# Baptism and Church Membership



## Ivan

Please give scripture that says one must be baptized before they can join the church.


----------



## asc

Not sure what angle you asking this from, but pattern in Acts would seem to indicate: profession of faith and baptism, then joining the church.


----------



## Pergamum

I see nothing that says one cannot, but why would a non-baptized believer desire to join the church and not have baptism as one's firt public action in that church as a member? The descriptive pattern we see time and again in the NT is baptism follows closely after belief and repentance. 

I am not even sure people "joined" churches in the NT, they went to where they went and seemed to gather regularly enough with the same group often enough such that they were considered part of that body.


----------



## Pilgrim

This is mainly an issue that comes up when the person desiring membership believes he has been validly baptized and the church leadership disagrees.


----------



## Ivan

I appreciate the comments. There are many directions this thread can go. I'm simply asking for scripture verses that connect baptism with church membership.


----------



## Herald

Acts 2:41-42 41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls. 42 They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 

These "three thousand souls" became part (members, if you will) of the church in Jerusalem. The model was believe and be baptized.


----------



## Ivan

Herald said:


> Acts 2:41-42 41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls. 42 They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
> 
> These "three thousand souls" became part (members, if you will) of the church in Jerusalem. The model was believe and be baptized.



Good.

How 'bout a few more scripture verses.


----------



## Herald

_First thing Saul (Paul) did was submit to baptism._

Acts 9:18 18 And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he got up and was baptized; 

_Believe and be baptized._

Acts 18:8 8 Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized. 

_The Philippian jailer, and his household, believed and were baptized._

Acts 16:33-34 33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. 34 And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household. 

All these things happened _before _their inclusion in a "local" church.

You want more scriptural proof?


----------



## Ivan

Herald said:


> _First thing Saul (Paul) did was submit to baptism._
> 
> Acts 9:18 18 And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he got up and was baptized;
> 
> _Believe and be baptized._
> 
> Acts 18:8 8 Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized.
> 
> _The Philippian jailer, and his household, believed and were baptized._
> 
> Acts 16:33-34 33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. 34 And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.
> 
> All these things happened _before _their inclusion in a "local" church.
> 
> You want more scriptural proof?



None of the above verses say anything about joining a church.


----------



## Pergamum

Naw, they were added to the church by their presence, not by formal enrollment. 

The NT's church membership seems to be that believers are added to the universal church and then they join to their local bodies and take part in the visible fellowship. 

Driving 2 hours to a niche church was not what the NT had in mind I think. 

Regarding baptism, we see that one need not be baptized into the local church they were joining because we have examples of travellers and pilgrims being baptized and not waiting till they got home to be baptized. We also see that there was usually a short time period between belief and baptism, and that most people gathered locally, such that one was baptized into their local churches and they were "joining" in fellowship with this body as part of the family.


----------



## TsonMariytho

The argument I've heard in Baptist churches is that disobedience to such an obvious command of our Lord should make everyone doubt you are a Christian at all, hence should block church membership. I'll expand with some verses, since that's what you asked for...

1. If you love the Lord, you will do as he commands.

[bible]John 14:15[/bible]

2. The kingdom of God is made up of those who are born again.

[bible]John 3:3[/bible]

3. If you are born again, then you love your brothers and sisters and also love God.

[bible]1Jn 4:7[/bible] (and surrounding verses)

An objection that could be raised to that is, "The Lord has given us a bunch of commands. Does that mean that a person must have repudiated every known act of sin in order to enter the church?" The answer is, clearly not. A new believer is very much "in the rough" due to ignorance as much as anything. This is why a better argument is what somebody else suggested above, of forming our pattern based on the pattern shown in scripture, of (a) hearing the gospel, (b) repenting/believing, (c) baptism, (d) being "added to their number" -- even if that pattern isn't codified as a command _per se_.


Of course, the Reformed paedobaptists have an easier time answering this question, because they vaguely equate baptism with circumcision, the _sine qua non_ of life as a member in good standing in Abraham's covenantal family. :^)


Wow. I love this automatic scripture reference system. :^)


----------



## Ivan

*Andrew wrote:*



> even if that pattern isn't codified as a command per se.



Still, only one verse the connects baptism with church membership, if we can equate "those added" equivalent to church membership.


----------



## Pilgrim

Ivan said:


> I appreciate the comments. There are many directions this thread can go. I'm simply asking for scripture verses that connect baptism with church membership.



Agreed. And I'm probably the worst offender for hijacking threads and going off on a tangent. 

I think the prior response about the pattern in Acts is on the right track. 

Many are persuaded by the fact that the professing church, whether Catholic or Protestant, paedo or credo has until very recently been practically unanimous that baptism is the prerequisite to church membership and the Lord's Supper. I know that the fact that the majority of professing Christendom has been paedo has been a huge factor in some former Baptists becoming paedo. But we shouldn't make decisions on these issues solely or even primarily on the basis of church history. 

I wonder if there are any articles online by those Particular Baptists like Kiffin and Keach who opposed Bunyan's view that differences on baptism . I think Dagg's Manual of Church Order may address this and Dever has written on it as well.


----------



## Herald

Ivan said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> _First thing Saul (Paul) did was submit to baptism._
> 
> Acts 9:18 18 And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he got up and was baptized;
> 
> _Believe and be baptized._
> 
> Acts 18:8 8 Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized.
> 
> _The Philippian jailer, and his household, believed and were baptized._
> 
> Acts 16:33-34 33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. 34 And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.
> 
> All these things happened _before _their inclusion in a "local" church.
> 
> You want more scriptural proof?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of the above verses say anything about joining a church.
Click to expand...


Ivan, there aren't any verses that say the word "Trinity" either. The point is that there is an established order in scripture: believe and be baptized. Baptistism is not optional for a believer. It is the first step of obedience to Christ. Scripture does not to say in specific words, "You must be baptized in order to be a member of a local church." The preponderance of scripture on "believe and be baptized" is overwhelming.


----------



## Ivan

Pilgrim said:


> I wonder if there are any articles online by those Particular Baptists like Kiffin and Keach who opposed Bunyan's view that differences on baptism . I think Dagg's Manual of Church Order may address this and Dever has written on it as well.



There is and I've read a lot of this tonight. Still, no scriputural basis. "Repent and be baptized". Yes. Repent and be baptized to join the church? No.

Frankly, I'm starting to see Bunyan's point.


----------



## TsonMariytho

Pilgrim said:


> Agreed. And I'm probably the worst offender for hijacking threads and going off on a tangent.



Oh yeah, watch this...



Pilgrim said:


> Many are persuaded by the fact that the professing church, whether Catholic or Protestant, paedo or credo has until very recently been practically unanimous that baptism is the prerequisite to church membership and the Lord's Supper. I know that the fact that the majority of professing Christendom has been paedo has been a huge factor in some former Baptists becoming paedo. But we shouldn't make decisions on these issues solely or even primarily on the basis of church history.



How do you count this majority? If you count it by total length on the timeline, that's one thing. If you count it by population, that's something different. The 6 billion people we have today really throws a wrench in the works of the population consideration.

And the Reformation throws a wrench in the works of the timeline argument -- we threw away many extremely time honored and cherished traditions we couldn't find in scripture, and good riddance.

OK, sorry, I'll get back on topic now. :^)

-----Added 12/7/2008 at 08:31:36 EST-----

Just thought of another scriptural argument...

Joh 4:1 Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John 
Joh 4:2 (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples), ​
It seems like the act of baptism "makes a disciple". If the church is populated with Jesus' disciples, then they are all by definition baptized.

EDIT -- should have said, 

the act of baptism [is part of what] "makes a disciple".


----------



## Hippo

The key point is that under the Apostles you had to be baptised to join the church, no one had even really thought about the idea of joining a church.

I would be very surprised if anyone here thought you could join the Church and not be baptised, given that the way you join the church is by baptism.

In this repect from a paedobaptist position Baptists are necessarily sectarian in not accepting paedo's into Communion.


