sign of entering that assembly.
Before a new member is admitted into a church the pastor should make sure he has made a proper profession of faith in Jesus Christ, repented for all large public sins, is willing to submit to the church etc. These are all prerequisites for membership, and perhaps baptism could fall into one of these prerequisites. But baptism itself does not join a person to a local church.
I am not sure what you mean by baptism being a sign of membership in the Universal Church. There are local churches that are physical gatherings of believers and they have set membership rolls and they are responsible for making sure only those with a credible profession are admitted to membership.
There is a 'univeral church', a general assembly comprised of all of God's elect (Heb 12:23), but without undermining the importance of baptism at all, I don't see where the bible states baptism is a sign of entering that assembly.
*sigh* I'm only dipping one foot in here. I just want to clear up the confusion on the Baptist view of baptism and church membership.
Entrance into the invisible church is through regeneration.
Entrance into the visible church is through baptism. While the WCF specifically mentions entrance into the visible church via baptism, Baptists have historically regarded baptism as the method by which an individual is granted membership.
I will now retreat back to my hole.
Entrance into the invisible church is through regeneration.
Entrance into the visible church is through baptism. While the WCF specifically mentions entrance into the visible church via baptism, Baptists have historically regarded baptism as the method by which an individual is granted membership.
I will now retreat back to my hole.
And entrance into the local body is conditional upon, and separate from, the entrance into the visible and invisible.
You can be regenerated, then baptised by a particular local body, but not gain membership there.
Be careful with this topic. Terms need to be accurately defined as the discussion grows, or confusion will result.
<---also retreating back into his hole.
Chris - let me drill down a bit. If an individual applies for membership in a Baptist church, they must be baptized. No baptism, no membership. Yes, being baptized does not make them a member unless they apply for membership. I can see how my earlier post may have been confusing.
Coram Deo
Puritan Board Junior
Ok, Apparently I am dissenting more and more with my baptist confession and agreeing more and more with the Westminister in a number of things, including some issues with baptism... I hope that does not mean I am about to become a paedo.. 
I agree more with our 1693 Catechism that Baptism is a Sacrament... More then an ordinance like the 1689 confession speaks of... I have no trouble with Sacrament.
I also agree that while Baptism is an entrance sign into the visible church I also believe it to be entrance into the invisible church as a Sign of the New Covenant, similiar to how circumcision was applied in the Old Covenant except now is not given to our children. But Sealed by the Regeneration of the Holy Spirit.
Michael
I agree more with our 1693 Catechism that Baptism is a Sacrament... More then an ordinance like the 1689 confession speaks of... I have no trouble with Sacrament.
I also agree that while Baptism is an entrance sign into the visible church I also believe it to be entrance into the invisible church as a Sign of the New Covenant, similiar to how circumcision was applied in the Old Covenant except now is not given to our children. But Sealed by the Regeneration of the Holy Spirit.
Michael
Michael - this was my whole point to you in the previous baptism thread we participated in. I wasn't trying to insult you when I said you were not a Baptist. I was just stating the obvious. You really aren't a Baptist, or at least not for long. Your baptismal and church polity leanings are moving you more towards the Presbyterian camp. That is not an insult, just an observation. If you find your heart moving to the Presbyterian viewpoint, God bless you.
Coram Deo
Puritan Board Junior
Well most of my views on Baptism aleast are held by Sam Waldron (Pretty famous Reformed Baptist) and I would not say that he is leaning Paedobaptism..
But in other areas I do lean toward the Presbyterian camp....
No insult taken from previous thread... I still like what my wife called us.. A Reformed Pres-Bap-Piscopal
Michael
But in other areas I do lean toward the Presbyterian camp....
No insult taken from previous thread... I still like what my wife called us.. A Reformed Pres-Bap-Piscopal
Michael
Coram Deo
Puritan Board Junior
I guess I am going to have to tell my wifey that nobody but us thinks that the name was funny...... oh well......
Michael
Michael
I still like what my wife called us.. A Reformed Pres-Bap-Piscopal
Michael
jenney
Puritan Board Freshman
My elders wouldn't baptise someone who wasn't joining our church! Why would they baptise someone who isn't going to be under their authority? That seems odd and I can't imagine a circumstance that would make it not so.
jenney
Puritan Board Freshman
Mine, too, and I've been told that I'm a baptist in name only, and that if only I'd "apply the sign" properly, then I could just be a happy presbyterian!
