Church membership

[rlvaughn]

From time to time I run across folks in the Baptist galaxy who depreciate or deny the idea of church membership. In Thoughts on Local Church Membership, Then and Now, David Huffstutler writes these words in biblical defense of the idea of church membership.

But, you may ask, does the Bible really teach church membership? Consider this—churches knew how many people were added to their number (e.g., Acts 2:41). In that number, a church was to know who its widows were (1 Tim 5:9), know which men among its number could be suggested for deacons (Acts 6:3), and even know the membership’s exact number in order to determine a majority vote (2 Cor 2:6), something likely used to determine its elders and deacons (Acts 6:3; 14:23; Titus 1:5).1 The very nature of a shepherd assumes an identifiable flock to whom he is accountable and who have committed themselves to one another and his leadership (cf. 1 Thess 5:12–13; Heb 13:17).

What are your thoughts on his thoughts? (For context, the entire article is at the link above.) Does the Bible teach local church membership?

 

[John of Japan]

The very Greek word for church, ekklesia, requires membership. The ekklesia of the Greek city-state had membership--the male citizens--because it was a democracy and only the citizens were allowed to vote.

Furthermore, when they "cast lots" to choose Matthias in Acts 1:26, that was a voting process by the infant church. Normally each voter was given a black and a white pebble, and the voting was tallied by the color of the stone.

So yes, churches must require membership to be Biblical, and those members must be allowed to vote for the assembly to be an ekklesia.

 

[tyndale1946]

That the whole church should be involved in a member’s inclusion is also implied in the church’s role in a member’s exclusion (e.g., Matt 18:15–17; 2 Cor 2:6)—just as a church majority provides for an exit, so also the church majority allows for an entrance.

Brother Robert, this part of the article seem to apply in my case and I will address that part.

I know the Old Line Sovereign Grace Church I was brought up in practiced exclusion... Sometimes unpleasant things need to be done but that is not to say that the one excluded should not be loved and cared for... Since we all are the body of Christ we should care for the body... We all sin and are sinners and just as sure is their must be exclusion there must also be reconciliation and restoration... But how many baptist churches practice it?... Would churches be better if we did?... Brother Glen

 

[OnlyaSinner]

Excellent points. I'd also reference Romans 13, which directs Christians to obey the civil authorities as long as doing so does not violate biblical doctrines/principles. Secular courts have consistently ruled (generally on church discipline actions) that church leadership has no authority over non-member attendees, the converse being that said non-members have no real accountability to the church. Non-members have successfully sued churches that have conducted discipline according to Matt. 18.

 

[HankD]

Spurgeon? I remember reading that he was not ordained and said "I don't want anybody's empty hands on my empty head".

Not sure if that's legendary or not.

 

[Dave G]

From time to time I run across folks in the Baptist galaxy who depreciate or deny the idea of church membership. In Thoughts on Local Church Membership, Then and Now, David Huffstutler writes these words in biblical defense of the idea of church membership.

What are your thoughts on his thoughts? (For context, the entire article is at the link above.) Does the Bible teach local church membership?

I don't hold to "membership" in the secular sense, I hold to it in the spiritual sense.
Believers are all members one of another because they have the same Spirit, so they are all spiritual brothers and sisters.
The church is not a "club" with privileges that can be revoked because of bad conduct...it is the pillar and ground of the truth, with family members, and not subject to men's rules and desires like a worldly institution would be.


For the most part, the rules of Primitive Baptists and other Particular Baptists I would probably agree with, because I see them agreeing with Scripture.
Example:
Putting someone out of the fellowship for gross sin is Scriptural.
Bringing them back in when they repent is Scriptural.

Whether in or out of fellowship, they are still brothers and sisters and to be admonished as such.
Permitting false doctrine to go unchecked...not acceptable.
Those who bring in false teachings are rejected after the first and second admonition not to teach such things.


