Baptism and Church Membership

[Ivan]

Please give scripture that says one must be baptized before they can join the church.

 

[asc]

Not sure what angle you asking this from, but pattern in Acts would seem to indicate: profession of faith and baptism, then joining the church.

 

[Pergamum]

I see nothing that says one cannot, but why would a non-baptized believer desire to join the church and not have baptism as one's firt public action in that church as a member? The descriptive pattern we see time and again in the NT is baptism follows closely after belief and repentance.

I am not even sure people "joined" churches in the NT, they went to where they went and seemed to gather regularly enough with the same group often enough such that they were considered part of that body.

 

[Pilgrim]

This is mainly an issue that comes up when the person desiring membership believes he has been validly baptized and the church leadership disagrees.

 

[Ivan]

I appreciate the comments. There are many directions this thread can go. I'm simply asking for scripture verses that connect baptism with church membership.

 

[Herald]

Acts 2:41-42 41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls. 42 They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

These "three thousand souls" became part (members, if you will) of the church in Jerusalem. The model was believe and be baptized.

 

[Ivan]

Acts 2:41-42 41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls. 42 They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

These "three thousand souls" became part (members, if you will) of the church in Jerusalem. The model was believe and be baptized.

Good.

How 'bout a few more scripture verses.

 

[Herald]

First thing Saul (Paul) did was submit to baptism.

Acts 9:18 18 And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he got up and was baptized;

Believe and be baptized.

Acts 18:8 8 Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized.

The Philippian jailer, and his household, believed and were baptized.

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.

All these things happened before their inclusion in a "local" church.

You want more scriptural proof?

 

[Ivan]

First thing Saul (Paul) did was submit to baptism.

Acts 9:18 18 And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he got up and was baptized;

Believe and be baptized.

Acts 18:8 8 Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized.

The Philippian jailer, and his household, believed and were baptized.

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.

All these things happened before their inclusion in a "local" church.

You want more scriptural proof?

None of the above verses say anything about joining a church.

 

[Pergamum]

Naw, they were added to the church by their presence, not by formal enrollment.

The NT's church membership seems to be that believers are added to the universal church and then they join to their local bodies and take part in the visible fellowship.

Driving 2 hours to a niche church was not what the NT had in mind I think.

Regarding baptism, we see that one need not be baptized into the local church they were joining because we have examples of travellers and pilgrims being baptized and not waiting till they got home to be baptized. We also see that there was usually a short time period between belief and baptism, and that most people gathered locally, such that one was baptized into their local churches and they were "joining" in fellowship with this body as part of the family.

 

[TsonMariytho]

The argument I've heard in Baptist churches is that disobedience to such an obvious command of our Lord should make everyone doubt you are a Christian at all, hence should block church membership. I'll expand with some verses, since that's what you asked for...

1. If you love the Lord, you will do as he commands.

[bible]John 14:15[/bible]

2. The kingdom of God is made up of those who are born again.

[bible]John 3:3[/bible]

3. If you are born again, then you love your brothers and sisters and also love God.

[bible]1Jn 4:7[/bible] (and surrounding verses)

An objection that could be raised to that is, "The Lord has given us a bunch of commands. Does that mean that a person must have repudiated every known act of sin in order to enter the church?" The answer is, clearly not. A new believer is very much "in the rough" due to ignorance as much as anything. This is why a better argument is what somebody else suggested above, of forming our pattern based on the pattern shown in scripture, of (a) hearing the gospel, (b) repenting/believing, (c) baptism, (d) being "added to their number" -- even if that pattern isn't codified as a command per se.


Of course, the Reformed paedobaptists have an easier time answering this question, because they vaguely equate baptism with circumcision, the sine qua non of life as a member in good standing in Abraham's covenantal family. :^)


Wow. I love this automatic scripture reference system. :^)

 

[Ivan]

Andrew wrote:

even if that pattern isn't codified as a command per se.

Still, only one verse the connects baptism with church membership, if we can equate "those added" equivalent to church membership.

 

[Pilgrim]

I appreciate the comments. There are many directions this thread can go. I'm simply asking for scripture verses that connect baptism with church membership.

Agreed. And I'm probably the worst offender for hijacking threads and going off on a tangent.

I think the prior response about the pattern in Acts is on the right track.

Many are persuaded by the fact that the professing church, whether Catholic or Protestant, paedo or credo has until very recently been practically unanimous that baptism is the prerequisite to church membership and the Lord's Supper. I know that the fact that the majority of professing Christendom has been paedo has been a huge factor in some former Baptists becoming paedo. But we shouldn't make decisions on these issues solely or even primarily on the basis of church history.

I wonder if there are any articles online by those Particular Baptists like Kiffin and Keach who opposed Bunyan's view that differences on baptism . I think Dagg's Manual of Church Order may address this and Dever has written on it as well.

 

[Herald]

First thing Saul (Paul) did was submit to baptism.

Acts 9:18 18 And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he got up and was baptized;

Believe and be baptized.

