Baptism and Church Membership

[Hippo]

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.

Agreed and I think that such paedo churches are being sectarian if the members prayerfully hold to a respectable doctrinal position such as credo baptism. I do however think that such differences can be a bar to holding an ordained position, whether in paedo or credo churches.

 

[Ivan]

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.

Agreed and I think that such paedo churches are being sectarian if the members prayerfully hold to a respectable doctrinal position such as credo baptism. I do however think that such differences can be a bar to holding an ordained position, whether in paedo or credo churches.

Agreed.

Another question to my fellow Baptists...will our paedo friends go to heaven?

 

[Herald]

Wow. When did this thread become about mode? I thought the OP was about whether or not baptism was needed for church membership.

 

[Ivan]

Wow. When did this thread become about mode? I thought the OP was about whether or not baptism was needed for church membership.

There's a question in post 32.

 

[Southern Presbyterian]

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

What then is the point of the final step of Church discipline, that of putting one out of the Church?

[bible]1 Corinthians 5:4-5[/bible]

The only way to put someone out of the entire Church would be to mark them in some physical way. I suppose we could implant them with some sort of gps chip today, but what could they have done in Paul's day? The act of putting out would then imply out of a local assembly, in particular, and out of the Church universal as a necessary consequence of having been put out of the local assembly. Therefore membership is a real association with a local body, not just general membership in the universal body.

 

[Herald]

Are we saved by water baptism? No. How are we saved? By faith in Christ alone.

So now what? Do we progress to a discussion on whether Baptists recognize paedo baptism as valid? I think that's cause for a separate thread about a topic that has been discussed ad infinitum on this board.

 

[Ivan]

I'm not saying there is just a general membership in the universal body. There is membership in the local body. Although I certainly don't think the early church did it they way we do, but that's not what I'm getting at.

Waiting for my question in post 32 to be answered.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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

Ivan,

Matthew 28:18-20 seems fundamental here.

Christ commands the Church to make disciples by:

1. Baptizing them.
2. Teaching them.

Baptism is the Christ instituted sign of identity as one of Christ's disciples.

 

[Herald]

Waiting for my question in post 32 to be answered.

If they're saved, then yes. Is there a reason why they wouldn't?

 

[Theognome]

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.

There's only one verse that states that mansions are waiting for us in heaven, too. One verse is all that's needed- God is not obligated to repeat Himself.

Theognome

 

[Semper Fidelis]

BTW, Ivan, I've noticed how the thread has progressed. I think the Baptist problem is not insisting on Baptism for membership but that it insists that mode and timing of the baptism are both determinate for efficacy.

 

[fredtgreco]

Exactly.

 

[TsonMariytho]

BTW, Ivan, I've noticed how the thread has progressed. I think the Baptist problem is not insisting on Baptism for membership but that it insists that mode and timing of the baptism are both determinate for efficacy.

This is a very practical observation, but when you boil it down, both Presbyterians and Baptists require a correct mode. I read somewhere that a woman (!) once "baptized" somebody by pouring sand on his head. That was a nice thought on her part, but no church would accept it. The Presbyterian "mode" includes water, period, or you have to "redo" it. The Baptist "mode" includes immersion in water, period, or you have to "redo" it.

But as I said, your observation was very practical, because not many people show up having been sprinkled with sand... :^)

 

[Semper Fidelis]

BTW, Ivan, I've noticed how the thread has progressed. I think the Baptist problem is not insisting on Baptism for membership but that it insists that mode and timing of the baptism are both determinate for efficacy.

This is a very practical observation, but when you boil it down, both Presbyterians and Baptists require a correct mode. I read somewhere that a woman (!) once "baptized" somebody by pouring sand on his head. That was a nice thought on her part, but no church would accept it. The Presbyterian "mode" includes water, period, or you have to "redo" it. The Baptist "mode" includes immersion in water, period, or you have to "redo" it.

But as I said, your observation was very practical, because not many people show up having been sprinkled with sand... :^)

The Presbyterian "mode" requires the ministry of the Church and the Church doesn't utilize sand.

Cavils aside, the mode of baptism did not prevent Christ from turning to the thief on a Cross and sadly inform him that He might wish to save the thief but he was beyond the elective purposes of God because he could not be immersed.

