How easy should it be for a Baptist church to accept a new member.

[unprofitable]

I believe someone professing salvation and after questioning by the elders that they be baptized as soon as possible. The church at Jerusalem where 3000 were added in one day already had much instruction and had seen many miracles of Christ.

As far as leadership in the church, the same is true of the new convert as is one desiring the office of the bishop. 1 Tim 3:6. When i was working, I would never have hired someone and immediately put them in a leadership role without them having any experience or knowledge of the business.

No difference in the church

 

[JesusFan]

and how close does that "faith & practice" have to be"
Would a KJO church accept a member from a non- KJO? Other "minor" doctrines?

Or if a Christian was saved and Baptized in a Pentacostal Church and then became a Baptist and moved to a new church?

 

[Salty]

Or if a Christian was saved and Baptized in a Pentacostal Church and then became a Baptist and moved to a new church?

Generally, I would not have a problem with that - would just want to discus the issue of lounges.
Of course, I would first ask if they spoke in lounges - if they answered in the affirmative, I would then ask do they follow the 3 rules as stated in I Cor 14. If they say yes, (which I have never seen in Pentecostal churches I have attended) then I would ask them what is the purpose of speaking in tounges.

 

[JesusFan]

Generally, I would not have a problem with that - would just want to discus the issue of lounges.
Of course, I would first ask if they spoke in lounges - if they answered in the affirmative, I would then ask do they follow the 3 rules as stated in I Cor 14. If they say yes, (which I have never seen in Pentecostal churches I have attended) then I would ask them what is the purpose of speaking in tounges.

I would take it one step furhter, asking if they held to nay word of fith heresy, or if they were here to do tongues and prophecies and get the church now "revived"

 

[Jerome]

I would take it one step furhter, asking if they held to nay word of fith heresy, or if they were here to do tongues and prophecies and get the church now "revived"

Well said!

 

[Salty]

I would take it one step furhter, asking if they held to nay word of fith heresy, or if they were here to do tongues and prophecies and get the church now "revived"

If they said they did follow all three rules, and knew why to speak in tongues - then your comment would probably be my next question.

 

[Ben1445]

Still valid questions that are relevant. Would your church accept somone for memberership if they did not believe in virgin birth of Christ or denied the trinity?

If they don’t believe what the Bible teaches, if they can’t look at our statement of faith and at least say “I am willing to learn what Scripture teaches on these subjects,” then it is clear they are not interested in fellowship.
What seems to be more often the case in good churches is that the church is not interested in fellowship with new believers until they are sure of them. How many Paul’s have we kept out of our churches because they don’t know a Barnabas in our church?
I’m not talking about living in sin or transferring churches from the Mormon church directly into a Baptist church. I’m talking about churches who want to do trial run memberships. I don’t think that is biblical or right.

 

[Ben1445]

I believe someone professing salvation and after questioning by the elders that they be baptized as soon as possible. The church at Jerusalem where 3000 were added in one day already had much instruction and had seen many miracles of Christ.

I don’t see those qualifications anywhere.
I think that is a modern form of teaching for doctrine the commandments of men.

As far as leadership in the church, the same is true of the new convert as is one desiring the office of the bishop. 1 Tim 3:6. When i was working, I would never have hired someone and immediately put them in a leadership role without them having any experience or knowledge of the business.

I missed that “make no man a member suddenly” verse. Where is it?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

If the prospective member is transferring in from another church, then the first thing to do is to write to that church. If it's a like-minded church and the leaders write back saying that the person has been a member in good standing, that's a very helpful sign. The guy would still have to sign up to our constitution, and be interviewed by the pastor and another elder.
If he's coming from a church which is part of a denomination that we would regard as suspect, then we run a "baptism and membership" course which is designed to ensure that the applicant is saved (so far as that is possible) and that he is happy to be in a conservative evangelical church. We require an applicant to do the course even if he has been baptized as a believer already, although we don't re-baptize, except in the case of cults or infant 'baptism.' We don't require new members to be Calvinists, but they need to understand that the Doctrines of Grace will be taught (though not aggressively) from the pulpit, and if they're not happy with that, maybe they should look at another church. We have one lady member who thinks she can speak in 'tongues.' She understands that she should not practise this in the church nor promote it among the congregation. She has caused us no problems and we are happy to have her with us. My church is also complementarian and new applicants need to accept that we do not have women preachers or elders.

 

[unprofitable]

I don’t see those qualifications anywhere.
I think that is a modern form of teaching for doctrine the commandments of men.


I missed that “make no man a member suddenly” verse. Where is it?

