Baptism and Baptist Church Membership

You asked, I answered.

Now you want to move the question.

Then I would suggest that you conduct a personal Bible study targeting church membership and standards in light of our lack of impact upon our modern culture.

I would bet that you would come away with a higher standard of membership than you thought that you would.

If not, then God is leading you a different direction.

 

Being baptized was a public proclamation of their trust in Christ and naming Jesus as Lord. When one named Jesus as Lord it meant that he renounced the emperor as lord and naming Christ as Lord. This meant the emperor coulod have the person exectued.

 

Perhaps you should get them a copy of:

"Today's Apostasy. How decisionism is destroying Our Churches" By R.L. Hymers Jr. & Christopher Cagan.

http://www.goodnewschristianbooks.com/183875X/item_1575580462.htm

It's about churches that let the unsaved become voting members of their church and then they naturally destroy the church. (1 Cor. 2:14)

I would say though that even they have a higher standard than your church since at least they think that these prospective members are saved.

Don't the leaders in your church at least screen these folks to see if they're saved?

 

Actually it's better to establish church membership from Acts 20.

"For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears."

That is why one must set certain standards for church membership, to keep the apostates out. And foremost the prospective member must pass a screening to discern if they are saved. And if your church cares if they are obedient Christians before becoming members, then see if they are baptized. If not arrange for their baptism.

It's good to be a Christian.

But it's better to be an obedient Christian.

BTW, that's a favorite saying in our church. How about your's?

 

I agree that unsaved should not join a church. Indeed, by the Biblical definition of a church, a gathering or The gathering of believers in Christ, they can't (but I see what your saying in practical terms

However I have the solution for this problem. How about following the biblical method of leadership instead. The bible no where has people voting. The church is lead by a plurality of elders, yes plural, not one pastor. Men who meet the very strict requriments set down in Timothy and Titus and our able to sheperd God's people into a greater trust and dependence on Him.

 

El,

There is no need for vitriol. I simply asked a question, and a simple reply would have sufficed. Yet your only reply has been to beg the question with increasing hostility.

I have not said that baptism is not a requirement for membership in a local church. I have said that I am undecided on the point. You assume too much.

In fact, so far no one has presented evidence from scripture to support the claim that baptism by immersion is required for local church membership. The question is not whether baptism should occur after belief. All involved parties in this discussion believe that. The question is not whether immersion is the only proper method of baptism. All involved parties in this discussion believe that. The question is, instead, whether someone who does not believe these things is thereby disqualified from local church membership. Again, if you (or anyone else) can provide scripture to affirm or deny this question I would be grateful.

 

whatever,

Show me where there is a 'requirement' for local church membership ... Simple question, you can use some of that vitriol.

 

Skipping the current debate and returning to the original post, I wonder about the phrase "a conviction that it would be a violation of their conscience to be baptized by immersion as believers." That seems to include both immersion and post-salvation baptism. As it stands, it seems that the new position would accept those who were baptized by affusion in infancy.

For my part, the proposed polity change seems monstrous, a clear example of the proverb that says "a camel is a horse that was put together by a committee." How can a church believe and not believe at the same time? If it's okay to let them in, then it's wrong to keep them out if their level of plausible, intelligent argumentation doesn't satisfy the elders, despite what the poor nonbaptist's conscience tells him. If this ain't a rehash of the Spanish Inquisition, I'll eat my copy of Flame in the Wind.

 

I agree that unsaved should not join a church. Indeed, by the Biblical definition of a church, a gathering or The gathering of believers in Christ, they can't (but I see what your saying in practical terms

However I have the solution for this problem. How about following the biblical method of leadership instead. The bible no where has people voting. The church is lead by a plurality of elders, yes plural, not one pastor. Men who meet the very strict requriments set down in Timothy and Titus and our able to sheperd God's people into a greater trust and dependence on Him. </font>[/QUOTE]Many churches do have elder rule, and I have no problem with that form of government.

Our church went with congregational rule because our old church was taken over by elders that came in as Calvinists and re-wrote our standing constitution. They also didn't adhere to the rules of the old constitution. We didn't want that to happen in our newly formed church.

 

El,

I feel a little bit like Alice when she fell down the hole. Sometimes I really have no idea how to understand what you say. Look, either you can justify from scripture your requirement that a member of your local church must hold to a correct view of baptism, or you cannot justify it from scripture. Which is it?

 

The same thing can happen with congregational rule and deacons.

 

Alice is it?

The BFM 2000 VII lists the supporting passages for baptism ...

My requirement? 'Our requirement'. You are only the second 'Baptist' that I have heard of that does not consider baptism a requirement.

Most CofC churches require baptism for salvation.

You should feel lucky that 'we' just require baptism for church membership.

 

The same thing can happen with congregational rule and deacons. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, but it's much more difficult because of the numbers.

 

El,

Again, I have not made up my mind on this issue so it is inaccurate to say that I do not consider baptism a requirement for church membership. I am simply exploring the question.

But, your reply shows some progress. Here's what the BFM says about baptism:

The passages in bold are the ones that deal with baptism. The others have to do with the Lord's Supper. After reading each of these passages the problem that I have is that none of them deals with baptism in the context of local church membership, that I can tell. Of these passages, which ones justify your position? Or are there others that you could provide? Thanks in advance.

 

JackRUS wrote,

My church has no formal policy for admitting new members, but I am not the pastor. If it were up to me, I would tighten up a bit the requirements for church membership.

 

This has been alluded to, but let me come out and say this: we assume that the fight over baptism is limited to mode, when another (perhaps greater) issue is the candidate. That is, paedo vs. credobaptism.

I don't believe I'm comfortable with where this church in question is going. However, we do need to remember that there are essentials to the faith, and many giants of the faith (Lloyd-Jones immediately comes to mind) considered baptism NOT to be an essential worth dividing over.