----------



## Ivan

Herald said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> _First thing Saul (Paul) did was submit to baptism._
> 
> Acts 9:18 18 And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he got up and was baptized;
> 
> _Believe and be baptized._
> 
> Acts 18:8 8 Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized.
> 
> _The Philippian jailer, and his household, believed and were baptized._
> 
> Acts 16:33-34 33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. 34 And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.
> 
> All these things happened _before _their inclusion in a "local" church.
> 
> You want more scriptural proof?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of the above verses say anything about joining a church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ivan, there aren't any verses that say the word "Trinity" either. The point is that there is an established order in scripture: believe and be baptized. Baptistism is not optional for a believer. It is the first step of obedience to Christ. Scripture does not to say in specific words, "You must be baptized in order to be a member of a local church." The preponderance of scripture on "believe and be baptized" is overwhelming.
Click to expand...


I'm not saying we shouldn't baptize. That is clearly commanded. But I don't see a direct, clear connection to church membership. It's implied, but we may be reading back into the scripture our own personal experience. I do not see a formal church membership expressed in the NewTestament as we practice it today.


----------



## Pergamum

I believed and it took me almost 2 years to join a church afterwards. 

I knew it would take a while and so I sought out a minister to baptize me. 

Some thought this "irregular" but I wanted to obey what I saw in the NT, that once I believed I needed to be baptized. 

Another fellowshipping church tried to require a man get rebaptized because he had previously been baptised by a Pentecostal.

It seems that many baptists forget the universal aspect of the church and think everything starts and stops outside of their local doors. 

The incident I had where a church invited me to preach and they decided to pledge missionary support to me but I was not allowed to partake of the Lord's Supper with them might also reflect an overly localized ecclesiology.


----------



## Herald

Ivan, here's a question for you. Would you allow someone to join your church who has not be baptized? If you answer yes on the basis that you'll teach them the necessity of being baptized, and they refuse, would you initiate church discipline? If you would do that, then why not deal with that in beginning when the apply for membership?


----------



## Ivan

Hippo said:


> In this repect from a paedobaptist position Baptists are necessarily sectarian in not accepting paedo's into Communion.



Exactly.


----------



## Herald

> I do not see a formal church membership expressed in the NewTestament as we practice it today.



Ah, well here's the real meat and taters of your OP. It has nothing to do with baptism; it's about formal church membership.


----------



## Ivan

Herald said:


> Ivan, here's a question for you. Would you allow someone to join your church who has not be baptized? If you answer yes on the basis that you'll teach them the necessity of being baptized, and they refuse, would you initiate church discipline? If you would do that, then why not deal with that in beginning when the apply for membership?



Not my issue. Formality and sectarianism are my issues. Think Bunyan.

-----Added 12/7/2008 at 08:38:09 EST-----



Herald said:


> I do not see a formal church membership expressed in the NewTestament as we practice it today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, well here's the real meat and taters of your OP. It has nothing to do with baptism; it's about formal church membership.
Click to expand...


I know, I'm being a pill. Blame it on my illness.


----------



## Herald

Ivan said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ivan, here's a question for you. Would you allow someone to join your church who has not be baptized? If you answer yes on the basis that you'll teach them the necessity of being baptized, and they refuse, would you initiate church discipline? If you would do that, then why not deal with that in beginning when the apply for membership?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not my issue. Formality and sectarianism are my issues. Think Bunyan.
> 
> -----Added 12/7/2008 at 08:38:09 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not see a formal church membership expressed in the NewTestament as we practice it today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, well here's the real meat and taters of your OP. It has nothing to do with baptism; it's about formal church membership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know, I'm being a pill. Blame it on my illness.
Click to expand...


But you can't answer the question? How is it formality and sectarian to require believers to obey the Lord? You have me stumped.


----------



## Ivan

Pergamum said:


> I believed and it took me almost 2 years to join a church afterwards.
> 
> I knew it would take a while and so I sought out a minister to baptize me.
> 
> Some thought this "irregular" but I wanted to obey what I saw in the NT, that once I believed I needed to be baptized.
> 
> Another fellowshipping church tried to require a man get rebaptized because he had previously been baptised by a Pentecostal.
> 
> It seems that many baptists forget the universal aspect of the church and think everything starts and stops outside of their local doors.
> 
> The incident I had where a church invited me to preach and they decided to pledge missionary support to me but I was not allowed to partake of the Lord's Supper with them might also reflect an overly localized ecclesiology.



Brother Pergy, we are on the same page.


----------



## Hippo

Herald said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ivan, here's a question for you. Would you allow someone to join your church who has not be baptized? If you answer yes on the basis that you'll teach them the necessity of being baptized, and they refuse, would you initiate church discipline? If you would do that, then why not deal with that in beginning when the apply for membership?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not my issue. Formality and sectarianism are my issues. Think Bunyan.
> 
> -----Added 12/7/2008 at 08:38:09 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, well here's the real meat and taters of your OP. It has nothing to do with baptism; it's about formal church membership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know, I'm being a pill. Blame it on my illness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you can't answer the question? How is it formality and sectarian to require believers to obey the Lord? You have me stumped.
Click to expand...


But paedo's honestly and in faith believe that they have obeyed the Lord.


----------



## Herald

Hippo said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not my issue. Formality and sectarianism are my issues. Think Bunyan.
> 
> -----Added 12/7/2008 at 08:38:09 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> I know, I'm being a pill. Blame it on my illness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you can't answer the question? How is it formality and sectarian to require believers to obey the Lord? You have me stumped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But paedo's honestly and in faith believe that they have obeyed the Lord.
Click to expand...


I'm not talking about paedos _specifically_. The passages I quoted deal with adult conversions. They were converted and then baptized immediately thereafter. Even paedos require adult converts to be baptized.


----------



## Wannabee

Hippo said:


> But paedo's honestly and in faith believe that they have obeyed the Lord.



I am not comparing JWs and Mormons, etc., to paedos. But the reasoning would be the same. Many honestly and in faith believe things. Many are very sincere. But many are deceived. Sincerity, honesty and faith do not square with orthodoxy. Some things are left to the conscience of the believer (or professor). Some things we differ on but enjoy sweet fellowship. Some things bar membership, but not fellowship. Some things we simply cannot abide. It comes down to where one draws the line.

-----Added 12/7/2008 at 09:10:53 EST-----

For what it's worth - I find myself with Spurgeon and Dever on this issue.


----------



## Hippo

Wannabee said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But paedo's honestly and in faith believe that they have obeyed the Lord.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not comparing JWs and Mormons, etc., to paedos. But the reasoning would be the same. Many honestly and in faith believe things. Many are very sincere. But many are deceived. Sincerity, honesty and faith do not square with orthodoxy. Some things are left to the conscience of the believer (or professor). Some things we differ on but enjoy sweet fellowship. Some things bar membership, but not fellowship. Some things we simply cannot abide. It comes down to where one draws the line.
Click to expand...


Surely the reasoning is not the same, as JW's and mormons are not Christians and not part of the Church. To deny Paedos fellowship as fellow Church members is akin to Landmarkism.


----------



## Pilgrim

Hippo said:


> Wannabee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not comparing JWs and Mormons, etc., to paedos. But the reasoning would be the same. Many honestly and in faith believe things. Many are very sincere. But many are deceived. Sincerity, honesty and faith do not square with orthodoxy. Some things are left to the conscience of the believer (or professor). Some things we differ on but enjoy sweet fellowship. Some things bar membership, but not fellowship. Some things we simply cannot abide. It comes down to where one draws the line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surely the reasoning is not the same, as JW's and mormons are not Christians and not part of the Church. To deny Paedos fellowship as fellow Church members is akin to Landmarkism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are paedo churches who will put members under discipline who refuse to present their children for baptism. So this cuts both ways, at least to some extent.
Click to expand...