It appears the three thousand added at Jerusalem were primarily Jews who would have already have been baptized by John.( Mt 3:5, Acts 2:5) having been taught from their youth as was commanded by the Law. They definitely were not ignorant of the miracles performed by Christ or his teachings. They knew that the scriptures commanded them to try the spirits to see if they be of God.

Your proposal to put someone into a leadership role without teaching as to the kingdom of God is similar to an open border proposal and you can see how that has worked out.

If they don’t believe what the Bible teaches, if they can’t look at our statement of faith and at least say “I am willing to learn what Scripture teaches on these subjects,” then it is clear they are not interested in fellowship.
What seems to be more often the case in good churches is that the church is not interested in fellowship with new believers until they are sure of them. How many Paul’s have we kept out of our churches because they don’t know a Barnabas in our church?
I’m not talking about living in sin or transferring churches from the Mormon church directly into a Baptist church. I’m talking about churches who want to do trial run memberships. I don’t think that is biblical or right.

It seemed from your previous posts that you were saying a new prospect would not even have to read a statement of faith. Thank you for that clarification. When a church baptizes them or accept them as a membert then that member is now under that church's watchcare. The church for their part would be responsible to for finding out what it could do to help the member grow in Christ to the extent that the member is willing to communicate that to the church. 1 Cor 12:18-26 can be used as a guide to that matter. Your trial run membership philosopy is foreign to us.

Again, quickly adding someone to leadership would be foolish. The Old Covenant give us an example when someone who was not homeborn wanted to be added to the nation of Israel. They would be taught the laws of Israel and men be circumcised before being treated as homeborn. To become citizen of the United States requires knowledge of the Constitution. Why should the Kingdom of God require less?

Would you want someone who drove a bus to be made an airplane mechanic on a plane you would fly on without instruction. Did any job you had make you president without knowledge of that company? Simply common sense.

 

[Ben1445]

It appears the three thousand added at Jerusalem were primarily Jews who would have already have been baptized by John.( Mt 3:5, Acts 2:5) having been taught from their youth as was commanded by the Law. They definitely were not ignorant of the miracles performed by Christ or his teachings. They knew that the scriptures commanded them to try the spirits to see if they be of God.

Your proposal to put someone into a leadership role without teaching as to the kingdom of God is similar to an open border proposal and you can see how that has worked out.

You brought up leadership.
I’ve been talking about membership. I haven’t said anything about making instant leaders out of new members.

This is getting to be annoying.
You keep saying that I have said things that I have not. Do you read what I write or just think that you know what I mean?

It seemed from your previous posts that you were saying a new prospect would not even have to read a statement of faith. Thank you for that clarification.

I kind of figured that we were approaching this from the common sense perspective.

When a church baptizes them or accept them as a membert then that member is now under that church's watchcare. The church for their part would be responsible to for finding out what it could do to help the member grow in Christ to the extent that the member is willing to communicate that to the church. 1 Cor 12:18-26 can be used as a guide to that matter. Your trial run membership philosopy is foreign to us.

Not my idea. It is what some people say they have and do. They might not always call it a trial period but that is what it amounts to.

Again, quickly adding someone to leadership would be foolish. The Old Covenant give us an example when someone who was not homeborn wanted to be added to the nation of Israel. They would be taught the laws of Israel and men be circumcised before being treated as homeborn. To become citizen of the United States requires knowledge of the Constitution. Why should the Kingdom of God require less?

Again, you are off topic. This was about membership. I haven’t been talking about leadership.

Would you want someone who drove a bus to be made an airplane mechanic on a plane you would fly on without instruction. Did any job you had make you president without knowledge of that company? Simply common sense.

Again, accepting members is the topic. You don’t agree with me because you are not on topic. I agree with a lot of what you said. But when you switch to giving leadership roles from accepting members, don’t expect what I said to apply. I haven’t been talking about leadership.

 

[unprofitable]

You brought up leadership.
I’ve been talking about membership. I haven’t said anything about making instant leaders out of new members.

This is getting to be annoying.
You keep saying that I have said things that I have not. Do you read what I write or just think that you know what I mean?


I kind of figured that we were approaching this from the common sense perspective.


Not my idea. It is what some people say they have and do. They might not always call it a trial period but that is what it amounts to.


Again, you are off topic. This was about membership. I haven’t been talking about leadership.


Again, accepting members is the topic. You don’t agree with me because you are not on topic. I agree with a lot of what you said. But when you switch to giving leadership roles from accepting members, don’t expect what I said to apply. I haven’t been talking about leadership.

I read your post 76 seeming to say there should be nothing to prevent membership including leadership of the church as permitting new members to be allowed into a leadership role after admission as a member. I had a friend who went from the Christian assembly to the Methodists and within a month was asked to teach one of their classes. With the inclusive atmosphere and practices of some today, I will say i misunderstood what was your intent.