Baptist and Church Membership
41 comments | Permalink
Al Mohler weighs in on the issue of Baptist churches that have proposed that believer baptism not be a requirement for church membership or the Lord's Supper. The most prominent example of such a proposal, of course, comes from Bethlehem Baptist Church under the initiative of John Piper. (The 85-page proposal is available here. The proposed resolution did not come to a vote last year, but may be reintroduced again.)
Dr. Mohler prefaces his criticism by reiterating the love and respect he has for Dr. Piper, and notes that they are able to "disagree without rancor or insecurity." He also commends the elders at Bethlehem for the openness with which they have sought feedback on their proposal. But goes on to explain why they are in profound disagreement over this issue:
That said, baptism has been understood by all major branches of Christianity, throughout the centuries of Christian experience, to be a requirement for church membership and the fellowship of the Lord’s table. Thus, for Baptists to receive into the membership of a Baptist church (or to invite to the Lord’s Supper) any believer who lacks such baptism, is to receive non-baptized persons as if they were baptized.
Any compromise of Baptist conviction concerning the requirement of believer’s baptism by immersion amounts to a redefinition of Baptist identity. More importantly, it raises the most basic questions of ecclesiology. We must give those questions intent attention in these days. Otherwise, will there be any Baptists in the next generation?
I personally believe that the clearness, prominence, and normativity of the Scriptural command for believer baptism in the church means that Dr. Mohler is correct on this.
It seems to me that the dilemmas for the Bethlehem elders--as those who believe that Scripture only teaches believer baptism--are these: Do they believe that baptism is a requirement for church membership (as virtually all churches through history have believed)? If the answer is no, then they are advocating a historically novel approach that has no precedence in Scripture. If the answer is yes, then the question becomes whether or not paedobaptism is a valid form of baptism. If the answer regarding the validity of paedobaptism is no, then only believer-baptized persons can become members. If the answer concerning the validity of paedobaptism is yes, then the very nature of baptism has been redefined and this without Scriptural warrant.
Those are my thoughts. I'd be curious for your take on the matter.
Dr. Mohler prefaces his criticism by reiterating the love and respect he has for Dr. Piper, and notes that they are able to "disagree without rancor or insecurity." He also commends the elders at Bethlehem for the openness with which they have sought feedback on their proposal. But goes on to explain why they are in profound disagreement over this issue:
That said, baptism has been understood by all major branches of Christianity, throughout the centuries of Christian experience, to be a requirement for church membership and the fellowship of the Lord’s table. Thus, for Baptists to receive into the membership of a Baptist church (or to invite to the Lord’s Supper) any believer who lacks such baptism, is to receive non-baptized persons as if they were baptized.
Any compromise of Baptist conviction concerning the requirement of believer’s baptism by immersion amounts to a redefinition of Baptist identity. More importantly, it raises the most basic questions of ecclesiology. We must give those questions intent attention in these days. Otherwise, will there be any Baptists in the next generation?
I personally believe that the clearness, prominence, and normativity of the Scriptural command for believer baptism in the church means that Dr. Mohler is correct on this.
It seems to me that the dilemmas for the Bethlehem elders--as those who believe that Scripture only teaches believer baptism--are these: Do they believe that baptism is a requirement for church membership (as virtually all churches through history have believed)? If the answer is no, then they are advocating a historically novel approach that has no precedence in Scripture. If the answer is yes, then the question becomes whether or not paedobaptism is a valid form of baptism. If the answer regarding the validity of paedobaptism is no, then only believer-baptized persons can become members. If the answer concerning the validity of paedobaptism is yes, then the very nature of baptism has been redefined and this without Scriptural warrant.
For me the issue comes down to the fact that while many considerations can be offered in favor of the proposal--considerations that surely give one pause--there does not exist (to my knowledge) any convincing case that the apostlolic writers themselves would countenance such a proposal. If such were to be proposed to them, I believe they would point to the clarity, prominence, and normativity of their command to be baptized as believers and for the church to be comprised of baptized believers. Now of course we can't go and just ask them. But they gave us instructios for building the church, and they did not send mixed signals on this front.
Those are my thoughts. I'd be curious for your take on the matter.
posted by JT at Wednesday, June 28, 2006
41 Comments:
Well, I think you may too easily dismiss paedobaptism:
"If the answer concerning the validity of paedobaptism is yes, then the very nature of baptism has been redefined and this without Scriptural warrant."