I also get fussed when I see the term "leadership" regarding the subject of elders, because to me, "leadership" is a secular, worldly method of establishing hierarchy among a body of people.
I was in Uncle Sam's Navy...I know what "chain of command" is, and we as believers are not subject to it among ourselves.
Elders are there to watch over the sheep in their spiritual growth, not to take the place of their Leader.
There are no titles, there are no "super-Christian" pastors doing all the work of teaching, preaching, evangelizing and so forth. Each believer has his or her place and gifts to exercise in the body.

In the article, the author states that baptism is the method of "accepting one's membership" into the church.
To me, this could lead to people being re-baptized into a local church if they come from one of "differing faith", which I see nowhere in Scripture.
Therefore, a person's baptism is into the spiritual body of Christ, not the local assembly, and their word on being Scripturally baptized is good enough for me.
If they are, then no baptism needed; if not, then we get them baptized.



Per the article, the author asks this question:

"does the Bible really teach church membership?"

To me, it depends on what a person's view is of "the church" is, and what a person's view on "membership" is.

 

[The Biblicist]

Not only does the historical meaning of ekklesia demand membership, but the metaphor of a "body" demands membership (1 Cor. 12:27). In Acts 1 the "number of names" also indicates a membership record was being kept. Church discipline is void apart from accountable membership as the church cannot discipline the guy standing on the street corner.

 

[Reformed]

I believe in local church membership, but I want to argue from the other side to flesh this out a bit more.

I doubt Paul and Barnabas envisioned multi separate local churches in any city in which they preached. Therefore, being a member of the body of Christ in Ephesus was to be a member of the church that met in Ephesus. There was no requirement for formal church membership. Conversion was requirement enough and church discipline was easier to administer. Because of schism there is a Baskin Robbins selection of churches. Formal membership has become a sine qua non. There is no question that such a requirement is practical. The question is whether such a requirement is biblical. In the absence of a clear biblical mandate, how do we build a biblical case? Out Presbyterian friends appeal to good and necessary consequence in regards to infant baptism. Do we do the same on church membership?

Not only does the historical meaning of ekklesia demand membership, but the metaphor of a "body" demands membership (1 Cor. 12:27). In Acts 1 the "number of names" also indicates a membership record was being kept. Church discipline is void apart from accountable membership as the church cannot discipline the guy standing on the street corner.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[The Biblicist]

I believe in local church membership, but I want to argue from the other side to flesh this out a bit more.

Fair enough

I doubt Paul and Barnabas envisioned multi separate local churches in any city in which they preached.

I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea: - Rom. 16:1

Cenchrea was a suburb of Corinth.

Likewise greet the church that is in their house.Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.
6 Greet Mary, who bestowed much labour on us.
7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
8 Greet Amplias my beloved in the Lord.
9 Salute Urbane, our helper in Christ, and Stachys my beloved.
10 Salute Apelles approved in Christ.
- Rom. 16:5

Verse 5 locates the church meeting in a house, while verses 5b-10 seems to greet the individual members in that house who were well known to Paul

Other houses are greeted by Paul indicating a strong inference of several house churches in rome which was a city many give a low estimate of at least one million.

There was no requirement for formal church membership.

Baptism always precedes church membership (Mt. 28:19-20 with Acts 2:40-41). Simple gospel conversion (like the theif on the cross) is never sufficient for membership in the church. Discipline cannot be administered to persons merely considered to be saved. I would argue, and will provide contextual documentation to prove that 1 Cor. 12:12-13 refers to membership through conversion and water baptism.

There is no reason for listing a number of "names" apart from a proper membership role (Acts 1).

Out Presbyterian friends appeal to good and necessary consequence in regards to infant baptism.

Sorry, but there is absolutely no Biblical, no rational, and no practical reason for infant baptism. It is totally baseless. It is not merely an issue of absolute silence in the New Testament, but infant baptism repudiates the very fundamentals of the gospel.

 

[Reformed]

Sorry, but there is absolutely no Biblical, no rational, and no practical reason for infant baptism. It is totally baseless. It is not merely an issue of absolute silence in the New Testament, but infant baptism repudiates the very fundamentals of the gospel.

My comment was not to affirm paedobaptism but to ask whether good and necessary consequence is a valid way of defending formal church membership.