----------



## Hippo

Pilgrim said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wannabee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surely the reasoning is not the same, as JW's and mormons are not Christians and not part of the Church. To deny Paedos fellowship as fellow Church members is akin to Landmarkism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are paedo churches who will put members under discipline who refuse to present their children for baptism. So this cuts both ways, at least to some extent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed and I think that such paedo churches are being sectarian if the members prayerfully hold to a respectable doctrinal position such as credo baptism. I do however think that such differences can be a bar to holding an ordained position, whether in paedo or credo churches.
Click to expand...


----------



## Ivan

Hippo said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are paedo churches who will put members under discipline who refuse to present their children for baptism. So this cuts both ways, at least to some extent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed and I think that such paedo churches are being sectarian if the members prayerfully hold to a respectable doctrinal position such as credo baptism. *I do however think that such differences can be a bar to holding an ordained position, whether in paedo or credo churches*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> Another question to my fellow Baptists...will our paedo friends go to heaven?
Click to expand...


----------



## Herald

Wow. When did this thread become about mode? I thought the OP was about whether or not baptism was needed for church membership.


----------



## Ivan

Herald said:


> Wow. When did this thread become about mode? I thought the OP was about whether or not baptism was needed for church membership.



There's a question in post 32.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

Ivan said:


> I do not see a formal church membership expressed in the NewTestament as we practice it today.



What then is the point of the final step of Church discipline, that of putting one out of the Church? 

[bible]1 Corinthians 5:4-5[/bible]

The only way to put someone out of the entire Church would be to mark them in some physical way. I suppose we could implant them with some sort of gps chip today, but what could they have done in Paul's day? The act of putting out would then imply out of a local assembly, in particular, and out of the Church universal as a necessary consequence of having been put out of the local assembly. Therefore membership is a real association with a local body, not just general membership in the universal body.


----------



## Herald

Are we saved by water baptism? No. How are we saved? By faith in Christ alone. 

So now what? Do we progress to a discussion on whether Baptists recognize paedo baptism as valid? I think that's cause for a separate thread about a topic that has been discussed ad infinitum on this board.


----------



## Ivan

I'm not saying there is just a general membership in the universal body. There is membership in the local body. Although I certainly don't think the early church did it they way we do, but that's not what I'm getting at.

Waiting for my question in post 32 to be answered.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Ivan said:


> Please give scripture that says one must be baptized before they can join the church.


Ivan,

Matthew 28:18-20 seems fundamental here.

Christ commands the Church to make disciples by:

1. Baptizing them.
2. Teaching them.

Baptism is the Christ instituted sign of identity as one of Christ's disciples.


----------



## Herald

Ivan said:


> Waiting for my question in post 32 to be answered.



If they're saved, then yes. Is there a reason why they wouldn't?


----------



## Theognome

Ivan said:


> *Andrew wrote:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> even if that pattern isn't codified as a command per se.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still, only one verse the connects baptism with church membership, if we can equate "those added" equivalent to church membership.
Click to expand...


There's only one verse that states that mansions are waiting for us in heaven, too. One verse is all that's needed- God is not obligated to repeat Himself.

Theognome


----------



## Semper Fidelis

BTW, Ivan, I've noticed how the thread has progressed. I think the Baptist problem is not insisting on Baptism for membership but that it insists that mode and timing of the baptism are both determinate for efficacy.


----------



## fredtgreco

Exactly.


----------



## TsonMariytho

Semper Fidelis said:


> BTW, Ivan, I've noticed how the thread has progressed. I think the Baptist problem is not insisting on Baptism for membership but that it insists that mode and timing of the baptism are both determinate for efficacy.



This is a very practical observation, but when you boil it down, both Presbyterians and Baptists require a correct mode. I read somewhere that a woman (!) once "baptized" somebody by pouring sand on his head. That was a nice thought on her part, but no church would accept it. The Presbyterian "mode" includes water, period, or you have to "redo" it. The Baptist "mode" includes immersion in water, period, or you have to "redo" it.

But as I said, your observation was very practical, because not many people show up having been sprinkled with sand... :^)


----------



## Semper Fidelis

TsonMariytho said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, Ivan, I've noticed how the thread has progressed. I think the Baptist problem is not insisting on Baptism for membership but that it insists that mode and timing of the baptism are both determinate for efficacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a very practical observation, but when you boil it down, both Presbyterians and Baptists require a correct mode. I read somewhere that a woman (!) once "baptized" somebody by pouring sand on his head. That was a nice thought on her part, but no church would accept it. The Presbyterian "mode" includes water, period, or you have to "redo" it. The Baptist "mode" includes immersion in water, period, or you have to "redo" it.
> 
> But as I said, your observation was very practical, because not many people show up having been sprinkled with sand... :^)
Click to expand...


The Presbyterian "mode" requires the ministry of the Church and the Church doesn't utilize sand. 

Cavils aside, the mode of baptism did not prevent Christ from turning to the thief on a Cross and sadly inform him that He might wish to save the thief but he was beyond the elective purposes of God because he could not be immersed.


----------



## Ivan

Bottom line...if we, who believe in Christ as our LORD and Savior and believe that He physically, bodily arose from the grave, will commune and fellowship in heaven for eternity, then why not now?


----------



## TsonMariytho

Semper Fidelis said:


> The Presbyterian "mode" requires the ministry of the Church and the Church doesn't utilize sand.



We are talking about accepting a so-called baptism performed outside our church or denomination. Saying that "the Presbyterians don't use sand" is irrelevant to my point, which was that mode does matter, and can actually cause a Presbyterian church to regard somebody's ceremony as not a true baptism.



Semper Fidelis said:


> Cavils aside, the mode of baptism did not prevent Christ from turning to the thief on a Cross and sadly inform him that He might wish to save the thief but he was beyond the elective purposes of God because he could not be immersed.



I have no idea where this is coming from. Wasn't one of the fundamental innovations of the Reformation giving up that ancient superstition that baptism was necessary for salvation? Maybe I'm missing your point here... but nobody in this conversation should believe that he who dies unbaptized is lost.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Ivan said:


> Bottom line...if we, who believe in Christ as our LORD and Savior and believe that He physically, bodily arose from the grave, will commune and fellowship in heaven for eternity then, why not now?



There's actually a really good article in Modern Reformation right now that I'm seeking permission to re-publish here.

In my estimation, the real "test" of whether or not we believe we are in Christ with one another is if the Table of the Lord is open or not. Everything else, this side of eternity, is so much window dressing.


----------



## Ivan

Semper Fidelis said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line...if we, who believe in Christ as our LORD and Savior and believe that He physically, bodily arose from the grave, will commune and fellowship in heaven for eternity then, why not now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's actually a really good article in Modern Reformation right now that I'm seeking permission to re-publish here.
> 
> In my estimation, the real "test" of whether or not we believe we are in Christ with one another is if the Table of the Lord is open or not. Everything else, this side of eternity, is so much window dressing.
Click to expand...


DING! DING! DING! We have a winner! 

That's exactly what I'm talking about and that's exactly what I believe. Rich, if you and your dear family comes to Maranatha the Table of the LORD will be open to you!

Of course, that leads us down other roads of discussion. 

This is my heart's desire...to see all believers in Christ be one.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

TsonMariytho said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Presbyterian "mode" requires the ministry of the Church and the Church doesn't utilize sand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking about accepting a so-called baptism performed outside our church or denomination. Saying that "the Presbyterians don't use sand" is irrelevant to my point, which was that mode does matter, and can actually cause a Presbyterian church to regard somebody's ceremony as not a true baptism.
Click to expand...

Hence, my point that the Baptist problem is over mode. We're not dealing with something as foolish as somebody using sand but over how much of the body is covered by water.



> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cavils aside, the mode of baptism did not prevent Christ from turning to the thief on a Cross and sadly inform him that He might wish to save the thief but he was beyond the elective purposes of God because he could not be immersed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea where this is coming from. Wasn't one of the fundamental innovations of the Reformation giving up that ancient superstition that baptism was necessary for salvation? Maybe I'm missing your point here... but nobody in this conversation should believe that he who dies unbaptized is lost.
Click to expand...