Are you saying the millions of believers that subscribe to the belief in paedobaptism are not members of the body of Christ? Are you that confident that paedobaptism is meaningless and believer baptism is required?
Just a thought. I personally could argue for believer baptism, but am not willing to deny membership for those that believe in paedobaptism.
The real question, in my mind, is whether we will require things for church membership that are beyond what our Lord requires for membership in His Church.
Jeremy Archer
Amen, JT! Your reasoning is right. (In my judgment and my understanding of Scripture, of course.)
I find it difficult to believe that formal church membership, as we define and use it today, would be recognized in the early church. The church throughout history has had two ordinances to administer - baptism and the Lord's Supper. Both should only be administered to believers, and believers should obey the Lord and participate in both. I am with Dr. Piper on this one though, I don't see any biblical ground for denying a person who has a credible profession and witness of saving faith full association with a local church. This issue strikes me as more denominational than biblical in its controversy.
Even though I am convinced from Scripture that paedobaptism is correct, Bethlehem's proposal seems incoherent in one crucial respect:
"Since we believe that the New Testament teaches and demonstrates that the mode of baptism is only the immersion of a believer in water, we therefore regard all other practices of baptism as misguided, defective, and illegitimate. Yet, while not taking these differences lightly, we would not elevate them to the level of what is essential. Thus, we will welcome into membership candidates who, after a time of study, discussion, and prayer, prescribed by the Elders, retain a conviction that it would be a violation of their conscience to be baptized by immersion as believers. This conviction of conscience must be based on a plausible, intelligible, Scripturally-based argument rather than on mere adherence to a radition or family expectations." Section 2, p.11.
How can a position at once be both "misguided, defective and illegitimate" and "plausible, intelligible, and Scripturally-based"?
JT, though I agree with your answer, I'm not sure the "What would the apostles say?" approach really helps much. We should just stick to the Scriptures, explain them well, and leave it at that.
Perhaps it helps to frame it this way: Does charity trump clarity? If the Scriptures are consistent and clear about baptism, then should we allow our charitable impulses to override the clear teaching of Scripture? I suggest no, at least for purposes of church membership.
Well, I think if one is going to judge things by history, infant baptism is going to win out. Believer's baptism-only could be considered "novel" if one were to write off the early church fathers (though they were not at all definitive).
One could argue that both positions, on the basis of history, are acecptable. Baptists have every right to disagree with this on Scriptural grounds, but Mohler and company will still read Edwards and Owen with high reverence, and would be hard pressed to deny them a hypothetical kind of church membership (Could Edwards be a member of BBC?)
Adam,
I think you misread my comments. I didn't say or imply that paedobaptism is novel, but rather the notion of membership without baptism was novel. Now BBC wouldn't claim that they are proposing membership without baptism, but then the questioning of redefining baptism arises.
JT
JT,
Are you really saying that Augustine, Anselm, Calvin, Luther, Owen, John Murray, Ligon Duncan, Tim Keller (to mention just a few) have no biblical basis for their views on baptism and that they should be denied membership in the church of Christ?
Lee Lauridsen
Sorry, but baptism as a requirement for taking communion??? I'd love to see some verses on that!
So- a person is sitting in church, they've been on the fence, but in hearing the message on communion, they feel a quickening in their spirit, and say "Yes!" What Jesus did, I accept! That sacrifice, I want it it applied to me! That forgiveness- I want to experience it!" And they walk up to take communion, only to be told...
What? And on what Biblical basis?
I myself am a convinced Baptist (on this issue), even after 2 years at a Presbyterian seminary. But I think the problem arises from whether we view paedobaptism as *not* baptism or as not the *best* form of baptism.
I think there's a Biblical case to be made for paedobaptism, although I'm not persuaded by it. Many of our heroes have made these arguments, as others have pointed out. So when we come to the question of those who have been baptized as infants and wish to take the Lord's Supper or join our church, it's a very serious thing to say, "No, you haven't been baptized, so you can't come to the Table and you can't join." What we're saying is that their conviction of what the Scripture teaches, as well as their parents', which they were likely taught by godly men who love Christ and the Scriptures, are not only wrong, but *so* wrong that they can't be received into our church. We'll allow errant views on any number of other issues, but not this one. We end up excluding many true believers from joining our church (including Jonathan Edwards and just about all the other big dogs from church history).