 

[Reformed]

I am playing devil's advocate here. It is helpful to lay out a convincing biblical case for formal church membership. That is what I am seeking to do.

 

[John of Japan]

I am playing devil's advocate here. It is helpful to lay out a convincing biblical case for formal church membership. That is what I am seeking to do.

I thought we had already done so on this thread.

And I'm curious. In Post 8 you say,

There was no requirement for formal church membership. Conversion was requirement enough and church discipline was easier to administer.

The standard Baptist position is that baptism is necessary for membership. Do you disagree?

 

[Reformed]

Not at all. I am more interested in the congregational aspect of voting on prospective members. I believe it is practical but not mandated. I am personally acquainted with two individuals who refuse to go through with formal church membership because of scars from a previous church experience. They are baptized, attend faithfully, and give. They even serve with their time as allowed, but they will not submit to a vote by the congregation.

I thought we had already done so on this thread.

And I'm curious. In Post 8 you say,
The standard Baptist position is that baptism is necessary for membership. Do you disagree?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[HankD]

Not only does the historical meaning of ekklesia demand membership, but the metaphor of a "body" demands membership (1 Cor. 12:27). In Acts 1 the "number of names" also indicates a membership record was being kept. Church discipline is void apart from accountable membership as the church cannot discipline the guy standing on the street corner.

Sure they can.

Stand there and shout insults at him.

 

[The Biblicist]

My comment was not to affirm paedobaptism but to ask whether good and necessary consequence is a valid way of defending formal church membership.

"necessary" consequence? How is infant baptism defended by "necessary consequence"? There is no Biblical command for it! There is no Biblical record of it? Just as immersion is inherent in the very historical and Biblical use and meaning of baptizo, so church membership is inherent in the historical and Biblical use of ekklesia and metaphor of "the body" (1 Cor. 12:27 "members in particular"). Voting begins with a record of membership names (Acts 1) and thus provides the logical and Biblical basis for determining church related decisions.

The universal invisible church advocate attempts to redefine the assembly with his concept of an all inclusive, non-disciplinary, unbaptized concept of the church. Of course, that leads to denial of baptism as a prerequisite for church membership which ultimately leads to non-membershp as no baptism and no membership, no discipline are necessary consequences in any attempt to harmonize the local assembly with the invisible universal concept of the church.

 

[Dave G]

"necessary" consequence? How is infant baptism defended by "necessary consequence"? There is no Biblical command for it! There is no Biblical record of it? Just as immersion is inherent in the very historical and Biblical use and meaning of baptizo, so church membership is inherent in the historical and Biblical use of ekklesia and metaphor of "the body" (1 Cor. 12:27 "members in particular"). Voting begins with a record of membership names (Acts 1) and thus provides the logical and Biblical basis for determining church related decisions.

Let's see that quote again:

My comment was not to affirm paedobaptism but to ask whether good and necessary consequence is a valid way of defending formal church membership.

So...his comment was NOT to affirm paedobaptism.
It was to ask whether "good and necessary consequence" is a VALID way of defending formal church membership.

Please rewind, and look at it again.

The universal invisible church advocate attempts to redefine the assembly with his concept of an all inclusive, non-disciplinary, unbaptized concept of the church.

Speaking for myself here:
No, I don't believe that they do.
I am a "universal invisible church advocate" that does NOT attempt to redefine the assembly as an all-inclusive, non-disciplinary, unbaptized concept of the church.

To me, brothers and sisters can be anywhere, in any locale, and I recognize them as such.

But in my local area, they are congregated in local assemblies within an exclusive, disciplinary, baptized body of believers.
However, I have yet to find, by God's grace, any local assembly that believes the entirety of God's word, and trusts it alone...instead of running off to some teacher that everyone looks up to, raves over, and tells me things like, "pastor doesn't teach that" when I bring up things from the Bible.

So, because "pastor doesn't teach it", then to them, it's not in the Bible.
But I digress...



To the vast number of local "churches" here in my area, baptism signifies their acceptance into that local body...so much so, that when I sought to join a church that was close to my own beliefs about the Bible, their policy was to re-baptize anyone who comes from other teachings than their own.

