Baptism for Church Membership

Let me pose a hypothetical question (maybe not hypothetical):

A man begins attending your church. He shows up for every service, even Wednesday night. He joins a Sunday School Class, exhibits a knowledge ofthe Bible and theology and contributes to the class discussion. He gives every evidence of being a believer.

After about six months, he presents himself for memberhship in your church. He gives the pastor a testimony of salvation, but has never been a church member anywhere. So the pastor says to him, "we'll accept you on your testimony of salvation. Would you like to be baptized tonight or next Sunday"?

"Uh, neither. I don't want to be baptized. I have a deathly fear of putting my face under water. I just can't do it. I just want to be a member and join my fellow Christians here."

How would you handle this situation? Would you admit him to membership unbaptized? If not, what would you tell him? Further, would you allow him to participate in the Lord's Supper?

 

I am not sure that contradicts traditional Baptist thought. It is the outward confession of conversion, the forgiveness of sins, and the reception of the Holy Spirit.

Not sure what this means.

I don't see this tension.

 

No.

Baptism is a step of obedience and God never calls a believer to do something he is unable to do.

No, since the Lord's Supper is not to be distributed to those walking in disobedience.

 

Pastor Larry, you may close the thread now. After your last post, there is nothing left that needs to be said.




But more will be said, I'm sure.

 

Ann, I can add to your testimony. Part of the hypothetical situation I posted was true.

A young man I was visiting had just confessed Christ as Savior and Lord. I was talking to him about being baptized, when his wife said, "you know, I've never been baptized. I have this fear of someone pushing my head under water. I know it's irrational, but the thought terrifies me."

I told her, "there's not a thing I can do to help you. You need to have a conversation with the Lord about this."

Well, Sunday morning, here comes the man AND his wife down the aisle, and I came unglued, as you can imagine. They were baptized that very night.

 

drfuss: I don't believe the early church had a church membership roll as we have today.

So I think you are saying that in order to be considered a part of the saved group in Jerusalem, a convert had to be baptised. Based on some of the rationale presented in this thread, I can understand why some churches have come to believe water baptism is also necessary for salvation.

 

Amen, Ann. What a marvelous and awe-inspiring thing to see with your own eyes the power of God remove fear from the heart of a believer. Or give them the courage to act in faith despite that fear.

 

Membership roll? Maybe, maybe not. Luke does not tell us. What he does tell us is that somebody did a head-count of those saved on the day of Pentecost, and came up with 3,000. What he does tell us is that every one of them were baptized (Acts 2:41), and every one of those who were baptized were added to the church the same day.

The biblical order, then, is unmistakable: Salvation, baptism, church membership. They are clearly connected.

Luke also tells us (2:42) that those 3,000 who were baptized and added to the church, continued in the apostles' doctrine, fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayers. Sounds like church to me. Baptized believers, and only baptized believers, doing church.

If you are reading some comments as advocating baptismal regeneration, you are seeing something I haven't found. Anywhere in this thread. Specific references would help.

 

What about:

He gives a testimony of Salvation. But He HAS been in another Church before. In fact, he was baptized at a Church of Christ.

Then what? Since they are not a "Baptist" church, would you RE baptize him?

Just curious.

Also> When Paul refers to the Body of Christ, it is the universal Church. He calls people member of "the body" (singular) of Christ, WITH him, who were of completely different congregations, which He had never met, or visited. I agree that we are to function as local bodies, but I cannot see how someone can deny the Universal church, AKA Body of Christ...

 

Consider that that quote was from over 150 years ago in 1846, and is part of the "minutes." Much more probably was actually said before the Association made any 'decision'. Also note that the Association "advised' the churches. A 'Baptist' church did not have to necessarily 'take' the advice, either. The Forks of Dix River Baptist Church, of which I am a member, by choice, affiliates with both the KBC and SBC, as an "at-large" member, since we are not currently affiliated with any "local Association," since the KBC refused to 'recognize' one that was actually 'started' a few years ago, from some area churches, upset over the ordination of women, by a sister church of the previous association we all were in. A big split was imminent, but the 'offending' church also withdrew, after creating the controversy, leaving the majority of churches still in the extant association, as most of those likely to withdraw, had not yet withdrawn, pending the action in their own churches. The majority of those that did originally withdraw, eventually took at-large status with the KBC, when the KBC would not 'recognize' the new local association, and continue in that status, FTR.

However, we at times, 'affiliate' also with other local churches, (from three or four local associations), even to this day, in some things. Geographically, for whatever that's worth, we could easily align, with any of the four, without 'crossing' any 'associational lines', per se, merely due to our unique location. As I said, for whatever that's worth.

I aid that, to say this. Neither any 'local association', the KBC, or the SBC, can tell us what we can and/or cannot do. Neither can we tell them what to do. And we could, in fact, be a member of a local association fo Baptist churches, and not be a member of the KBC or SBC, for that matter. It's all voluntary, and we can align/withdraw from them and/or they from us, should any choose, without affecting our status as a "Baptist" church.