I won't be kicked out of my PCA church for not having my children baptized, even though they think I'm in error. I think it would be wise and fair for us to extend the same charity on such a complicated biblical issue.
JMH
Justin,
Thanks for modeling gracious disagreement with those who have led you and for whom you care deeply. We need more of this kind of interaction.
I've posted what we see from Baptist History on this question (from Tom Nettles' book THE BAPTISTS).
With you for believer's baptism,
Jim
To get a handle on the topic, here are three statements I think both sides would agree upon:
1. Membership in a local church is very important for all Christians.
2. Churches need to elevate membership to the proper place it deserves. The withdrawn BBC proposal is an attempt to do this.
3. Including someone into membership at a church constitutes a public proclamation that the leadership has no credible grounds to doubt that the individual is regenerate.
Now the question we're struggling over is: Which priorities should be upheld by our ecclesiology?
1. Professing Christians being members of local churches (possibly paedobaptist churches, should they so choose).
2. Professing Christians who attend a particular baptist church (or might someday attend a particular baptist church) being able to become members at that baptist church.
3. Professing Christians being baptized on the basis of a Scripturally-informed conscience (in other words, being baptized as believers).
I would rank them in this order of importance: 3,1,2. The BBC proposal seems to rank them: 2,3,1.
An autobiographical note: Though my name is on the withdrawn BBC proposal Justin linked, I do not (now) support the proposal. In July of 2005, I had the honor of being asked to provide editorial assistance to John Piper, a pastor for whom my love and respect is beyond estimation. Due to my high esteem for Pastor John, I agreed, though I had not yet given thought to the weighty matters involved. In early October 2005, after the proposal had been approved by the BBC elders, I came to disagree with it, given the priorities I highlighted above. I regret that I came to such convictions so late and so slowly in the process, and am grateful to dear friends on both sides of this issue for the time they've invested discussing these matters with me. As an apprentice in The Bethlehem Institute, I have undying respect and admiration for Pastors John Piper and Tom Steller. I am grateful for their partnership in the gospel and their love for truth. Because of their graciousness, we are able to disagree without rancor or insecurity (as Dr. Mohler also notes).
A few other resources:
Russell Moore has a good article on this topic. (page 9)
And there is an outstanding discussion between Mark Dever, Lig Duncan (a Presbyterian), C.J. Mahaney, and Al Mohler on cooperation between churches. It was available on CD at Together for the Gospel, but I cannot find it on the Nine Marks website at this time.
Ok, where in Scripture does it CLEARLY state that infant baptism is wrong and believer baptism is write? I'm no Biblical scholar, but there just really isn't clear, to the point, teaching on this issue. I don't think its nearly as obvious as many people are saying it is. If it was, then the many God-fearing, Bible-saturated figures of the past and present would have this view of believer baptism. There are significant ones who don't. I just can't say I'm convinced that believer baptism or infant is the only right way based upon Scripture. Scripture just doesn't speak to this issue enough for me to say that.
I think what Piper is doing is right. Who are we to place roadblocks for church membership in front of others which are unclear Biblical positions?
Right--sorry JT...
What I am trying to get at is the oft neglected issue of catholicity. If church membership is tied to baptism and there are incompatible interpretations of what baptism whose is right? Both can say Scripture is decisive, so one (or both?) is wrong.
I think the T4G conference wrestled with this. Even as distinctive its statement was, the issue of baptism has relegates to a secondary issue in the idea of unity of believers in the gospel. In many ways, such a statement and conference was historically "novel" (would the Syndod of Dort included those will only dunk believers?)
It seems to me that this is a rock and a hard place. Do you become historically novel, or do you move forward in a new kind of ecumenism that seeks the catholocity of the invisible church? The Reformation brought lots of good things, but this is one thing that it has never been able to solve.
I am a Southern Baptist, so please, no flames, I'm on YOUR side, BUT isn't it interesting it is representatives of the protestant denomination with the very worst record on regenerate church membership where the rubber hits the road who are decrying a situation that I believe does a better job of differentiating the sheep from the goats than the SBC as a whole does now?
I hadn't noticed the Bethlehem church requirement of a scriptural and plausible rationale for one's belief that rebaptism would violate the conscience.
It seems to me that that means that Bethlehem will only admit to membership clever paedobaptists, not those who are merely accepting of that which was handed down to them. It still makes church membership an intellectual attainment.