 

[Ivan]

Bottom line...if we, who believe in Christ as our LORD and Savior and believe that He physically, bodily arose from the grave, will commune and fellowship in heaven for eternity, then why not now?

 

[TsonMariytho]

The Presbyterian "mode" requires the ministry of the Church and the Church doesn't utilize sand.

We are talking about accepting a so-called baptism performed outside our church or denomination. Saying that "the Presbyterians don't use sand" is irrelevant to my point, which was that mode does matter, and can actually cause a Presbyterian church to regard somebody's ceremony as not a true baptism.

Cavils aside, the mode of baptism did not prevent Christ from turning to the thief on a Cross and sadly inform him that He might wish to save the thief but he was beyond the elective purposes of God because he could not be immersed.

I have no idea where this is coming from. Wasn't one of the fundamental innovations of the Reformation giving up that ancient superstition that baptism was necessary for salvation? Maybe I'm missing your point here... but nobody in this conversation should believe that he who dies unbaptized is lost.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Bottom line...if we, who believe in Christ as our LORD and Savior and believe that He physically, bodily arose from the grave, will commune and fellowship in heaven for eternity then, why not now?

There's actually a really good article in Modern Reformation right now that I'm seeking permission to re-publish here.

In my estimation, the real "test" of whether or not we believe we are in Christ with one another is if the Table of the Lord is open or not. Everything else, this side of eternity, is so much window dressing.

 

[Ivan]

Bottom line...if we, who believe in Christ as our LORD and Savior and believe that He physically, bodily arose from the grave, will commune and fellowship in heaven for eternity then, why not now?

There's actually a really good article in Modern Reformation right now that I'm seeking permission to re-publish here.

In my estimation, the real "test" of whether or not we believe we are in Christ with one another is if the Table of the Lord is open or not. Everything else, this side of eternity, is so much window dressing.

DING! DING! DING! We have a winner!

That's exactly what I'm talking about and that's exactly what I believe. Rich, if you and your dear family comes to Maranatha the Table of the LORD will be open to you!

Of course, that leads us down other roads of discussion.

This is my heart's desire...to see all believers in Christ be one.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

The Presbyterian "mode" requires the ministry of the Church and the Church doesn't utilize sand.

We are talking about accepting a so-called baptism performed outside our church or denomination. Saying that "the Presbyterians don't use sand" is irrelevant to my point, which was that mode does matter, and can actually cause a Presbyterian church to regard somebody's ceremony as not a true baptism.

Hence, my point that the Baptist problem is over mode. We're not dealing with something as foolish as somebody using sand but over how much of the body is covered by water.

Cavils aside, the mode of baptism did not prevent Christ from turning to the thief on a Cross and sadly inform him that He might wish to save the thief but he was beyond the elective purposes of God because he could not be immersed.

I have no idea where this is coming from. Wasn't one of the fundamental innovations of the Reformation giving up that ancient superstition that baptism was necessary for salvation? Maybe I'm missing your point here... but nobody in this conversation should believe that he who dies unbaptized is lost.

The Reformation did not seek "innovation" or it would not have been a reformation. It is not a superstition that baptism is necessary for salvation - the idea is Scriptural and if I press you then even you will have to admit it is depending upon what one means by baptism. The issue has everything to do with the election of God and how He saves, how He signifies who He saves in real history, and the above would make perfect sense if understood in that context.

 

[TsonMariytho]

Hence, my point that the Baptist problem is over mode. We're not dealing with something as foolish as somebody using sand but over how much of the body is covered by water.

Do we really disagree here or are we just going back and forth? Baptist "mode" includes immersion in water. Presbyterian "mode" includes some kind of use of water. Baptists have a practical problem about what to do with sprinkled newcomers. Presbyterians have a theoretical problem about what to do with somebody who came like this person I read about -- but not a practical problem that I know of.

I think we both agree with my summary above.

The Reformation did not seek "innovation" or it would not have been a reformation. It is not a superstition that baptism is necessary for salvation - the idea is Scriptural and if I press you then even you will have to admit it is depending upon what one means by baptism. The issue has everything to do with the election of God and how He saves, how He signifies who He saves in real history, and the above would make perfect sense if understood in that context.