The Reformation did not seek "innovation" or it would not have been a *reform*ation. It is not a superstition that baptism is necessary for salvation - the idea is Scriptural and if I press you then even you will have to admit it is depending upon what one means by _baptism_. The issue has everything to do with the election of God and how He saves, how He signifies who He saves in real history, and the above would make perfect sense if understood in that context.


----------



## TsonMariytho

Semper Fidelis said:


> Hence, my point that the Baptist problem is over mode. We're not dealing with something as foolish as somebody using sand but over how much of the body is covered by water.



Do we really disagree here or are we just going back and forth? Baptist "mode" includes immersion in water. Presbyterian "mode" includes some kind of use of water. Baptists have a practical problem about what to do with sprinkled newcomers. Presbyterians have a theoretical problem about what to do with somebody who came like this person I read about -- but not a practical problem that I know of.

I think we both agree with my summary above.



Semper Fidelis said:


> The Reformation did not seek "innovation" or it would not have been a *reform*ation. It is not a superstition that baptism is necessary for salvation - the idea is Scriptural and if I press you then even you will have to admit it is depending upon what one means by _baptism_. The issue has everything to do with the election of God and how He saves, how He signifies who He saves in real history, and the above would make perfect sense if understood in that context.



You mentioned cavils... the above includes cavils, because it (a) interprets the word "innovation" as coming up with totally new doctrine, when in fact a more reasonable and charitable interpretation would be that of innovation for the 1500's theological scene, where I believe Zwingli's proposition was brazen and new -- but not innovation from the timeless doctrine of scripture. Also: (b) it (if I understand correctly?) you have switched between meanings of "baptism" without a good reason and used that to portray my post in a negative light. We've been discussing the physical administration, but now you want to talk about the spiritual. I agree that we need the spiritual to be saved.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

TsonMariytho said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hence, my point that the Baptist problem is over mode. We're not dealing with something as foolish as somebody using sand but over how much of the body is covered by water.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do we really disagree here or are we just going back and forth? Baptist "mode" includes immersion in water. Presbyterian "mode" includes some kind of use of water. Baptists have a practical problem about what to do with sprinkled newcomers. Presbyterians have a theoretical problem about what to do with somebody who came like this person I read about -- but not a practical problem that I know of.
> 
> I think we both agree with my summary above.
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Reformation did not seek "innovation" or it would not have been a *reform*ation. It is not a superstition that baptism is necessary for salvation - the idea is Scriptural and if I press you then even you will have to admit it is depending upon what one means by _baptism_. The issue has everything to do with the election of God and how He saves, how He signifies who He saves in real history, and the above would make perfect sense if understood in that context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mentioned cavils... the above includes cavils, because it (a) interprets the word "innovation" as coming up with totally new doctrine, when in fact a more reasonable and charitable interpretation would be that of innovation for the 1500's theological scene, where I believe Zwingli's proposition was brazen and new -- but not innovation from the timeless doctrine of scripture. Also: (b) it (if I understand correctly?) you have switched between meanings of "baptism" without a good reason and used that to portray my post in a negative light. We've been discussing the physical administration, but now you want to talk about the spiritual. I agree that we need the spiritual to be saved.
Click to expand...

I'm bowing out of this fruitless interchange.

The cavil is obvious to all. My comments were understandable to the large audience but, of course, one can pick nits and point out that I might have been speaking of the Baptist problem that they don't accept the Baptism of Witches or Mormons. Why not mention a whole host of other silliness that doesn't bear on the issue?

We do agree in the end but it's in the circuitous manner that only wastes time and makes me conclude that you like to be contrary instead of simply agreeing on what we both know I'm saying from the outset. I'll keep that in mind in future discussions rather than taking you seriously at the outset.


----------



## Christusregnat

Pergamum said:


> the church and not have baptism as one's *firt* public action in that church as a member?



Pergs, what exactly is a "firt public action"?


----------



## TsonMariytho

Semper Fidelis, your original statement was that:

"I think the Baptist problem is not insisting on Baptism for membership but that it insists that mode and timing of the baptism are both determinate for efficacy."

If you wanted me to agree with that as originally stated, I would have to cease to be a Baptist. (Sorry, not going to happen, Lord willing.) Since I am a Baptist, I pointed out what was only fair -- that specification of mode on some level is a _sine qua non_ of Christian baptism, whether Presbyterian or Baptist. We only differ as to what mode to specify.

How would you suggest that I should have responded to your original post?

-----Added 12/7/2008 at 11:23:21 EST-----



Ivan said:


> DING! DING! DING! We have a winner!
> 
> That's exactly what I'm talking about and that's exactly what I believe. Rich, if you and your dear family comes to Maranatha the Table of the LORD will be open to you!
> 
> Of course, that leads us down other roads of discussion.
> 
> This is my heart's desire...to see all believers in Christ be one.



Yes. Thanks for getting us back on track, and sorry for the distraction... :^)

While I am not an elder, I have long agreed with the above and wished that those who say that they regard each other as believers would show it in obvious ways.


----------



## Ivan

I'm not concerned about the mode nor the timing. If we are brothers and sisters in Christ we should accept one another fully in the LORD. And I do.


----------



## TsonMariytho

Ivan said:


> I'm not concerned about the mode nor the timing. If we are brothers and sisters in Christ we should accept one another fully in the LORD. And I do.



By being unconcerned with timing, do you mean not just worrying about if it's prior to conversion, but even whether it's performed sometime down the road after joining the church? Sorry if you clarified that already...


----------



## Wannabee

Hippo said:


> Surely the reasoning is not the same, as JW's and mormons are not Christians and not part of the Church. To deny Paedos fellowship as fellow Church members is akin to Landmarkism.


Please reread my post. I was clear that the reasoning that some should be included because they "honestly and in faith believe that they have obeyed the Lord" is not a measure of membership, or even fellowship. It wasn't the position I was comparing, but the reasoning. It may have been clearer if I'd just left JWs & Mormons out. My apologies. It's a bummer when someone mischaracterizes you and then gets thanked. 



Ivan said:


> That's exactly what I'm talking about and that's exactly what I believe. Rich, if you and your dear family comes to Maranatha the Table of the LORD will be open to you!


Actually, it would be at ours as well. However, believer's baptism is required for membership.


Whoever shepherds God's flock must make decisions that they deem best in administering to that flock. In most areas we find unity. Scripture is very clear that the sheep will hear Jesus' voice, love the brethren (sheepren?), obey His commandments, walk in light and have fellowship with the Father and one another. There is division in some areas, baptism being an pretty glaring example. It is one of two ordinances, which makes it a heavy subject. While I draw the line at baptism for membership, I do not draw it there for fellowship, the Lord's Supper or much of any place else. However, I do not expect Ivan to take the same position. I understand why others draw their lines elsewhere. Some won't allow those not baptized as believers to share communion. Some won't even allow non church members to share communion. And yet others will let people join whether they're baptized or not, upon a profession of faith. 

I will not answer to you for the decisions I make in striving to take care of the souls entrusted to me. However, I will answer to God (Heb 13:17). Let us each strive for faithfulness in the ministry God's entrusted to us in order to please Him above all else, and spur one another on to greater faithfulness.


----------



## Pilgrim

Pergamum said:


> Another fellowshipping church tried to require a man get rebaptized because he had previously been baptised by a Pentecostal.



If it was a Oneness Pentecostal then they were correct in requiring the man to be baptized.

-----Added 12/8/2008 at 02:42:04 EST-----



Hippo said:


> Wannabee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But paedo's honestly and in faith believe that they have obeyed the Lord.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not comparing JWs and Mormons, etc., to paedos. But the reasoning would be the same. Many honestly and in faith believe things. Many are very sincere. But many are deceived. Sincerity, honesty and faith do not square with orthodoxy. Some things are left to the conscience of the believer (or professor). Some things we differ on but enjoy sweet fellowship. Some things bar membership, but not fellowship. Some things we simply cannot abide. It comes down to where one draws the line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Surely the reasoning is not the same, as JW's and mormons are not Christians and not part of the Church. To deny Paedos fellowship as fellow Church members is akin to Landmarkism.
Click to expand...