Mr. Taylor,
It is my understanding that Bethlehem Baptist Church is not just admitting "non-baptized" people into membership, but rather, are granting membership to those who were baptized as babies and are fully convinced in their own mind (Romans 14:5) that is a legitimate baptism. This is quite a bit differnt from admitting unbaptized people to membership, and is a lot more closely alligned with historical Christian positions than straight credobaptism. (For the record, I am a credobaptist).
It seems to me that this issue of church membership nearly always defaults to an argument over mode / time of baptism. However, in my estimation this proposal addressed that issue only implicitly. The real issue at hand is the nature of church membership. No one on the BBC eldership is questioning the validity of believer’s baptism by immersion. To imply this is to misrepresent those that proposed the change. The issue is simply: Should membership in the local church mirror, as closely as possible, membership within the body of Christ. It seems odd to me that we continually define membership in terms that are different than they way the Bible describes membership in the body of Christ. What is stranger to me is that individuals defend this disassociation contrary to the regular rhetoric to be more “biblical.”
Furthermore, I do not think that the full range of implications have been considered on this issue. For example, I was “baptized” as a believer via pouring per the guidance of my pastor. At the time, I was entrusting myself to his guidance and proceeded with a clear and humble conscious and a desire to obey the Scriptures (however misguided you may believe my obedience was). Nevertheless, although I now worship and serve with BBC and hold to the BBC affirmation of faith I am excluded from membership based upon my mode of “baptism.” What about those who are disabled? Or those that cannot be baptized via immersion for another reason that prevents it? Shall they too be excluded from our man-made memberships based upon God’s providence?
Moreover, I often hear many appeals to history and the “historic” or “orthodox” Christian faith.” Although these words carry a lot of power they have nearly no meaning. What may be a more appropriate appeal is to the “ethnocentric - geographical - denominational one-period-and-culture-in-history orthodox Christian faith.”
I am a strong proponent for this change. Not because I’m a paedobaptist or because I want to be able to cast a vote within my church (I’m not a Congregationalist either). I am a proponent for what I consider to be “biblical church membership.”
Jeremy Archer
Your unforunate comments on the paedobaptism (and by implication its numerous orthodox Christian adherents) has obscured this discussion!
Has anyone ever asked if such an issue would be dealt with differntly in Sudan, China, Pakistan and North Korea?
Would a Chinese underground church full of baptists tell a Presbyterian to go find his own underground church?
Also, I can't picture Calvin walking an aisle during the seventh stanza of "Just As I Am" anyway...
That was a joke.
People’s lives are at stake with this issue. My wife and I found the best church in Colorado Springs this past year. The pastor preaches as good as any you will find. He loves the ministry of John Piper and has attended several of Piper’s seminars. However, on this issue, he and his elders disagree.
Therefore, my wife and our four children are not welcome for membership and are looking elsewhere. We’ve tried the four PCA churches in town and not one comes close to the solid biblical preaching and pastoral care provide by this church.
This past weekend we were invited to come back and join this church for an all church picnic. The pastor embraced me with right hand (hug) of Christian fellowship. My heart aches. I respect the elders resolve (I’d rather have engaged elders than absent ones), but I hope this issue gets a great amount of attention and gets answered soon.
By the way, I’m sure I could just “attend” this church, but without any hope of every being allowed to teach or become and elder, I’m not sure this as any kind of long-term solution. As such, I’m not sure the BBC document is either.
The reoccurring theme from Piper and friends is, “What? You would not allow John Calvin or Jonathan Edwards to be members?” But I bring it back to Piper, “What? You would not allow John Calvin and Jonathan Edwards to be elders or pastors?”
Dave Willis said, "I don't see any biblical ground for denying a person who has a credible profession and witness of saving faith full association with a local church."
But if these are Christians and have a credible profession, are they really going to flip out over being asked to get dunked? I think there would be a problem if someone is really against being immersed.
Chris H said, "Ok, where in Scripture does it CLEARLY state that infant baptism is wrong and believer baptism is [right]."
Look at it the other way, Chris. When scripture describes baptism it is always full immersion. This comes out of O.T./Second Temple period sanctification bath rites. Also, Paul relates to us the importance of immersion as a symbol of our spiritual identification with and relation to Christ. (Rom. 6:3-14; Col. 2:10-15) Baptism is our identification with the death and the resurrection of Christ. When we go underwater, we are entering the grave. When we come back up, we are resurrected to new life in Christ, devoid of the sinful nature that once ruled us, and given the Holy Spirit to keep us from sin.