So because I came from a "Tradionalist" background, they wanted to re-baptize me to become a member of their "sovereign grace" assembly.
I said, "no".

I told their pastor that re-baptism is not taught anywhere in God's word if that baptism was done Scripturally and in the name of Jesus Christ.
I told him to consider that their policy was extra-Scriptural, and a matter of preference, not one of God's command.
I have yet to hear back from him.

For the record:
I do not believe that local church membership hinges on baptism.
I believe that local church membership hinges on being born again.

My brothers and sisters can come from anywhere, and as long as they are baptized Scripturally, I would accept them as a member and fellowship with them even if no one locally did the baptizing.
If they haven't been baptized Scripturally, then they should be, as soon as possible.
Their word on being baptized, if they are from another "church" is all I need.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your position...
Semantics ( the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text ) being what they are, I often find that how I write something may not get through as well as if I re-write it in plainer speech.

Maybe I'm not reading it the way it was meant to be read.

 

[Reformed]

"necessary" consequence? How is infant baptism defended by "necessary consequence"? There is no Biblical command for it! There is no Biblical record of it? Just as immersion is inherent in the very historical and Biblical use and meaning of baptizo, so church membership is inherent in the historical and Biblical use of ekklesia and metaphor of "the body" (1 Cor. 12:27 "members in particular"). Voting begins with a record of membership names (Acts 1) and thus provides the logical and Biblical basis for determining church related decisions.

The universal invisible church advocate attempts to redefine the assembly with his concept of an all inclusive, non-disciplinary, unbaptized concept of the church. Of course, that leads to denial of baptism as a prerequisite for church membership which ultimately leads to non-membershp as no baptism and no membership, no discipline are necessary consequences in any attempt to harmonize the local assembly with the invisible universal concept of the church.

Honestly, you have not taken the time to understand one thing I have written.

 

[The Biblicist]

Honestly, you have not taken the time to understand one thing I have written.

I haven't had the time to read all your posts on this thread. I was just responding to the posts that I referred to.

 

[The Biblicist]

Let's see that quote again:



So...his comment was NOT to affirm paedobaptism.
It was to ask whether "good and necessary consequence" is a VALID way of defending formal church membership.

As I stated to him, I fail to see how paedobaptism is based upon "necessary consequences."

Speaking for myself here:
No, I don't believe that they do.
I am a "universal invisible church advocate" that does NOT attempt to redefine the assembly as an all-inclusive, non-disciplinary, unbaptized concept of the church.

It does not appear you understand what I said, and I may be at fault for not making myself clearer. The Invisible church advocate argues that there is but "one body" and in order to harmonize that statement with their invisible church idea and with the local visible assembly, they argue that the local visible assembly is simply a visible expression of the latter and that the goal of the local assembly is to become a more visible expression of the invisible as the invisible one is what they all call the "true" church. In keeping with this line of argument, the "true" church does not require water baptism for membership but merely salvation and so many Reformed Baptist churches (MacArthur, Piper, Begg, etc.) take the position that baptism is not required for membership in their congregations and they take in those who are believers regardless of the form of baptism or lack thereof (although they practice baptism by immersion). This is the line of reasoning I was trying to convey. Do you understand where they are coming from and now where I am coming from. Of course, since salvation is the only requirement in the "true" church how could anything be less true of the visible expression (as you acknowledge below: "For the record: I do not believe that local church membership hinges on baptism.I believe that local church membership hinges on being born again."). Therefore, in keeping with this line of logic, that would exclude all membership requirements but salvation, exclude church exclusion as the "true" church excludes none within its body. It is from this line of logic that I previously referred to?

To the vast number of local "churches" here in my area, baptism signifies their acceptance into that local body...so much so, that when I sought to join a church that was close to my own beliefs about the Bible, their policy was to re-baptize anyone who comes from other teachings than their own.

So because I came from a "Tradionalist" background, they wanted to re-baptize me to become a member of their "sovereign grace" assembly.
I said, "no".

I told their pastor that re-baptism is not taught anywhere in God's word if that baptism was done Scripturally and in the name of Jesus Christ.
I told him to consider that their policy was extra-Scriptural, and a matter of preference, not one of God's command.
I have yet to hear back from him.