No it's not. It's simply the Baptist position. If you think that equals Landmarkism then you don't know anything about real Landmarkism. 
The question is who are the proper mode and subjects of baptism. 

When Christ commanded the church to baptize, did he have anything specific in mind or did he just mean to do something with water?

-----Added 12/8/2008 at 02:46:08 EST-----



Ivan said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed and I think that such paedo churches are being sectarian if the members prayerfully hold to a respectable doctrinal position such as credo baptism. *I do however think that such differences can be a bar to holding an ordained position, whether in paedo or credo churches*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> Another question to my fellow Baptists...will our paedo friends go to heaven?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will answer with a question of my own. If a baptized Roman Catholic is converted and wants to join the church you pastor, would you require him to be baptized? If you would, will _any _within Roman Catholicism go to heaven?
> 
> -----Added 12/8/2008 at 03:54:11 EST-----
> 
> Why Do Churches Require Baptism Before Membership? | Areopagus
Click to expand...


----------



## Ivan

TsonMariytho said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not concerned about the mode nor the timing. If we are brothers and sisters in Christ we should accept one another fully in the LORD. And I do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By being unconcerned with timing, do you mean not just worrying about if it's prior to conversion, but even whether it's performed sometime down the road after joining the church? Sorry if you clarified that already...
Click to expand...


Personally, not speaking in regards to my church right now, I am willing to accept the infant baptism of a believer(assuming a trinitirian baptism), if indeed they show the fruits of being a Christian.

-----Added 12/8/2008 at 06:46:41 EST-----



Pilgrim said:


> I will answer with a question of my own. If a baptized Roman Catholic *is converted* and wants to join the church you pastor, would you require him to be baptized? If you would, will _any _within Roman Catholicism go to heaven?



If they are converted they will go to heaven. Any Roman Catholic that is converted will go to heaven. Based on what I have already said, I doubt that I would require baptism, but each case must be judged on its own merit.


----------



## Mayflower

What about this:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f47/w-pink-1-corinthians-12-universal-local-church-41017/

-----Added 12/8/2008 at 07:30:52 EST-----



Ivan said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this repect from a paedobaptist position Baptists are necessarily sectarian in not accepting paedo's into Communion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
Click to expand...


Iam not agree with Bunyan, see:
http://pbl.oldfaithbaptist.org/Ecclesiology/ThomasPaul-Answer to John Bunyan.pdf


----------



## Herald

Ivan, I'm on my iPhone right now so I can't adequately quote your last post. 

I appreciate the attitude of your heart. I can tell it proceeds from a heart that loves God. While your attitude cannot be challenged, what does your personal view of baptism say about your theology? We know that baptism is a command to be obeyed. It is to be administered immediately following a credible profession of faith. As a Baptist, how do you reconcile baptism in the absence of a profession? I wish this was but a minor issue that we could skip, but it cuts to a foundational aspect of Baptist theology. Is it possible to be baptized before conversion? I think you know the Baptist answer.

I suppose my concern is that some of what I have read in this thread seems to be an emotionl desire to see unity in the church but not necessarily theological support. That is my assessment which doesn't make it fact.


----------



## Scott1

> TsonMariytho
> Puritanboard Freshman
> 
> That's exactly what I'm talking about and that's exactly what I believe. Rich, if you and your dear family comes to Maranatha the Table of the LORD will be open to you!
> 
> Of course, that leads us down other roads of discussion.
> 
> This is my heart's desire...to see all believers in Christ be one.



I don't mean to interrupt the back and forth or train of thought here but a couple thoughts come to mind here for those of us following:

1) The Lord's Supper is open (PCA, OPC at least) to Christians who are members in good standing of a church where the gospel is preached.

2) As to "all being one" that is, in fact true of the invisible church. However, there's more to it in reformed theology which says that the unity of the (visible) church must be grounded in doctrinal agreement.

3) I take it it is understood reformed presbyterians would accept a previous baptism by immersion even though their doctrinally preferred and practiced method is sprinkling.


----------



## Pergamum

Christusregnat said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> the church and not have baptism as one's *firt* public action in that church as a member?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergs, what exactly is a "firt public action"?
Click to expand...


Firt is Ozarkian for first. Hard to get those S's out with a mouth full'a' toe-backy.


Just wrote a report in another language, hard time thinking and typing in two languages.

-----Added 12/8/2008 at 09:26:51 EST-----



Southern Presbyterian said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not see a formal church membership expressed in the NewTestament as we practice it today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What then is the point of the final step of Church discipline, that of putting one out of the Church?
> 
> [bible]1 Corinthians 5:4-5[/bible]
> 
> The only way to put someone out of the entire Church would be to mark them in some physical way. I suppose we could implant them with some sort of gps chip today, but what could they have done in Paul's day? The act of putting out would then imply out of a local assembly, in particular, and out of the Church universal as a necessary consequence of having been put out of the local assembly. Therefore membership is a real association with a local body, not just general membership in the universal body.
Click to expand...


Let's get back to this point about a formal church membership.

It is quite easy to mark someone out socially even in the lack of a formal "church membership" process. It is not like joining or getting kicked out of the Mickey Mouse club. In a tight-knit local group meeting together in a person's home, where the Christian community is bound socially and economically, we have great social presure applied. 



Below I am thinking out loud:............

Perhaps the Amish custom of shunning is more Biblical than merely revoking church membership on a piece of paper for those that fall into heresy. Perhaps that is where the issue lies, in that due to the nature of our churches, we have gone from tight social cohesion to adherance to a set of rules


Those who were acknowledged as being Christians in the NT bonded closely together socially, economically and met in one another's home. It was an organism and not an institution and its bonds were less formal and more "organic" and familial if you will. People in town X believed and so they met in someone's house.

I suppose as Western culture got less communal and we switched to third-party neutral buildings, church "membership" got more formalized. Instead of merely getting a personal letter of recommendation from other Christians meeting in a house, we now have church forms in order to "transfer membership." 


I see articles all the time from Reformed Baptists that say "Church membership is not optional." Of course, we all must be members of Christ's body. And wherever we are, we meet together with the Lord's people. 

However, sometimes I see these articles on the importance of local church membership as being motivated by an effort to consolidate power and holding people's toes to the fire when they differ on more minor issues. i.e. "You agreed to our church covenant, now you have to obey us." 

Thus, many of us drive 2 hours to sit in a place where everyone does not know everyone else very well, there is minimal fellowship throughout the week and we are reminded of our obligations and duties to a church that should merely come through daily social intercourse and economic and social mutual dependance. If we travel a lot we feel guilty as if we need to ask permission to be excused to have an absence And if we want to move to another church we need to ask for a "transfer of membership" form.

I agree in principle to what lies underneath many of these practices, but I see church membership as being a naturally occurring thing as local Christians banded together and were bound to each other by circumstances, rather than joining an institution like the rotary club and being reminded of one's duties, fees, and obliations.

A good case in point is many baptist churches that use their membership policies to make a new member agree not to engage in the drinking, production or selling of liquor? What if a church required its members to mop the floors every tuesday night? What if no non EP person could become a member or women without headcoverings were asked to leave?

My point is that the local fellowship should be "local" for one thing and not the niche and commuter churches that I see so often among us, and it should be a "fellowship" and resemble a fellowship rather than a highly restrictive club orinstitution with too many rules (i.e. full subscription to the 1689 without compromise for lay membership is too strict, even if this creates a ""two-tiered" structure).