But I can't buy into the paedo interpretation of Jer. 31 and Heb 8, which is a HUGE DEAL, so I still call myself a reformed baptist.
A Reformed Pres-Bap-Piscopal
haha. To my eyes it looks too much like pepto bismol, however.
Coram Deo
Puritan Board Junior
Me too... Baptist only in name, and I have been told if only I apply the sign properly... lol I just said yesterday at church "If only I could be a happy presbyterian.." lol
Anyway, I agree with you on Jer. 31, Hebrews 8 and I would also say John 6 in reference to how "They shall all know me" in Jer 31 is being fulfilled now and completed in the consummation...
Thats Funny.....
Michael
Anyway, I agree with you on Jer. 31, Hebrews 8 and I would also say John 6 in reference to how "They shall all know me" in Jer 31 is being fulfilled now and completed in the consummation...
Thats Funny..... haha. To my eyes it looks too much like pepto bismol, however.
Michael
William Gadsby's Catechism:
Question LXXXIV. What is Baptism?
Answer. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, instituted by Jesus Christ, to be unto the person baptized a sign of his fellowship with Him in His death, burial and resurrection; of his death unto sin, wrath and the law, and all other lords; of his resurrection unto life, and of his giving up himself unto God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.
Rom. 6.3-5; Gal. 3.27; Col. 2.11-13 & 3.1-3; 1 Pet. 3.21.
Keach's Catechism:
Q. 98. How do Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation?
A. Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them or in him that administers them, but only by the blessing of Christ and the working of His Spirit in them that by faith receive them. (1 Peter 3:21; 1 Cor. 3:6,7; 1 Cor. 12:13)
Q. 99. Wherein do Baptism and the Lord's Supper differ from the other ordinances of God?
A. Baptism and the Lord's Supper differ from the other ordinances of God in that they were specially instituted by Christ to represent and apply to believers the benefits of the new covenant by visible and outward signs. (Matt. 28:19; Acts 22:16; Matt. 26:26-28; Rom. 6:4)
Q. 100. What is Baptism?
A. Baptism is an holy ordinance, wherein the washing with water in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, signifies our ingrafting into Christ and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord's. (Matt. 28:19; Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:12; Gal. 3:27)
Q. 105. What is the visible church?
A. The visible church is the organized society of professing believers, in all ages and places, wherein the Gospel is truly preached and the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper rightly administered. (Acts 2:42; 20:7; Acts 7:38; Eph. 4:11,12)
Question LXXXIV. What is Baptism?
Answer. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, instituted by Jesus Christ, to be unto the person baptized a sign of his fellowship with Him in His death, burial and resurrection; of his death unto sin, wrath and the law, and all other lords; of his resurrection unto life, and of his giving up himself unto God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.
Rom. 6.3-5; Gal. 3.27; Col. 2.11-13 & 3.1-3; 1 Pet. 3.21.
Keach's Catechism:
Q. 98. How do Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation?
A. Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them or in him that administers them, but only by the blessing of Christ and the working of His Spirit in them that by faith receive them. (1 Peter 3:21; 1 Cor. 3:6,7; 1 Cor. 12:13)
Q. 99. Wherein do Baptism and the Lord's Supper differ from the other ordinances of God?
A. Baptism and the Lord's Supper differ from the other ordinances of God in that they were specially instituted by Christ to represent and apply to believers the benefits of the new covenant by visible and outward signs. (Matt. 28:19; Acts 22:16; Matt. 26:26-28; Rom. 6:4)
Q. 100. What is Baptism?
A. Baptism is an holy ordinance, wherein the washing with water in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, signifies our ingrafting into Christ and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord's. (Matt. 28:19; Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:12; Gal. 3:27)
Q. 105. What is the visible church?
A. The visible church is the organized society of professing believers, in all ages and places, wherein the Gospel is truly preached and the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper rightly administered. (Acts 2:42; 20:7; Acts 7:38; Eph. 4:11,12)
Also;
Q. Is the sacrament of baptism a means of grace according to Reformed Baptist theology?
A. Some Reformed Baptists prefer not to use the term "sacrament" due to some negative historical associations. However, Reformed Baptists fully affirm a Reformed view of the sacraments as a means of grace.