You mentioned cavils... the above includes cavils, because it (a) interprets the word "innovation" as coming up with totally new doctrine, when in fact a more reasonable and charitable interpretation would be that of innovation for the 1500's theological scene, where I believe Zwingli's proposition was brazen and new -- but not innovation from the timeless doctrine of scripture. Also: (b) it (if I understand correctly?) you have switched between meanings of "baptism" without a good reason and used that to portray my post in a negative light. We've been discussing the physical administration, but now you want to talk about the spiritual. I agree that we need the spiritual to be saved.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Hence, my point that the Baptist problem is over mode. We're not dealing with something as foolish as somebody using sand but over how much of the body is covered by water.

Do we really disagree here or are we just going back and forth? Baptist "mode" includes immersion in water. Presbyterian "mode" includes some kind of use of water. Baptists have a practical problem about what to do with sprinkled newcomers. Presbyterians have a theoretical problem about what to do with somebody who came like this person I read about -- but not a practical problem that I know of.

I think we both agree with my summary above.

The Reformation did not seek "innovation" or it would not have been a reformation. It is not a superstition that baptism is necessary for salvation - the idea is Scriptural and if I press you then even you will have to admit it is depending upon what one means by baptism. The issue has everything to do with the election of God and how He saves, how He signifies who He saves in real history, and the above would make perfect sense if understood in that context.

You mentioned cavils... the above includes cavils, because it (a) interprets the word "innovation" as coming up with totally new doctrine, when in fact a more reasonable and charitable interpretation would be that of innovation for the 1500's theological scene, where I believe Zwingli's proposition was brazen and new -- but not innovation from the timeless doctrine of scripture. Also: (b) it (if I understand correctly?) you have switched between meanings of "baptism" without a good reason and used that to portray my post in a negative light. We've been discussing the physical administration, but now you want to talk about the spiritual. I agree that we need the spiritual to be saved.

I'm bowing out of this fruitless interchange.

The cavil is obvious to all. My comments were understandable to the large audience but, of course, one can pick nits and point out that I might have been speaking of the Baptist problem that they don't accept the Baptism of Witches or Mormons. Why not mention a whole host of other silliness that doesn't bear on the issue?

We do agree in the end but it's in the circuitous manner that only wastes time and makes me conclude that you like to be contrary instead of simply agreeing on what we both know I'm saying from the outset. I'll keep that in mind in future discussions rather than taking you seriously at the outset.

 

[Christusregnat]

the church and not have baptism as one's firt public action in that church as a member?

Pergs, what exactly is a "firt public action"?

 

[TsonMariytho]

Semper Fidelis, your original statement was that:

"I think the Baptist problem is not insisting on Baptism for membership but that it insists that mode and timing of the baptism are both determinate for efficacy."

If you wanted me to agree with that as originally stated, I would have to cease to be a Baptist. (Sorry, not going to happen, Lord willing.) Since I am a Baptist, I pointed out what was only fair -- that specification of mode on some level is a sine qua non of Christian baptism, whether Presbyterian or Baptist. We only differ as to what mode to specify.

How would you suggest that I should have responded to your original post?

-----Added 12/7/2008 at 11:23:21 EST-----

DING! DING! DING! We have a winner!

That's exactly what I'm talking about and that's exactly what I believe. Rich, if you and your dear family comes to Maranatha the Table of the LORD will be open to you!

Of course, that leads us down other roads of discussion.

This is my heart's desire...to see all believers in Christ be one.

Yes. Thanks for getting us back on track, and sorry for the distraction... :^)

While I am not an elder, I have long agreed with the above and wished that those who say that they regard each other as believers would show it in obvious ways.

 

[Ivan]

I'm not concerned about the mode nor the timing. If we are brothers and sisters in Christ we should accept one another fully in the LORD. And I do.

 

[TsonMariytho]

I'm not concerned about the mode nor the timing. If we are brothers and sisters in Christ we should accept one another fully in the LORD. And I do.

By being unconcerned with timing, do you mean not just worrying about if it's prior to conversion, but even whether it's performed sometime down the road after joining the church? Sorry if you clarified that already...

 

[Wannabee]

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.

Please reread my post. I was clear that the reasoning that some should be included because they "honestly and in faith believe that they have obeyed the Lord" is not a measure of membership, or even fellowship. It wasn't the position I was comparing, but the reasoning. It may have been clearer if I'd just left JWs & Mormons out. My apologies. It's a bummer when someone mischaracterizes you and then gets thanked.