As time passed and the NT church turned into the early church which spread out into the Gentile world, there were questions of how to incorporate people. Due to uncertainty about whether someone really understood and believed the faith, probationary periods and delays in baptism were initiated and people became catechumens. These pre-baptized Catechumens followed the service, but did not partake in the Lord's Supper because they were not yet baptised...thus we see that baptism does seem to be the acknowledged entry-point into the life of the church, whatever view we hold about church membership. 

I think the Didache was used as a manual for catechumens (maybe I'll start another OP on this worthy topic). 

Most of these catechisms were general and not too specific and I think it is a virtue to be purposely general to allow broader membership (this attitude is reflected in that there is a wide array of eschatological beliefs and most churches would allow people holding to most of these positions as church members, perhaps requiring something stricter for the officers.)


Therefore, I believe that all Christians are members of the universal church. And as Christians we seek out to be baptized and join ourselves with a local assembly. Our participation in this local assembly is based upon our being acknowledged as Christians. This requires some sort of checking the new person's doctrine and an agreement to some sort of basic doctrinal statement, but I think that full subscription 1689 and the WCF are not basic enough to determine whether someone can join a church and take the Lord's supper, since one presumably has to believe that the Pope is the Antichrist. 


Here's a good link to Piper on the issue of the OP. I post it merely because it fits this discussion not because it makes my points: 

How Important Is Church Membership? :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library



Summary: Any "membership" of the early church varied widely from what we see practiced in modern denominations. There are a great number of differences. While I don't think any of you are wrong for trying to initiate some sort of system, I would challenge you if you think that "stricter" and more "formal" means "better."


..end of ramble.


----------



## Romans922

Herald said:


> Acts 2:41-42 41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls. 42 They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
> 
> These "three thousand souls" became part (members, if you will) of the church in Jerusalem. The model was believe and be baptized.



Ah yes, believe and be baptized. We all agree. And the promise is for you and your children. That baptism which pointed you to the promise. If you have faith the promise is for you and your children, so you are baptized as a sign pointing to the promise, and so shall your children receive the sign as well, pointing them to the same promise. (See Abraham, circumcision, Isaac/Ishmael -- Gen. 17 (the sign very closely linked to the promise).


----------



## Mayflower

From a credo baptistic view, we don't view an infant sprinkeling as a NT baptism, and because in scripture we don't see any example of a non baptized person being a member of the church and partaking the Lord's supper, so a baptist would only follow the NT order.


----------



## TsonMariytho

Romans922 said:


> Ah yes, believe and be baptized. We all agree. And the promise is for you and your children. That baptism which pointed you to the promise. If you have faith the promise is for you and your children, so you are baptized as a sign pointing to the promise, and so shall your children receive the sign as well, pointing them to the same promise. (See Abraham, circumcision, Isaac/Ishmael -- Gen. 17 (the sign very closely linked to the promise).



I think it would be interesting to have a discussion (on another thread) about what it means that the promise is "to your children". I've seen many Reformed Baptists argue that it refers to spiritual children, and of course the Reformed paedo take on it is well known. My own view is that the promise is offered to you and to your children and to those afar off. In fact, there is no one within the hearing of the gospel to whom the promise is not offered.

I'm new here... Is there a more appropriate thread we can jump to with this, or perhaps start one?


----------



## TimV

Scott, in the PCA and OPC the local Session have the right to fence the Table strictly or liberally, so in one church a Baptist visitor can be allowed Communion and in another not allowed. Both denominations allow Baptists as full members, though.



> We know that baptism is a command to be obeyed. It is to be administered immediately following a credible profession of faith.



And it comes down to the basic differences between Baptists and Reformed folks. The main difference is one of continuity between the New Testament and the Old. My youngest son has Down's, and will never be able to profess his faith in a way that you would find credible, but just as that wasn't a hindrance to his being circumcised in the OT it's not a hindrance to his being baptized in the NT. Or so it seems to Reformed folk. Since Baptists start from scratch on so many issues, they run into all sorts of like problems that simply aren't issues for us.


----------



## Pergamum

TimV said:


> Scott, in the PCA and OPC the local Session have the right to fence the Table strictly or liberally, so in one church a Baptist visitor can be allowed Communion and in another not allowed. Both denominations allow Baptists as full members, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know that baptism is a command to be obeyed. It is to be administered immediately following a credible profession of faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it comes down to the basic differences between Baptists and Reformed folks. The main difference is one of continuity between the New Testament and the Old. My youngest son has Down's, and will never be able to profess his faith in a way that you would find credible, but just as that wasn't a hindrance to his being circumcised in the OT it's not a hindrance to his being baptized in the NT. Or so it seems to Reformed folk. Since Baptists start from scratch on so many issues, they run into all sorts of like problems that simply aren't issues for us.
Click to expand...



TimV: I respect the OPC, and also the PCA and like these policies by them. Why the variety among churches as to whom can partake? Why do some allow Baptists to partake and some not?


----------



## TimV

> TimV: I respect the OPC, and also the PCA and like these policies by them. Why the variety among churches as to whom can partake? Why do some allow Baptists to partake and some not?



I think that the idea is to give the local churches as much freedom as possible within certain distinctive bounds. As has been said, Presbyterianism tries to avoid "the tyranny from above" like in Roman Catholicism where one man can basically lord it over everyone and "the tyranny from below" like happens at times in independent baptist churches where there isn't any recourse when injustices are perpetrated by the local leadership. And so while no local denomination could elect, say, a FV proponent as an Elder, there are huge differences allowed in music, liturgy, frequency of Communion, etc...
And PS, if a Session were to interview you personally, the number of PCA and OPC churches that would deny you Communion would be a tiny fraction, if any at all, of either denomination.


----------



## Herald

Romans922 said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Acts 2:41-42 41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls. 42 They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
> 
> These "three thousand souls" became part (members, if you will) of the church in Jerusalem. The model was believe and be baptized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, believe and be baptized. We all agree. And the promise is for you and your children. That baptism which pointed you to the promise. If you have faith the promise is for you and your children, so you are baptized as a sign pointing to the promise, and so shall your children receive the sign as well, pointing them to the same promise. (See Abraham, circumcision, Isaac/Ishmael -- Gen. 17 (the sign very closely linked to the promise).
Click to expand...


This really isn't a thread to debate credo vs. paedo. But I too take exception to your interpretation of this passage. The promise is for you, your children, and for who are far off. The passage is not about household baptism, it's about the offer of the gospel to "as many as the Lord has called."


----------



## Romans922

Herald said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Acts 2:41-42 41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls. 42 They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
> 
> These "three thousand souls" became part (members, if you will) of the church in Jerusalem. The model was believe and be baptized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, believe and be baptized. We all agree. And the promise is for you and your children. That baptism which pointed you to the promise. If you have faith the promise is for you and your children, so you are baptized as a sign pointing to the promise, and so shall your children receive the sign as well, pointing them to the same promise. (See Abraham, circumcision, Isaac/Ishmael -- Gen. 17 (the sign very closely linked to the promise).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This really isn't a thread to debate credo vs. paedo. But I too take exception to your interpretation of this passage. The promise is for you, your children, and for who are far off. The passage is not about household baptism, it's about the offer of the gospel to "as many as the Lord has called."
Click to expand...


I know (this is not a cread/paedo debate thread), I was just trying to be funny. (it is about the offer of the Gospel, I don't deny that. It is very much that indeed. But the promise is not just for these believing men of Judea here, it is for their children as well. Just as the promise to Abraham was to him and to his children (not that they would actually receive it, but only if they had faith would they recieve it) and to that is the sign pointing to the promise (for Abraham and his children --> circumcision), for us baptism.