Incidentally, I agree that Philip's baptizing the Ethiopian eunuch was entirely Biblical, and further, that no 'local church' ever authorized it, despite the claims of some to the contrary.

Should I lead someone to Christ, in some remote place, where there were no 'acceptable' local churches around, and should that individual desire to be baptized, as did the eunuch, I would baptize him or her, and believe I would be entirely Biblical, in so doing. And I have not been 'authorized' in any way to baptize anyone, in or outside the local church, by my own body. (However, I actually believe I may be 'authorized' to do so, as Moderator, in the event we do not have a Pastor, by our church Constitution, although that has never actually arisen, since I have been Moderator. I definitely am the one who would present a candidate for membership or baptism, in the Pastor's absence.)

Repeating: I, as all of us, as believers, have been authorized by the Lord Jesus Christ, I believe, to baptize a new believer. One needs nothing more for such a baptism to be both viable and Biblical, IMO. :thumbs:

However, a local church still does not have to take this as 'a valid baptism,' to which, just as you implied, I also say :tear:

Ed

 

While I agree with most of this in principle, with the exception of some unfounded 'assumptions' made about Philip and the eunuch, I would ask a coupla' questions.

Our church had no official 'doctrinal statement' of any kind, for 185 years, until 1967. We 'went' on the principle of "like faith and order", or "like faith and practice", whatever those words actually mean. There are no doubt, multiple churches out there today, that are still in the same boat, I suggest. Would you 'accept a baptism' from them?

How about So. Baptist churches? I believe you are SBC affiliated, with the SBC, if I recall. Are they all acceptable?

Let us assume that your church has adopted the BFM-2000. Assuming your church does not practice this, only for the sake of argument, what about a "charismatic" SBC church, that has the BFM-2000 as the doctrinal statement? There are several of them, as the BFM has never addressed the question of "speaking in tongues" or other specific gifts.

BFM-1963? BFM-1925? New Hampshire Confession? "Old Reguar Baptists"? "Particular" Baptists? Philadelphia Confession? How about them "free grace" type Baptists, such as me, who would not agree with the part of the BFM on "repentance" and "faith", as worded, which teaches "Lordship Salvation"? 'Lordship Salvationists'? 'Non-Lordship Salvationists'? "Landmarkists"? "Non-Landmarkists"? Etc., et al.?

While I agree with you generally, especially as to the "faith and practice" vs. "name" bit, and probably would know whether or not I would agree, generally with someone, how specific do we get, and where exactly, does one draw the line in the sand? Even though I think I know when the non-existent line is crossed. 'Tis a puzzle wrapped in an enigma, I'd say.

And I'm not going any deeper in this tonight, for it is already way past time to :sleeping_2:

G'nite, all.

Ed

 

Ed Sutton and havensdad, I'm reading your posts to me just as I'm walking out the door. Both of you raise some good issues. I'll dive in later today.

 

I was just thinking about the local vs. universal church thing concerning baptism. It occurred to me that if baptism was strictly a local church thing we would need to be re-immersed every time we moved to a new church. Since we don't, obviously there is something universal going on when we are baptized that makes it "good" at multiple congregations.

 

I would rebaptize him, since his baptism did not fit the biblical design. The C of C holds to baptismal regeneration. The subject of its baptism are not considered saved until they are immersed.

 

If, in fact they were actually of like faith and order, the answer is yes.

Up until a few years ago, I would have operated that a Southern Baptist church could be assumed to be of like faith and order, and thus acceptable.

However, developments in the western part of Kentucky have made those assumptions no longer automatic. Several churches have adopted the practice of accepting "alien immersion," that is, from non-Baptist churches and churches not of like faith and order. Those churches have separated from their associations, who consider the baptism the churches accepted as invalid.

This presents a problem to my church and others like it. We now must inquire of people who come to us from those churches as to who baptized them and under what circumstances. We do not wish to accept a letter from one who was not scripturally baptized. It is sad that we can no long make the usual assumption about our fellow Baptist churches.

These are good examples of why baptism and church membership are local church matters, not denominational matters. Regardless of its BFM preference, a tongues-speaking church is not of like faith and practice. Here's my dilemma. If the tongues were the only aberration, and everything else was biblical and orthodox, (Baptist) should we accept members from them? I'm going to have to think about that one. You do not know how it pains me to say "I don't know."

Regarding the free gracers such as yourself, the Lordshippers, Calvinists and Landmarkers, I personally would not make those things tests of fellowship

It's not as nice and tidy as we'd both like, is it? Thanks, Ed.

 

No, it does not. They believe baptism is the first step of an ongoing "salvation process". They do not believe, for instance, that Baptism is effective on infants, which Baptismal regeneration teaches.

They, in fact, believe in believers baptism: they just put more emphasis upon it.

The only reason a re-baptism should EVER take place, is if the person was not saved the first time. There is absolutely no Biblical basis for re-baptizing someone over minor doctrinal differences.