That pastor is correct and it is easy to prove from scriptures. First, take note of one clear place in scripture where authority is explicitly mentioned with regard to the administration of baptism(Mt. 28:18-19). There are three four different parties involved in this commission. (1) There is the authorizing party - Jesus; (2) There is the authorized administrative party - "ye....you"; (3) there are two different parties that are the object of administration of this commission - "all nations....them.....them." The subject of evangelization is "all nations." The subject of baptism and assembling them under instructors to teach how to observe all things are those evangelized out of all nations or "them."

Take note that "all nations" have no authority to administer this commission.
Take note that "them....them" have no authority to administer this commission as that is like commissioning the ignorant to teach what they do not know, and the blind to lead what they cannot see. Unbaptized evangelized Christians and untaught Christians are not authorized to administer this commission.

Take note that the only authorized administrator is a plural "ye....you" that already "have" (v. 20) been through this threefold process of being made a discipled. They "have" already been evangelized, they "have" already been baptized, and they "have" already been taught how to observe all things Christ commanded.

Finally, the primary verb means "make disciples" not make inovaters, or heretics! The authorized administrator does not embrace "another gospel" but the same gospel Jesus preached and commissioned (Acts 10:43; Heb. 4:2). The authorized administrator does not administer another kind of baptism that what Jesus submitted to himself as any other kind is a rejection of the counsel of God (Lk. 7:29). The authorized administrator does not teach another faith and practice, but the faith "once delivered" by Christ and called "the apostles doctrine" (Acts 2:41) as any other type is a departure "from the faith" (1 Tim. 4:1) and doctrines of demons.

Finally, take note that baptism precedes congregational instruction (Mt. 28:19 before 20; Acts 2:40 before 41). In other words, the Great commission is the command to reproduce LIKE FAITH AND ORDER with Christ with regard to the gospel, baptism and faith and practice. That is precisely why every congregation should only recognize what they believe is LIKE FAITH AND ORDER with their congregation. This is not only the principle found in the Great Commission, but the whole New Testament does not know of "denominationalism" as all churches in the New Testament period where LIKE FAITH AND ORDER and they treated all who departed from THEIR FAITH AND ORDER as heretics and worthy of exclusion (Rom.16:17-18; 1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Thes. 3:6) even though they were considered a "brother" (2 thes. 3:14; 1 Cor. 5:11; etc.).

Whether or not you agree with my analysis, I hope I have been clear in my presentation.

 

[Dave G]

Whether or not you agree with my analysis, I hope I have been clear in my presentation.

You've been very clear.

That pastor is correct and it is easy to prove from scriptures. First, take note of one clear place in scripture where authority is explicitly mentioned with regard to the administration of baptism(Mt. 28:18-19). There are three four different parties involved in this commission. (1) There is the authorizing party - Jesus; (2) There is the authorized administrative party - "ye....you"; (3) there are two different parties that are the object of administration of this commission - "all nations....them.....them." The subject of evangelization is "all nations." The subject of baptism and assembling them under instructors to teach how to observe all things are those evangelized out of all nations or "them."

Take note that "all nations" have no authority to administer this commission.
Take note that "them....them" have no authority to administer this commission as that is like commissioning the ignorant to teach what they do not know, and the blind to lead what they cannot see. Unbaptized evangelized Christians and untaught Christians are not authorized to administer this commission.

Take note that the only authorized administrator is a plural "ye....you" that already "have" (v. 20) been through this threefold process of being made a discipled. They "have" already been evangelized, they "have" already been baptized, and they "have" already been taught how to observe all things Christ commanded.

Finally, the primary verb means "make disciples" not make inovaters, or heretics! The authorized administrator does not embrace "another gospel" but the same gospel Jesus preached and commissioned (Acts 10:43; Heb. 4:2). The authorized administrator does not administer another kind of baptism that what Jesus submitted to himself as any other kind is a rejection of the counsel of God (Lk. 7:29). The authorized administrator does not teach another faith and practice, but the faith "once delivered" by Christ and called "the apostles doctrine" (Acts 2:41) as any other type is a departure "from the faith" (1 Tim. 4:1) and doctrines of demons.