The 1689 Confession is admittedly not as clear on this point as it could be. But Keach's Catechism, which was written to clarify the theology of the Confession, makes it pretty clear:
Therefore, baptism is a means of grace in Reformed Baptist theology.
Q. How can baptism be a means of grace in Baptist theology when Baptists assert that a person must already be saved to be eligible for baptism?
A. It is too narrow a reading of the terms "means of grace" and "effectual to salvation" to limit them to the moment of conversion. Christ "communicates to us the benefits of redemption" in an ongoing way not only to regenerate and justify us initially but also to sanctify and preserve us throughout our Christian lives. When the Shorter Catechism (Q. 89) and Keach's Catechism (Q. 96) ask "How is the Word made effectual to salvation?", they do not limit the effect of the Word in salvation to the moment of conversion. In fact, they explicitly affirm in the answer that the Word is effectual to salvation both in conversion and in continuing the Christian life:
The two catechisms have identical answers to this question.
Some Reformed Baptists may be uncomfortable with this second response, but I'll state it anyway. Baptists have historically seen baptism as the culmination of the conversion experience. Among other things, it seals and confirms, both to the party being baptized and to others, that the party has engaged to be the Lord's and is now united with Him. Although no warrant is given to baptize someone with the goal of converting him, in many cases the person may exercise faith in Christ through the means either of contemplating or participating in baptism. Beasley-Murray in Baptism in the New Testament makes a very strong case that the conversion experience and the act of baptism need not be separated in our conception of the two, since the NT so often speaks of them in an interchangeable manner. This is true, in spite of the fact that the two can be separated for study or in one's experience. From the believer's perspective, baptism can be viewed as a visible prayer in which the believer "signifies [his] ingrafting into Christ and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and [his] engagement to be the Lord's."
One could also theoretically benefit from a sacrament as a means of grace before being converted, as paedobaptists argue that infants do in baptism. The objection to infant baptism in this respect is twofold. First, infants are not eligible for baptism and thus have no divine warrant to participate in a means of grace that is not designed for them. Second, baptism is a means of grace at the moment of participation (as well as before and after) that requires the awareness and voluntary participation of the party baptized. If God chose to design a means of grace to be applied to the unconverted and/or to those who can't voluntarily participate, then we should have no problem imagining how they might benefit from it. But if the design includes the awareness and voluntary participation of the party baptized, then it is a perversion and a truncation of the sacrament to admit anyone else.
From: http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~sjreeves/personal/baptism_faq.html#6
Q. Is the sacrament of baptism a means of grace according to Reformed Baptist theology?
A. Some Reformed Baptists prefer not to use the term "sacrament" due to some negative historical associations. However, Reformed Baptists fully affirm a Reformed view of the sacraments as a means of grace.
The 1689 Confession is admittedly not as clear on this point as it could be. But Keach's Catechism, which was written to clarify the theology of the Confession, makes it pretty clear:
Q. 95. What are the outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption?
A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption are His ordinances, especially the Word, Baptism, the Lord's Supper and Prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation. (Rom. 10:17; James 1:18; 1 Cor. 3:5; Acts 14:1; 2:41,42)
A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption are His ordinances, especially the Word, Baptism, the Lord's Supper and Prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation. (Rom. 10:17; James 1:18; 1 Cor. 3:5; Acts 14:1; 2:41,42)
Q. 98. How do Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation?
A. Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them or in him that administers them, but only by the blessing of Christ and the working of His Spirit in them that by faith receive them. (1 Peter 3:21; 1 Cor. 3:6,7; 1 Cor. 12:13)
A. Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them or in him that administers them, but only by the blessing of Christ and the working of His Spirit in them that by faith receive them. (1 Peter 3:21; 1 Cor. 3:6,7; 1 Cor. 12:13)
Q. 99. Wherein do Baptism and the Lord's Supper differ from the other ordinances of God?
A. Baptism and the Lord's Supper differ from the other ordinances of God in that they were specially instituted by Christ to represent and apply to believers the benefits of the new covenant by visible and outward signs. (Matt. 28:19; Acts 22:16; Matt. 26:26-28; Rom. 6:4)
A. Baptism and the Lord's Supper differ from the other ordinances of God in that they were specially instituted by Christ to represent and apply to believers the benefits of the new covenant by visible and outward signs. (Matt. 28:19; Acts 22:16; Matt. 26:26-28; Rom. 6:4)
Therefore, baptism is a means of grace in Reformed Baptist theology.