Acts 18:8 8 Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized.

The Philippian jailer, and his household, believed and were baptized.

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.

All these things happened before their inclusion in a "local" church.

You want more scriptural proof?

None of the above verses say anything about joining a church.

Ivan, there aren't any verses that say the word "Trinity" either. The point is that there is an established order in scripture: believe and be baptized. Baptistism is not optional for a believer. It is the first step of obedience to Christ. Scripture does not to say in specific words, "You must be baptized in order to be a member of a local church." The preponderance of scripture on "believe and be baptized" is overwhelming.

 

[Ivan]

I wonder if there are any articles online by those Particular Baptists like Kiffin and Keach who opposed Bunyan's view that differences on baptism . I think Dagg's Manual of Church Order may address this and Dever has written on it as well.

There is and I've read a lot of this tonight. Still, no scriputural basis. "Repent and be baptized". Yes. Repent and be baptized to join the church? No.

Frankly, I'm starting to see Bunyan's point.

 

[TsonMariytho]

Agreed. And I'm probably the worst offender for hijacking threads and going off on a tangent.

Oh yeah, watch this...

Many are persuaded by the fact that the professing church, whether Catholic or Protestant, paedo or credo has until very recently been practically unanimous that baptism is the prerequisite to church membership and the Lord's Supper. I know that the fact that the majority of professing Christendom has been paedo has been a huge factor in some former Baptists becoming paedo. But we shouldn't make decisions on these issues solely or even primarily on the basis of church history.

How do you count this majority? If you count it by total length on the timeline, that's one thing. If you count it by population, that's something different. The 6 billion people we have today really throws a wrench in the works of the population consideration.

And the Reformation throws a wrench in the works of the timeline argument -- we threw away many extremely time honored and cherished traditions we couldn't find in scripture, and good riddance.

OK, sorry, I'll get back on topic now. :^)

-----Added 12/7/2008 at 08:31:36 EST-----

Just thought of another scriptural argument...

Joh 4:1 Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John
Joh 4:2 (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples),
​

It seems like the act of baptism "makes a disciple". If the church is populated with Jesus' disciples, then they are all by definition baptized.

EDIT -- should have said,

the act of baptism [is part of what] "makes a disciple".

 

[Hippo]

The key point is that under the Apostles you had to be baptised to join the church, no one had even really thought about the idea of joining a church.

I would be very surprised if anyone here thought you could join the Church and not be baptised, given that the way you join the church is by baptism.

In this repect from a paedobaptist position Baptists are necessarily sectarian in not accepting paedo's into Communion.

 

[Ivan]

First thing Saul (Paul) did was submit to baptism.

Acts 9:18 18 And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he got up and was baptized;

Believe and be baptized.

Acts 18:8 8 Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized.

The Philippian jailer, and his household, believed and were baptized.

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.

All these things happened before their inclusion in a "local" church.

You want more scriptural proof?

None of the above verses say anything about joining a church.

Ivan, there aren't any verses that say the word "Trinity" either. The point is that there is an established order in scripture: believe and be baptized. Baptistism is not optional for a believer. It is the first step of obedience to Christ. Scripture does not to say in specific words, "You must be baptized in order to be a member of a local church." The preponderance of scripture on "believe and be baptized" is overwhelming.

I'm not saying we shouldn't baptize. That is clearly commanded. But I don't see a direct, clear connection to church membership. It's implied, but we may be reading back into the scripture our own personal experience. I do not see a formal church membership expressed in the NewTestament as we practice it today.

 

[Pergamum]

I believed and it took me almost 2 years to join a church afterwards.

I knew it would take a while and so I sought out a minister to baptize me.

Some thought this "irregular" but I wanted to obey what I saw in the NT, that once I believed I needed to be baptized.

Another fellowshipping church tried to require a man get rebaptized because he had previously been baptised by a Pentecostal.

It seems that many baptists forget the universal aspect of the church and think everything starts and stops outside of their local doors.

The incident I had where a church invited me to preach and they decided to pledge missionary support to me but I was not allowed to partake of the Lord's Supper with them might also reflect an overly localized ecclesiology.

 

[Herald]

Ivan, here's a question for you. Would you allow someone to join your church who has not be baptized? If you answer yes on the basis that you'll teach them the necessity of being baptized, and they refuse, would you initiate church discipline? If you would do that, then why not deal with that in beginning when the apply for membership?

 

[Ivan]

In this repect from a paedobaptist position Baptists are necessarily sectarian in not accepting paedo's into Communion.

Exactly.

 

[Herald]

I do not see a formal church membership expressed in the NewTestament as we practice it today.

Ah, well here's the real meat and taters of your OP. It has nothing to do with baptism; it's about formal church membership.

 

[Ivan]

Ivan, here's a question for you. Would you allow someone to join your church who has not be baptized? If you answer yes on the basis that you'll teach them the necessity of being baptized, and they refuse, would you initiate church discipline? If you would do that, then why not deal with that in beginning when the apply for membership?