That's exactly what I'm talking about and that's exactly what I believe. Rich, if you and your dear family comes to Maranatha the Table of the LORD will be open to you!

Actually, it would be at ours as well. However, believer's baptism is required for membership.


Whoever shepherds God's flock must make decisions that they deem best in administering to that flock. In most areas we find unity. Scripture is very clear that the sheep will hear Jesus' voice, love the brethren (sheepren?), obey His commandments, walk in light and have fellowship with the Father and one another. There is division in some areas, baptism being an pretty glaring example. It is one of two ordinances, which makes it a heavy subject. While I draw the line at baptism for membership, I do not draw it there for fellowship, the Lord's Supper or much of any place else. However, I do not expect Ivan to take the same position. I understand why others draw their lines elsewhere. Some won't allow those not baptized as believers to share communion. Some won't even allow non church members to share communion. And yet others will let people join whether they're baptized or not, upon a profession of faith.

I will not answer to you for the decisions I make in striving to take care of the souls entrusted to me. However, I will answer to God (Heb 13:17). Let us each strive for faithfulness in the ministry God's entrusted to us in order to please Him above all else, and spur one another on to greater faithfulness.

 

[Pilgrim]

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

If it was a Oneness Pentecostal then they were correct in requiring the man to be baptized.

-----Added 12/8/2008 at 02:42:04 EST-----

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.

No it's not. It's simply the Baptist position. If you think that equals Landmarkism then you don't know anything about real Landmarkism.
The question is who are the proper mode and subjects of baptism.

When Christ commanded the church to baptize, did he have anything specific in mind or did he just mean to do something with water?

-----Added 12/8/2008 at 02:46:08 EST-----

Agreed and I think that such paedo churches are being sectarian if the members prayerfully hold to a respectable doctrinal position such as credo baptism. I do however think that such differences can be a bar to holding an ordained position, whether in paedo or credo churches.

Agreed.

Another question to my fellow Baptists...will our paedo friends go to heaven?

I will answer with a question of my own. If a baptized Roman Catholic is converted and wants to join the church you pastor, would you require him to be baptized? If you would, will any within Roman Catholicism go to heaven?

-----Added 12/8/2008 at 03:54:11 EST-----

Why Do Churches Require Baptism Before Membership? | Areopagus

 

[Ivan]

I'm not concerned about the mode nor the timing. If we are brothers and sisters in Christ we should accept one another fully in the LORD. And I do.

By being unconcerned with timing, do you mean not just worrying about if it's prior to conversion, but even whether it's performed sometime down the road after joining the church? Sorry if you clarified that already...

Personally, not speaking in regards to my church right now, I am willing to accept the infant baptism of a believer(assuming a trinitirian baptism), if indeed they show the fruits of being a Christian.

-----Added 12/8/2008 at 06:46:41 EST-----

I will answer with a question of my own. If a baptized Roman Catholic is converted and wants to join the church you pastor, would you require him to be baptized? If you would, will any within Roman Catholicism go to heaven?

If they are converted they will go to heaven. Any Roman Catholic that is converted will go to heaven. Based on what I have already said, I doubt that I would require baptism, but each case must be judged on its own merit.

 

[Mayflower]

What about this:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f47/w-pink-1-corinthians-12-universal-local-church-41017/

-----Added 12/8/2008 at 07:30:52 EST-----

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

Exactly.

Iam not agree with Bunyan, see:
http://pbl.oldfaithbaptist.org/Ecclesiology/ThomasPaul-Answer to John Bunyan.pdf

 

[Herald]

Ivan, I'm on my iPhone right now so I can't adequately quote your last post.

I appreciate the attitude of your heart. I can tell it proceeds from a heart that loves God. While your attitude cannot be challenged, what does your personal view of baptism say about your theology? We know that baptism is a command to be obeyed. It is to be administered immediately following a credible profession of faith. As a Baptist, how do you reconcile baptism in the absence of a profession? I wish this was but a minor issue that we could skip, but it cuts to a foundational aspect of Baptist theology. Is it possible to be baptized before conversion? I think you know the Baptist answer.

I suppose my concern is that some of what I have read in this thread seems to be an emotionl desire to see unity in the church but not necessarily theological support. That is my assessment which doesn't make it fact.