Baptism and Baptist Church Membership

So what if the person has a medical condition at the time of salvation and cannot be baptized by immersion?

 

Don't you just love exceptions ...

Well, I pray that by now you will know what I think about the decision. At least it is a long ways to Minneapolis ...

 

Brice,

then they would do so when and if their medical condition ever allows them to be baptized. Right now I cannot think of any permanent medical condition that would cause this, except for bedridden, terminal patients. But I imagine you have some instances in mind.

But the thief on the cross was never baptized and his is one case we cite as an example that baptism does not save. But neither was the thief sprinkled.....

So the rare cases in which a medical condition might not allow for immersion can be taken into consideration. I still would not consider sprinkling them.

 

I understand and agree with Gold Dragon's original statement. The irony is that Baptists are the most adament amoung Christian groups about how baptism must been done but then turn around and argue that baptism means the least (among other christian groups) in terms of what it is or accomplishes. You would think that a group like the presbyterians, who some would argue baptism adds the child into the new covenant (albeit not into savlation) would be more adament about exactly how it must been done.

Piper's move has been discussed on quite a few forums across the web already. I happen to agree with him though First of all I think our modern day concept of memborship is somewhat extra-biblical. In the 1st century everyone who was a believer at all was a member of the body of Christ and whatever local church was close by. When Paul sent Timothy to a church for several years, he didn't need to transfer his memborship! But more importantly, I find it interesting that you would make the gate to your church more narrow then God makes the gate into enternal life. Anyone, who believes in Jesus is saved, even presbyterians. Yet while God says they are part of the Body of Christ, we say they can't be part of our local body. Does that make sense to anyone? In practicality, we do it to preserve our theological differences and maintian and teaching distintives, which is fine. But the funny thing is that I could attent a church for years yet never be a "member" because I don't agree with some defining theological point. That, I call, extra-biblical. Is there any example in the NT where people attending the worship gatherings of the local church, where actual believers in Jesus and part of the body of Christ, yet were not considered part of that local church.

Finnally, as a side note on Piper. I think his reasoning is that it is a Shame that no presbyterians can't join his church, despite the fact that his theology and worship are very similar, but any arminian and even unchurched and untaught non-denom Christian can join who are probably on polar ends of the planet with the elder's teaching.

 

If baptism is the outward sign that we are now in the body of Christ, and one cannot be baptized by immersion for various reasons, why not sprinkle? It is simply a sign of belief. Could you just dump water on the person? Would that be considered immersion? There are many folks who could not get up and then be taken under water because of medical conditions. Would that prevent them from becoming a member of the church?

 

Pete,

Great post. I took a lot away from it.

 

And so it begins ...

 

I was quite a bit confused by your response until I reread a few of your posts. I assume you believe I am a "Piper-calvinist" flocking to his side. So to set the record straight, I have always believed this. Not only that, I haven't read a single thing Piper or his church have written on the subject. I simply can't think of how I can explain to God that someone can be a member of His body of Christ but not ours.

 

"But more importantly, I find it interesting that you would make the gate to your church more narrow then God makes the gate into enternal life."

Realistically though, Pete, there are more types of churches now than there were back in Paul and Timothy's time....right? So we really have to be more discerning with our church memberships simply due to the fact that there are so many teaching false doctrines.

However, I don't think you can compare church membership to the "gate into eternal life." Where you have your membership has no bearing on your salvation except how likely you will be to hear true gospel depending on which church you frequent.

 

As I have not read this thread in it's entirety this may be out of place, but I'll say it anyway.

I have always wondered why it is easier to get to Heaven than it is to become a member of the Baptist church?

BEFORE you go beating on me remember I am a Baptist.

 

Then I stand corrected. I actually agree with the gist of what you are saying. And yes it is often easier to become a Christian than to join the average Baptist church ... baptism is a second tier issue. It is not a center circle issue. For that reason, mode of baptism helps distinguish certain groups from others. Nothing wrong with that as long as it is not exalted to a position of salvific essentiality.

We have many regular attendees at our church who are not "members". We take membership seriously. We know that our members are active givers, servers, and attenders (supposed to be at least). For that reason, our crowd often has more "non-members" than "members."

 

My personal belief is that the normative manner of Baptism in the New Testament was by immersion, but the Bible does not expressly teach this. And it most certainly does not teach that the manner of Baptism is of any significance whatsoever. Therefore, if a Baptist church is going to officially make the claim that its doctrines are all Biblical, the mode of Baptism MUST be omitted from the dogmatic teaching of that church. You simply cannot have your cake and eat it too. If a Baptist church, however, officially admits that some of its doctrines are based upon “Baptist Distinctives” rather than the Bible, then I see no problem with that church dogmatically teaching that baptism by immersion is the way to go.

I was immersed when I was baptized. Some of my Christian friends, however, were poured on or sprinkled. What is the big deal here? The big deal here is that taking a firm stand on petty differences needlessly divides and weakens the body of Christ.

 

How could it be a valid "violation of their conscience to be baptized by immersion as believers" since the Holy Spirit desires them to be baptized? This is obviously not the conviction of the Holy Spirit, but rather their own problems with the sacrament.

We just started a new church two years ago and put in the constitution that one must be a baptized believer in order to be a member because we are congregational rule. We want only spirit filled obedient believers voting on the spiritual issues in our church.

Some didn't like this requirement, but we put it in the constitution anyway. When the Bible says that after one is born again that they should be baptized and they don't, then we believe that they are living in disobedience.

 

Craig,

I think because leaving it open like that would open the door to those who had infant baptism, and then you open the membership to the unregenerated.....

Wasn't that a huge issue always, between baptists and catholics?

 

I am a member of a Conservative Baptist Church. In my particular church, the ONLY requirement for church membership is the desire to be a member of the church. The views of the senior pastor on several significant doctrines are distinctly different than the views of some of his associate pastors. Our church’s governing documents do not require that even the senior pastor be an ordained Conservative Baptist, but only that he be ordained by a Baptist church or group. However, we all get along just fine because we each respect the views of the others.

If it were up to me, however, I would tighten up a bit the requirements for church membership.

 

Bapmom wrote,

We do need to draw some lines—but they must not be drawn blindly or ignorantly. I believe in all of the Baptist Distinctives, but I also freely acknowledge that they take a backseat to the Bible.

 

Then explain why I am not a member of your church?

 

I think the quote from the OP makes it clear that this particular church is taking steps to prevent this from happening.

 

Forgetting "Baptist distinctives" for a while, why, Biblically speaking, should a local church deny membership to a person who refuses baptism by immersion?