Unfortunately, I will not accede to the demands of a pastor whose policy on re-baptism overlooks the fact that I was already Scripturally baptized 40 years ago...in a visible Baptist church.
Baptism is an outward expression of identifying with Christ...it is symbolic.
It is not, nor ever has been, dependent upon the baptizer being saved or even teaching sound doctrine.
If you find Scriptural precedence for re-baptism, other than someone being baptized with the baptism of repentance under John the Baptist, and then being re-baptized to identify with Christ, then please show me.

Until then, I see two elements to baptism...the way it is performed, and the outward witness by the one who has believed, identifying with their Saviour.
Who performs it is incidental, and to me, re-baptism of an already-baptized believer is a fabrication based on logical reasoning, not Scriptural precedence.
In other words, the church that practices re-baptism of already-baptized believers is teaching for doctrine the commandments of men.
There is no example in all of Scripture for today's re-baptism of people into local assemblies of "differing faiths".

Baptism does not grant one "membership" into the body of Christ, local or otherwise.
It is an ordinance that, once followed, never has to be repeated again.
It is between the baptized, and the Lord; An outward expression of an inward change.

Since I've obeyed the Lord in being baptized, then that is enough.
As I see it, the pastor that wanted to re-baptize me in order for me to join their assembly, has no Scriptural right nor precedence to demand my re-baptism ( or to even insist on a "letter of baptism" in order to accept me into their membership )...my word should be good enough.

In my estimation, he and his visible "landmark" church can do as they like, and I will simply find fellowship elsewhere.
From my perspective, their tradition is clouding their judgment.
I then have to wonder how many other things there are "under the hood" that "go bump in the night".

It does not appear you understand what I said, and I may be at fault for not making myself clearer. The Invisible church advocate argues that there is but "one body" and in order to harmonize that statement with their invisible church idea and with the local visible assembly, they argue that the local visible assembly is simply a visible expression of the latter and that the goal of the local assembly is to become a more visible expression of the invisible as the invisible one is what they all call the "true" church. In keeping with this line of argument, the "true" church does not require water baptism for membership but merely salvation and so many Reformed Baptist churches (MacArthur, Piper, Begg, etc.) take the position that baptism is not required for membership in their congregations and they take in those who are believers regardless of the form of baptism or lack thereof (although they practice baptism by immersion). This is the line of reasoning I was trying to convey. Do you understand where they are coming from and now where I am coming from. Of course, since salvation is the only requirement in the "true" church how could anything be less true of the visible expression (as you acknowledge below: "For the record: I do not believe that local church membership hinges on baptism.I believe that local church membership hinges on being born again."). Therefore, in keeping with this line of logic, that would exclude all membership requirements but salvation, exclude church exclusion as the "true" church excludes none within its body. It is from this line of logic that I previously referred to?

I understand all this, and your position.

I don't agree with those who accept unbaptized believers without asking them to be baptized as soon as possible.
I don't agree with those who re-baptize, if someone was already Scripturally baptized ( immersion ) in the name of Jesus Christ.
Sprinkling and pouring are both disqualified as forms of "baptism".

Again, local church membership ( Romans 12:5, 1 Corinthians 12:12 ) hinges on being born-again.
Local church involvement ( fellowship ) starts with being baptized, taught in the word and doctrine, taking the Lord's Supper, and many other things.

The local church is not a "country club" with membership privileges that can be revoked and a hierarchy of "leadership" that gets the members to participate in "projects" and "fund-raisers"...it is a spiritual family whose members are disciplined in love and patience by the group and overseen by elders, and whose members provide for and minister to one another, both spiritually and temporally.

It's not a business, like so many are being run today.
That puts a burr under my saddle, with all due respect.



With baptism, I make a distinction... but I am not averse to the Lord showing me that I am wrong about it being necessary for "membership".
For now, anyone that wishes to fellowship with me may do so, if they are born again.

But the first order of business should be to get them baptized as soon as possible, if they are not already.