----------



## Herald

Romans922 said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, believe and be baptized. We all agree. And the promise is for you and your children. That baptism which pointed you to the promise. If you have faith the promise is for you and your children, so you are baptized as a sign pointing to the promise, and so shall your children receive the sign as well, pointing them to the same promise. (See Abraham, circumcision, Isaac/Ishmael -- Gen. 17 (the sign very closely linked to the promise).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This really isn't a thread to debate credo vs. paedo. But I too take exception to your interpretation of this passage. The promise is for you, your children, and for who are far off. The passage is not about household baptism, it's about the offer of the gospel to "as many as the Lord has called."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know (this is not a cread/paedo debate thread), I was just trying to be funny. (it is about the offer of the Gospel, I don't deny that. It is very much that indeed. But the promise is not just for these believing men of Judea here, it is for their children as well. Just as the promise to Abraham was to him and to his children (not that they would actually receive it, but only if they had faith would they recieve it) and to that is the sign pointing to the promise (for Abraham and his children --> circumcision), for us baptism.
Click to expand...


And for Baptists the promise extends to all those who believe, whether child or adult (these are the ones that the Lord has called to Himself), and the corresponding sign of baptism. What I don't take this passage in Acts to be saying is, "The promise extends to your children, therefore apply the sign." The "promise" is extended on the basis of faith, "as many as the Lord has called to Himself."

-----Added 12/8/2008 at 02:32:23 EST-----



TimV said:


> Scott, in the PCA and OPC the local Session have the right to fence the Table strictly or liberally, so in one church a Baptist visitor can be allowed Communion and in another not allowed. Both denominations allow Baptists as full members, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know that baptism is a command to be obeyed. It is to be administered immediately following a credible profession of faith.
> 
> 
> 
> And it comes down to the basic differences between Baptists and Reformed folks. The main difference is one of continuity between the New Testament and the Old. My youngest son has Down's, and will never be able to profess his faith in a way that you would find credible, but just as that wasn't a hindrance to his being circumcised in the OT it's not a hindrance to his being baptized in the NT. Or so it seems to Reformed folk. Since Baptists start from scratch on so many issues, they run into all sorts of like problems that simply aren't issues for us.
Click to expand...


Tim,

I don't see a one-for-one correlation between circumcision and baptism. The sign of baptism is applied to those who believe. I have met some wonderful down syndrome children. You would know better than me the severity of your child's condition. In one church I visited a young man who had downs was bright and articulate. Looking back on it, I would have no problem administering baptism to this young man if he was able to articulate his faith in Christ. From what I remember he was rather vocal about his faith. I was encouraged and my faith strengthened by having met him.

As far as Baptists "running into trouble", I'm not sure what trouble we have run into. If you believe you are to be baptized. Period. If you have believed, been baptized and display the ability to examine your faith, you are to partake in the Lord's Supper. Where's the trouble?


----------



## Hippo

Mayflower said:


> From a credo baptistic view, we don't view an infant sprinkeling as a NT baptism, and because in scripture we don't see any example of a non baptized person being a member of the church and partaking the Lord's supper, so a baptist would only follow the NT order.



Thats a very low view of the visible Church where you deny the sacraments on the basis of sectarianism. Paedo's are either Christians in your view or they are not.


----------



## TsonMariytho

I would urge extra restraint and caution in this discussion, as this is an issue obviously very close to Tim's heart as well as others', and we would not want to say something that could be interpreted as offensive...


Bill / Herald,

I'm very glad to hear you say that you would administer baptism to a mentally disabled person. I know that many Reformed Baptist pastors deliberately delay baptism of normal, believing children until they reach an age of maturity and can make a more credible profession. Glad to see you would make a (possible) exception for a person who may never attain the full mental level of a normal adult, but who at least shows some sign of loving Jesus.

I want to believe that our God has mercy on all people who are never able to hear and comprehend the gospel, including all dying infants and the most severely mentally disabled. Since I can't find a proof one way or the other in scripture (e.g. Charles Hodge's argument doesn't convince me), I leave that as one of the secret things, and trust our loving and just God to sort it out as he knows best.

As far as baptism and the subject of this thread goes, under the New Covenant we do not recognize a distinction between the natural children of Abraham (Jews) versus the foreign outsiders (Gentiles). The only way to be recognized as an heir of Abraham under the New Covenant is to possess the family characteristic -- a big nose.

No, I'm kidding (although I do have a big nose). The family characteristic that all members of the New Covenant (children of Father Abraham) possess is the faith of Abraham.

Bill is right that the gospel is offered to all within its hearing. It contains great promises and great warnings, blessings and curses based on how people respond to it. All who hear the gospel come under its obligations. (There's an external covenant arrangement, if perchance you're looking for one in the New Covenant era.) However, the only true members of the New Covenant are those who know the Lord.


----------



## Wannabee

Mike,

Please be more careful before jumping to conclusions. Ralph may have meant that, but it's also entirely possible that he's merely pointing to the order of things as a Baptist sees it. Though he might not allow paedos to share the Supper. His statement didn't necessarily mean that. Perhaps a question for clarity, alone, would have been more fruitful and charitable. These mis-characterizations can come across as extremely ungracious and instigatory.


----------



## Hippo

Wannabee said:


> Mike,
> 
> Please be more careful before jumping to conclusions. Ralph may have meant that, but it's also entirely possible that he's merely pointing to the order of things as a Baptist sees it. Though he might not allow paedos to share the Supper. His statement didn't necessarily mean that. Perhaps a question for clarity, alone, would have been more fruitful and charitable. These mis-characterizations can come across as extremely ungracious and instigatory.




I did not intend an accusation that it was believed that paedos are not Christians, my point was that "things as a baptist sees it" are sectarian when the sacrements are refused on the basis of a doctrinal mode. The response that this is just the Baptist way is not a particularly helpful response.

The Baptist position that paedos would be denied the sacraments is widely expressed on this board, I do not see my recognition of this as an ungracious and instigatory conclusion, it has been repeated in this thread several times. I do not want to offend anyone but I have a real problem with this position and I do not think that it is uncharitable to point this out. 

Why do you have a problem with me having a problem with it? If it is my tone I do apologise, that is not my intention.


----------



## TimV

> I don't see a one-for-one correlation between circumcision and baptism.


That was my whole point. That is the difference between Reformed folk and Baptists. Continuity.



> I have met some wonderful down syndrome children. You would know better than me the severity of your child's condition. In one church I visited a young man who had downs was bright and articulate. Looking back on it, I would have no problem administering baptism to this young man if he was able to articulate his faith in Christ.



Philip cannot articulate his belief in Christ. He cannot make a credible confession of his belief, nor will he ever be able to. I don't feel bad that some Baptists would never baptize him anymore than I feel bad that some Baptists think I'm not saved for not speaking in tongues, not believing Israel is special or not believing in alter calls. It is frankly a matter of supreme indifference to me. The only reason I care about things like Israel is that certain political actions that flow from the belief that Israel is special affect my nation's standing in the world and my family safety and bank account. Philip is baptised, and those who think his baptism is invalid can't affect me personally, and are not a threat to my church. Here he is goofing off in front of one of my beehives


----------



## Pilgrim

Hippo said:


> Mayflower said:
> 
> 
> 
> From a credo baptistic view, we don't view an infant sprinkeling as a NT baptism, and because in scripture we don't see any example of a non baptized person being a member of the church and partaking the Lord's supper, so a baptist would only follow the NT order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats a very low view of the visible Church where you deny the sacraments on the basis of sectarianism. Paedo's are either Christians in your view or they are not.
Click to expand...


What is your view of paedo churches who will not admit those to the Lord's Supper simply because they are not formally a member of an "evangelical" church?


----------



## Herald

TimV said:


> I don't see a one-for-one correlation between circumcision and baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> That was my whole point. That is the difference between Reformed folk and Baptists. Continuity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have met some wonderful down syndrome children. You would know better than me the severity of your child's condition. In one church I visited a young man who had downs was bright and articulate. Looking back on it, I would have no problem administering baptism to this young man if he was able to articulate his faith in Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Philip cannot articulate his belief in Christ. He cannot make a credible confession of his belief, nor will he ever be able to. I don't feel bad that some Baptists would never baptize him anymore than I feel bad that some Baptists think I'm not saved for not speaking in tongues, not believing Israel is special or not believing in alter calls. It is frankly a matter of supreme indifference to me. The only reason I care about things like Israel is that certain political actions that flow from the belief that Israel is special affect my nation's standing in the world and my family safety and bank account. Philip is baptised, and those who think his baptism is invalid can't affect me personally, and are not a threat to my church. Here he is goofing off in front of one of my beehives
Click to expand...