That is why it is so important to be old enough to understand. baptism is not an esoteric or subjective thing. It is also not some cosmic salvation. It is our purposeful identification with Christ as we become believers. It is meant to be done with this in mind.
It "reifies" our new life within us and gives us an appreciation for Christs death and resurrection. So while a paedo-baptized believer is not necessarily hell-bound, he might not fully grasp the importance of baptism or Christs atonement on his behalf.
Just so you know, I was paedo-baptized and recently underwent full-immersion baptism before starting sem. I don't count my first baptism because I did not know what was going on at the time. I was not cognizant of Christ and when I was, I rejected him (until later). Even after giving my life to Christ as a teen I was not baptized again. Since my time in College, however I felt the need for a true "believer's baptism" as an identification. So last year, I took "the plunge."
Acts 16
"14 One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. 15 And after she was baptized, and HER HOUSEHOLD AS WELL, she urged us, saying, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay." And she prevailed upon us." (caps added by me)
Scripture for thought. Did her "household" all believe as well? Were there any infants? Maybe. Maybe not.
Mathaetaes:
I agree that on the theological basis of being baptized by the Holy Spirit, which Scripture doesn't tie to physical baptism (you seemed to), believer baptism is best. Its just not a view that really is Biblically formed. By that I mean Scripture doesn't make this jump. We can make it, but Scripture doesn't. So, that being said, should a person be denied church membership who was batpized as infant and has since accepted Christ? I think the answer should be a resounding no, if they understand what physical baptism signifies. I don't see Scripture supporting the idea that until a person is PHYSICALLY baptized he is unregenerate. Thee's just not really any clear teaching. Honestly, frustrating. I wish it was more spelled out. But it isn't.
Justin,
Thanks for this post. Everyone, thanks for the many helpful comments--pro and con. In my mind, the questions are three:
1. What is baptism?
2. What is the relationship between baptism (as defined in 1) and church membership?
3. What are the appropriate principles upon which to build a "novel" approach to question 2 (assuming one thinks the scripture is unclear on 1 and 2)?
Folks have spoken to 1 and 2. Nothing to add. But it does seem to me that much of this debate is fueled by a somewhat emotional "fairness" appeal. In other words, "since it would be unfair to exclude someone because they hold a different view of baptism, we should change our policy or reconceptualize the relationship between baptism and church membership." If I'm correct that a "fairness" principle is at work here, I'd suggest that it's an insufficient principle for driving the debate. As one who believes the scripture is sufficiently clear on 1 and 2, the critical principle is "faithfulness," not fairness.
This has been an edifying discussion. Justin, thank you for serving us so well.
Chris H.,
You said, "...being baptized by the Holy Spirit, which Scripture doesn't tie to physical baptism (you seemed to)"
Sorry, I was not clear again. We receive the Holy Spirit upon belief in Christ (although exactly when that is is a matter of debate). Baptism reflects and symbolizes that receipt of the Holy Spirit; the new life that we are given in Christ.
You said, "...after she was baptized, and HER HOUSEHOLD AS WELL."
"Household" is a term that was generally reserved for wealthy ownership of land, servants (slaves), etc. Lydia would have been an affluent woman (rare for a woman to be affluent without a husband, but then she may have had one though I don't remember if one was ever mentioned specifically).
Household may encompass family members, but it is most likely reffering to slaves and servants. Her slaves and servants were baptized (which brings up a whole new can of worms- were they coerced into baptism or did they willingly accept it?)
As I understand the first generation of Christians, they did not practice paedo-baptism, so any infants or children in the "household," may have been considered saved due to the saved nature of the parents (at least until proven otherwise). Also, we should not think that infants cannot be dunked (although for the reasons already mentioned it would be innapropriate). It would not be physically harmful.
You said, "...believer baptism is best. Its just not a view that really is Biblically formed. By that I mean Scripture doesn't make this jump. We can make it, but Scripture doesn't."
Upon what basis then were people baptized in the N.T.? It was upon a profession of faith in Jesus Christ as Lord. We do not see Phillip or Paul, etc., going around baptizing random people or babies. When someone came to saving faith, they were baptized. I do not know all of the peripheral traditions around the "believer's baptism," but these situations in Scripture seem to indicate what I would call a believer's baptism.