Not my issue. Formality and sectarianism are my issues. Think Bunyan.

-----Added 12/7/2008 at 08:38:09 EST-----

I do not see a formal church membership expressed in the NewTestament as we practice it today.

Ah, well here's the real meat and taters of your OP. It has nothing to do with baptism; it's about formal church membership.

I know, I'm being a pill. Blame it on my illness.

 

[Herald]

Ivan, here's a question for you. Would you allow someone to join your church who has not be baptized? If you answer yes on the basis that you'll teach them the necessity of being baptized, and they refuse, would you initiate church discipline? If you would do that, then why not deal with that in beginning when the apply for membership?

Not my issue. Formality and sectarianism are my issues. Think Bunyan.

-----Added 12/7/2008 at 08:38:09 EST-----

I do not see a formal church membership expressed in the NewTestament as we practice it today.

Ah, well here's the real meat and taters of your OP. It has nothing to do with baptism; it's about formal church membership.

I know, I'm being a pill. Blame it on my illness.

But you can't answer the question? How is it formality and sectarian to require believers to obey the Lord? You have me stumped.

 

[Ivan]

I believed and it took me almost 2 years to join a church afterwards.

I knew it would take a while and so I sought out a minister to baptize me.

Some thought this "irregular" but I wanted to obey what I saw in the NT, that once I believed I needed to be baptized.

Another fellowshipping church tried to require a man get rebaptized because he had previously been baptised by a Pentecostal.

It seems that many baptists forget the universal aspect of the church and think everything starts and stops outside of their local doors.

The incident I had where a church invited me to preach and they decided to pledge missionary support to me but I was not allowed to partake of the Lord's Supper with them might also reflect an overly localized ecclesiology.

Brother Pergy, we are on the same page.

 

[Hippo]

Ivan, here's a question for you. Would you allow someone to join your church who has not be baptized? If you answer yes on the basis that you'll teach them the necessity of being baptized, and they refuse, would you initiate church discipline? If you would do that, then why not deal with that in beginning when the apply for membership?

Not my issue. Formality and sectarianism are my issues. Think Bunyan.

-----Added 12/7/2008 at 08:38:09 EST-----

Ah, well here's the real meat and taters of your OP. It has nothing to do with baptism; it's about formal church membership.

I know, I'm being a pill. Blame it on my illness.

But you can't answer the question? How is it formality and sectarian to require believers to obey the Lord? You have me stumped.

But paedo's honestly and in faith believe that they have obeyed the Lord.

 

[Herald]

Not my issue. Formality and sectarianism are my issues. Think Bunyan.

-----Added 12/7/2008 at 08:38:09 EST-----



I know, I'm being a pill. Blame it on my illness.

But you can't answer the question? How is it formality and sectarian to require believers to obey the Lord? You have me stumped.

But paedo's honestly and in faith believe that they have obeyed the Lord.

I'm not talking about paedos specifically. The passages I quoted deal with adult conversions. They were converted and then baptized immediately thereafter. Even paedos require adult converts to be baptized.

 

[Wannabee]

But paedo's honestly and in faith believe that they have obeyed the Lord.

I am not comparing JWs and Mormons, etc., to paedos. But the reasoning would be the same. Many honestly and in faith believe things. Many are very sincere. But many are deceived. Sincerity, honesty and faith do not square with orthodoxy. Some things are left to the conscience of the believer (or professor). Some things we differ on but enjoy sweet fellowship. Some things bar membership, but not fellowship. Some things we simply cannot abide. It comes down to where one draws the line.

-----Added 12/7/2008 at 09:10:53 EST-----

For what it's worth - I find myself with Spurgeon and Dever on this issue.

 

[Hippo]

But paedo's honestly and in faith believe that they have obeyed the Lord.

I am not comparing JWs and Mormons, etc., to paedos. But the reasoning would be the same. Many honestly and in faith believe things. Many are very sincere. But many are deceived. Sincerity, honesty and faith do not square with orthodoxy. Some things are left to the conscience of the believer (or professor). Some things we differ on but enjoy sweet fellowship. Some things bar membership, but not fellowship. Some things we simply cannot abide. It comes down to where one draws the line.

Surely the reasoning is not the same, as JW's and mormons are not Christians and not part of the Church. To deny Paedos fellowship as fellow Church members is akin to Landmarkism.

 

[Pilgrim]

I am not comparing JWs and Mormons, etc., to paedos. But the reasoning would be the same. Many honestly and in faith believe things. Many are very sincere. But many are deceived. Sincerity, honesty and faith do not square with orthodoxy. Some things are left to the conscience of the believer (or professor). Some things we differ on but enjoy sweet fellowship. Some things bar membership, but not fellowship. Some things we simply cannot abide. It comes down to where one draws the line.

Surely the reasoning is not the same, as JW's and mormons are not Christians and not part of the Church. To deny Paedos fellowship as fellow Church members is akin to Landmarkism.

There are paedo churches who will put members under discipline who refuse to present their children for baptism. So this cuts both ways, at least to some extent.