Q. How can baptism be a means of grace in Baptist theology when Baptists assert that a person must already be saved to be eligible for baptism?
A. It is too narrow a reading of the terms "means of grace" and "effectual to salvation" to limit them to the moment of conversion. Christ "communicates to us the benefits of redemption" in an ongoing way not only to regenerate and justify us initially but also to sanctify and preserve us throughout our Christian lives. When the Shorter Catechism (Q. 89) and Keach's Catechism (Q. 96) ask "How is the Word made effectual to salvation?", they do not limit the effect of the Word in salvation to the moment of conversion. In fact, they explicitly affirm in the answer that the Word is effectual to salvation both in conversion and in continuing the Christian life:
A. The Spirit of God makes the reading, but especially the preaching of the Word an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners, and of building them up in holiness and comfort, through faith unto salvation.
The two catechisms have identical answers to this question.
Some Reformed Baptists may be uncomfortable with this second response, but I'll state it anyway. Baptists have historically seen baptism as the culmination of the conversion experience. Among other things, it seals and confirms, both to the party being baptized and to others, that the party has engaged to be the Lord's and is now united with Him. Although no warrant is given to baptize someone with the goal of converting him, in many cases the person may exercise faith in Christ through the means either of contemplating or participating in baptism. Beasley-Murray in Baptism in the New Testament makes a very strong case that the conversion experience and the act of baptism need not be separated in our conception of the two, since the NT so often speaks of them in an interchangeable manner. This is true, in spite of the fact that the two can be separated for study or in one's experience. From the believer's perspective, baptism can be viewed as a visible prayer in which the believer "signifies [his] ingrafting into Christ and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and [his] engagement to be the Lord's."
One could also theoretically benefit from a sacrament as a means of grace before being converted, as paedobaptists argue that infants do in baptism. The objection to infant baptism in this respect is twofold. First, infants are not eligible for baptism and thus have no divine warrant to participate in a means of grace that is not designed for them. Second, baptism is a means of grace at the moment of participation (as well as before and after) that requires the awareness and voluntary participation of the party baptized. If God chose to design a means of grace to be applied to the unconverted and/or to those who can't voluntarily participate, then we should have no problem imagining how they might benefit from it. But if the design includes the awareness and voluntary participation of the party baptized, then it is a perversion and a truncation of the sacrament to admit anyone else.
From: http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~sjreeves/personal/baptism_faq.html#6
CalvinandHodges
Puritan Board Junior
Greetings:
Thanks for all of your responses. I think when Semper Fidelis, in one of the earlier posts, quotes both the 1689 and Westminster Confessions he aptly points out that Baptists traditionally do not consider Baptism as a sign of entrance into the Universal Church.
Take, for example, the man from Jerusalem. If he was baptized in Jerusalem, then when he moves to Antioch would he need to be re-baptized? I believe we would all answer "no way, Jose." If he was simply baptized into the local body (Jerusalem), then one could argue that he would need to be baptized again when he moved to Antioch. Again, I believe that we would all answer with a resounding, "no."
Both Paedo's and Credo's agree that baptism unites one to Christ. I would suggest that this argues for universal church membership. Can one be united to Christ and not be united to the universal church?
I, for one, would say "no," but it seems the Credo-Baptist would answer "yes" to this?
Am I mistaken?
Blessings,
-CH
Thanks for all of your responses. I think when Semper Fidelis, in one of the earlier posts, quotes both the 1689 and Westminster Confessions he aptly points out that Baptists traditionally do not consider Baptism as a sign of entrance into the Universal Church.
Take, for example, the man from Jerusalem. If he was baptized in Jerusalem, then when he moves to Antioch would he need to be re-baptized? I believe we would all answer "no way, Jose." If he was simply baptized into the local body (Jerusalem), then one could argue that he would need to be baptized again when he moved to Antioch. Again, I believe that we would all answer with a resounding, "no."