You said, "...should a person be denied church membership who was baptized as infant and has since accepted Christ? I think the answer should be a resounding no, if they understand what physical baptism signifies."
I am not really sure, to tell the truth. If he understands what baptism signifies, I would think he would want to be baptized as a believer. Should he be kept from membership until undergoing baptism? Maybe. I would like to know more about the varying traditions before I would give a resounding yes or no. However, I do think all should undergo an adult, "believer's" baptism upon understanding what it signifies.
I would like to offer a comparison. Baptism symbolizes communion with Christ, much like s wedding symbolizes the communion between a husband and wife (marriage). A child can play wedding, but that does not make it binding. A child can be actually wed in the eyes of the state (although we have laws about those things in this country), but it does not mean they know what is going on or what is completely expected of them. A wedding is best when two people are pledged to one another and are willing participants.
Just as a ring is the symbol of the marriage but is not the marriage itself, so baptism is the symbol of our identification with Christ and not the identification itself. Therefore, while I would not say that baptism is required for regeneration, I believe it is a necessary symbol of that regeneration. In this same vein, two people can be joined in sex, but we don't consider them committed to each other or "married" until they go through the symbolic and legal ceremony and are given rings. Similarly should we accept a statement of faith without the ceremony of baptism? I would say that is a tough call. If someone were not willing to get re-baptized I would view it as two people who are sexually active (and committed to each other) but who will not go ahead and get married. There is something wrong with the picture. Symbols are very important, especially within our Christian heritage.
In this statement, Dr. Mohler appears to be more concerned with Baptist identity than with being faithful to Scripture. To be fair, he could and probably will point to many Scripture passages to defend his position, but that is how his position comes across in this article. It is good to recognize that the proposal by John Piper will result in a change of what it means to be Baptist, but to say "Baptist membership must be this way because that's what Baptists do" seems irrelevant.
Jason Ballard made a good point that there is a difference between a paedobaptist and a non-baptized person. Someone who refuses to be baptized is being disobedient; someone who was sprinkled as an infant may have incorrect theology, but they are not being disobedient. BBC ought to recognize that difference, even if they don't follow through with John Piper's proposal. Before changing my position, I would need to see that the historical and biblical criteria for membership at a church in regard to baptism includes:
A. having a theological correct position and practice on the non-essential doctrine of baptism rather than
B. embracing the sacrement of Christ in obedience to it.
If the point of the historical adherence to baptism-before-membership is its theological correctness, then let us require them to be premillenial (or a-mil or post-mil) as well. But if the point is obedience to Christ, even if they think they received the sacrement before they could choose it, then I don't think we have a basis to deny them membership.
Do covenant churches deny membership to those who will not sprinkle their children (just a question)?
I know that there are very sincere people on both sides of this whole 'paedo' or not thing, but for me the key is "Does the person understand what is happening and are they voluntarily taking part"
A small child/baby cannot take part with understanding. I know of no baptism in the Bible that involved a small child/baby.
As such, the fact that someone comes into an understanding later in life of something that happened to them as a baby is irrelevent as regards baptism, basically it is a 'none' event.
As to style of Baptism, no one has mentioned the fact that the word used in Greek means 'complete immersion' and was related to dying wool or the like.
I also think that too many so called 'modern' sensibilities are coming into play in the discussion.
As to Baptism as a requirement for Church membership, well, Jesus seems to have thought it important enough to specify it as something the disciples had to do. (see below)
"Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."
Glennsp,
If that is the reasoning you're going to use they you must also require people to "observe all that [Jesus] commanded..." to be members. I doubt you'd be in favor of that.
Jeremy
Justin,
I'd say we have to make an important distinction here as far as what is central to Christian belief and faith. I think the way that this question has been framed blurs the discussion because it frames the debate in terms of whether or not one thinks the ordinace is central to Christian belief or not. I would say that in order for Christians to have fellowship with one another in church membership, they must believe the baptism is a requirement for every Christian. But that is an altogether different matter from agreeing or disagreeing on the form that baptism must take. John Piper and Tim Keller should be able to join the same church simply because they both believe that baptism is an ordinace that absolutely must be observed in the church.
Incidentally, why is it that Presbyterians tend not to get upset if baptistic members of their churches want to wait to baptize their children until they can articulate their faith, while Baptists get all... well... baptisty if parents want to baptize their children soon after birth?
Jeremy,
Being Baptised is a one off act (or should be) as an informed, public (if possible) act.