Both Paedo's and Credo's agree that baptism unites one to Christ. I would suggest that this argues for universal church membership. Can one be united to Christ and not be united to the universal church?
I, for one, would say "no," but it seems the Credo-Baptist would answer "yes" to this?
Am I mistaken?
Blessings,
-CH
I would focus upon the declarative aspect of baptism in that when we are baptised God declares of us "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" and so Christ's baptism serves as a model for believers. I think Thomas Goodwin argues along these lines but I am not sure where...Packer in his Pursuit of Godliness quotes him.
caddy
Puritan Board Senior
Concerning the Apology of Aristides...
http://www.christian-truth.org/church/paedobaptism1.html
The Apology of Aristides was an apologetic argument delivered to the emperor Hadrian around 125 CE. It says: “Further, if one or other of them have bondmen and bondwomen or children, through love towards them they persuade them to become Christians, and when they have done so, they call them brethren without distinction” (15:6). The debate over the passage has been focused on the children-whether or not they are children of slaves or the Christian parents. But it is also important to note that Christian masters would try to “persuade” their slaves and only when they have persudade them would they “call them brethren without distinction.” This strongly implies that Christian masters did not baptize slaves until they professed faith in Christ. There is additional evidence from the Bible showing that sometimes houses did not convert together. Paul was well acquainted with the difficulties that arose in his church when only one parent converted, and gave instruction on the topic (1 Corinthians 7:14). His own apprentice, Timothy, was a prominent disciple whose mother was faithful, though his father was a Greek (Acts 16:1). Peter instructed women with unbelieving husbands to win them through their conduct (1 Peter 3:1-5). Given this data, it seems hasty to conclude that infants were definitely baptized because the Bible says that “whole households” were baptized.
http://www.christian-truth.org/church/paedobaptism1.html
The Apology of Aristides was an apologetic argument delivered to the emperor Hadrian around 125 CE. It says: “Further, if one or other of them have bondmen and bondwomen or children, through love towards them they persuade them to become Christians, and when they have done so, they call them brethren without distinction” (15:6). The debate over the passage has been focused on the children-whether or not they are children of slaves or the Christian parents. But it is also important to note that Christian masters would try to “persuade” their slaves and only when they have persudade them would they “call them brethren without distinction.” This strongly implies that Christian masters did not baptize slaves until they professed faith in Christ. There is additional evidence from the Bible showing that sometimes houses did not convert together. Paul was well acquainted with the difficulties that arose in his church when only one parent converted, and gave instruction on the topic (1 Corinthians 7:14). His own apprentice, Timothy, was a prominent disciple whose mother was faithful, though his father was a Greek (Acts 16:1). Peter instructed women with unbelieving husbands to win them through their conduct (1 Peter 3:1-5). Given this data, it seems hasty to conclude that infants were definitely baptized because the Bible says that “whole households” were baptized.
CalvinandHodges
Puritan Board Junior
Robert - I'm trying to answer this plainly. But first, let me ask a question. Is it possible to be a Christian without being part of the church (whether visible or invisible)? If the answer is "no", then it has a great bearing on the question from you OP. If the answer is "yes", then there are more issues to discuss than just baptism.
It is the opinion of this Baptist that entrance into the invisible church is synonymous with being part of the body of Christ. Both are soteriological issues. Baptism does not complete what Christ accomplished on the cross. Salvation has always been by grace through faith...alone. Baptism is a step of obedience and unites the believer with the visible body of Christ. In order to be a member of a Baptist church you must show evidence of being scripturaly baptized.
elnwood
Puritan Board Junior
My elders wouldn't baptise someone who wasn't joining our church! Why would they baptise someone who isn't going to be under their authority? That seems odd and I can't imagine a circumstance that would make it not so.
Sam Waldron had a series of posts about baptizing being necessarily into a local church:
http://www.mctsowensboro.org/blog/2...ust-be-into-the-membership-of-a-local-church/
http://www.mctsowensboro.org/blog/2...t-be-into-the-membership-of-a-local-church-2/
http://www.mctsowensboro.org/blog/2...t-be-into-the-membership-of-a-local-church-3/
- Status