'Teaching' is an ongoing process which is not achieved in an instant and as such it is quite wrong of you to attempt to 'marry' the two as if they were the same thing or the same type of process.
I can only assume that you wrote in haste without thinking through your comment.
God bless
Hmm... once more. Are people seriously sugesting that we check baptismal certificates before communion? Or is this simply a shorthand way of saying we serve communion only to members and since memebrs must be baptized...
I'd LOVE to hear a single rational for this statement:
"That said, baptism has been understood by all major branches of Christianity, throughout the centuries of Christian experience, to be a requirement for... fellowship of the Lord’s table."
Bob said, "Hmm... once more. Are people seriously sugesting that we check baptismal certificates before communion? Or is this simply a shorthand way of saying we serve communion only to members and since memebrs must be baptized...
I'd LOVE to hear a single rational for this statement:
'That said, baptism has been understood by all major branches of Christianity, throughout the centuries of Christian experience, to be a requirement for... fellowship of the Lord’s table.'"
Dietrich Bonhoeffer was an advocate of a "secret church," one in which only believing, baptized, and true Chrisitans participated (and only in which the communion was served). He advocated a second church for the uninitiated. This, of course, is going too far; but I believe there is a grain of truth to it. In many churches we have forgotten what it means to take communion, to be baptized, etc. We are far too flippant about wwho is allowed fellowship and involvement in our rites. I do think that we should probably prevent people from partaking in communion until after an adult baptism (while realizing that the baptism itself is not a sanctification) See my wedding analogy above.
We have been extremely lax in the protection of the church and the purity of the bride of Christ. I think everyone can agree on that. How can we safeguard it? The best ways are probably our willingness to deny membership, our willingness to remove members, our willingness to remove elders and pastors if necessary, and to be more intimately involved in each others' lives (which might prevent removal of members by sharpiening them before that is necessary).
I think that I would have to side with the elders on this one. I did not grow up Baptist, and i do not consider myself necessarily Baptist now, but I would certainly stress an adult baptism upon conversion (adult being used relatively here as to mean able to comprehend and accept what is going on). Without that I would have to deny membership (although not necessarily attendence) and stress that that individual not take communion until he was a baptized member.
Excellent post and links JT.
To anonymous (Jeremy Archer),
If our Lord commanded it, then He requires it.
To Dave Willis,
Does one truly have a credible witness if they disregard/disobey an "ordinance" commanded by the Lord?
To Adam,
Edwards, while a great man of God, was still not infallible.
To Alex,
Thanks for your boldness.
To all, Thanks for your viewpoints.
(all that I have read so far)
hello, everyone!
first, i (and assuredly most of us saints involved in this discussion) pray we all run our race with endurance, and pursue the spreading of the gospel of our LORD with all our hearts.
i submit this to you all, not because it's necessarily true, but because it is most definitely thought-provoking and at the very least insightful toward the presupposition regarding baptism as full immersion. sprinkling is scriptural
remember, no matter what our theological prefix to baptism (either credo- or paedo-), we were all saved by God's grace. no prefix required!
the LORD be with His church always!
j.s. isaac
ecclesiastes 12:13-14
p.s. by saying, "the presupposition regarding baptism as full immersion," i was meaning to address the fact that the article in the link was written in respone to a previous article, in which the author has affixed presuppositions to support his view. i did not mean to say that all who believe in immersion rely on thought and not scripture. i'd like to apologize for the lack of clarity regarding this whole thing.
j.s. isaac
I believe that all believer's should observe the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's supper. However, to link baptism to communion finds no suppoet in scripture. And to require baptism or church membership for communion also has very weak scriptural support. Acts 2 puts salvation first, then baptism, then breaking of bread from house to house. So salvation is required for baptism and communion but nowhere does it state that they are necessary for church membership. I think that if a person is able to be baptised they must obey the commant of scripture but if they desire to be but are for some reason (physical or other) unable to be we should not with hold the right hand of fellowship
I believe that all believer's should observe the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's supper. However, to link baptism to communion finds no suppoet in scripture. And to require baptism or church membership for communion also has very weak scriptural support. Acts 2 puts salvation first, then baptism, then breaking of bread from house to house. So salvation is required for baptism and communion but nowhere does it state that they are necessary for church membership. I think that if a person is able to be baptised they must obey the commant of scripture but if they desire to be but are for some reason (physical or other) unable to be we should not with hold the right hand of fellowship
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home