Tim, I had to chuckle at this picture. Philip has more bravery than I do around bees. 

I can't respond to experiences you have had with churches. They are what they are. The baptism issue comes down around theological lines (as you know). I'm content to allow our disagreement over baptism to be theological in nature and not speculative. 

This thread has covered the gamut. From whether or not baptism is necessary for church membership to the old (and tired!) credo-paedo debate. It's been months since the last baptism donnybrook and I'd be just as happy to lengthen the hiatus. 

Brother Tim, I'm sure Philip is a joy. May the Lord bless Him with His grace to overflowing.


----------



## Pilgrim

TimV said:


> I don't feel bad that some Baptists would never baptize him anymore than I feel bad that some Baptists think I'm not saved for not speaking in tongues,



Are these actually Baptists or are they Pentecostals that you are simply referring to as Baptists because of their baptismal practice? 

To get back on track, that is a great picture of your son. I agree with Bill that he is braver than I am! I have an older brother (38) who is autistic who probably functions at a much lower level and most likely wouldn't be able to even sit through a service today without causing a scene. 

Does your son partake in the Lord's Supper? Most Presbyterian churches, unless they are FV or PCUSA or somesuch require a profession of faith prior to admitting someone to the Lord's Supper.


----------



## TimV

> Does your son partake in the Lord's Supper? Most Presbyterian churches, unless they are FV or PCUSA or somesuch require a profession of faith prior to admitting someone to the Lord's Supper.


The Session allowed him at the PCA church we were at. The results of the divorce were such that of the 6 still living at home earlier this year, I got 4 and she got 2, including Philip, who only lives with us two weekdays every week. She's going to a large community Arminian Baptist church which doesn't fence the table, so I'm sure he's still taking communion.


----------



## Wannabee

Hippo said:


> I did not intend an accusation that it was believed that paedos are not Christians, my point was that "things as a baptist sees it" are sectarian when the sacrements are refused on the basis of a doctrinal mode. The response that this is just the Baptist way is not a particularly helpful response.
> 
> The Baptist position that paedos would be denied the sacraments is widely expressed on this board, I do not see my recognition of this as an ungracious and instigatory conclusion, it has been repeated in this thread several times. I do not want to offend anyone but I have a real problem with this position and I do not think that it is uncharitable to point this out.
> 
> Why do you have a problem with me having a problem with it? If it is my tone I do apologise, that is not my intention.



Thank you for your thoughtful response, Mike. Perhaps I'm a bit sensitive to your comments as I was mischaracterized by you by a long shot earlier in this thread (Landmarkism?). Your comment in regard to Ralph's post "seems" to jump to the conclusion that he would fence the table. Maybe he would. I don't know. Maybe he said so earlier. But the quote from his post didn't take a postion in regard to this, so your response seems to draw an unnecessary conclusion. 

As for a "problem with it" - I consider communion an issue of conscience between the redeemed and the Redeemer. We don't fence the table in this regard. I also "have a problem it it."


----------



## Hippo

Wannabee said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not intend an accusation that it was believed that paedos are not Christians, my point was that "things as a baptist sees it" are sectarian when the sacrements are refused on the basis of a doctrinal mode. The response that this is just the Baptist way is not a particularly helpful response.
> 
> The Baptist position that paedos would be denied the sacraments is widely expressed on this board, I do not see my recognition of this as an ungracious and instigatory conclusion, it has been repeated in this thread several times. I do not want to offend anyone but I have a real problem with this position and I do not think that it is uncharitable to point this out.
> 
> Why do you have a problem with me having a problem with it? If it is my tone I do apologise, that is not my intention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for your thoughtful response, Mike. Perhaps I'm a bit sensitive to your comments as I was mischaracterized by you by a long shot earlier in this thread (Landmarkism?). Your comment in regard to Ralph's post "seems" to jump to the conclusion that he would fence the table. Maybe he would. I don't know. Maybe he said so earlier. But the quote from his post didn't take a postion in regard to this, so your response seems to draw an unnecessary conclusion.
> 
> As for a "problem with it" - I consider communion an issue of conscience between the redeemed and the Redeemer. We don't fence the table in this regard. I also "have a problem it it."
Click to expand...


I am sorry that I rubbed you up the wrong way, thank you for being so gracious.

-----Added 12/9/2008 at 09:57:53 EST-----



Pilgrim said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mayflower said:
> 
> 
> 
> From a credo baptistic view, we don't view an infant sprinkeling as a NT baptism, and because in scripture we don't see any example of a non baptized person being a member of the church and partaking the Lord's supper, so a baptist would only follow the NT order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats a very low view of the visible Church where you deny the sacraments on the basis of sectarianism. Paedo's are either Christians in your view or they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your view of paedo churches who will not admit those to the Lord's Supper simply because they are not formally a member of an "evangelical" church?
Click to expand...



In my view all that is required is that you are a member of a true church, therefore if a paedo church will not admit on the basis that your church, while "true", is not evangelical enough they are being sectarian.

Of course what is and what is not a true church is not a simple question apart from at the extremes. 

To be honest at least Baptists have a strong theological basis for not admitting paedos (even if I disagree with it and feel that it has huge implications), by and large fenced paedos do not have anything like the same basis for their position.


----------



## Wannabee

As follow up for Mike's statement, if a Baptist church that denies paedos has a convert who cannot get baptized immediately for logistical reasons they would have to restrain that new convert from the Lord's Supper until arrangements could be made for a baptism. So, both ordinances are withheld because of logistics encumbering one. This seems highly problematic.

1 Cor 11 is applicable here, for the Corinthians were admonished to "examine yourselves" in light of their elitism.


----------



## Pilgrim

Hippo said:


> Wannabee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not intend an accusation that it was believed that paedos are not Christians, my point was that "things as a baptist sees it" are sectarian when the sacrements are refused on the basis of a doctrinal mode. The response that this is just the Baptist way is not a particularly helpful response.
> 
> The Baptist position that paedos would be denied the sacraments is widely expressed on this board, I do not see my recognition of this as an ungracious and instigatory conclusion, it has been repeated in this thread several times. I do not want to offend anyone but I have a real problem with this position and I do not think that it is uncharitable to point this out.
> 
> Why do you have a problem with me having a problem with it? If it is my tone I do apologise, that is not my intention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for your thoughtful response, Mike. Perhaps I'm a bit sensitive to your comments as I was mischaracterized by you by a long shot earlier in this thread (Landmarkism?). Your comment in regard to Ralph's post "seems" to jump to the conclusion that he would fence the table. Maybe he would. I don't know. Maybe he said so earlier. But the quote from his post didn't take a postion in regard to this, so your response seems to draw an unnecessary conclusion.
> 
> As for a "problem with it" - I consider communion an issue of conscience between the redeemed and the Redeemer. We don't fence the table in this regard. I also "have a problem it it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sorry that I rubbed you up the wrong way, thank you for being so gracious.
> 
> -----Added 12/9/2008 at 09:57:53 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats a very low view of the visible Church where you deny the sacraments on the basis of sectarianism. Paedo's are either Christians in your view or they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your view of paedo churches who will not admit those to the Lord's Supper simply because they are not formally a member of an "evangelical" church?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In my view all that is required is that you are a member of a true church, therefore if a paedo church will not admit on the basis that your church, while "true", is not evangelical enough they are being sectarian.
> 
> Of course what is and what is not a true church is not a simple question apart from at the extremes.
> 
> To be honest at least Baptists have a strong theological basis for not admitting paedos (even if I disagree with it and feel that it has huge implications), by and large fenced paedos do not have anything like the same basis for their position.
Click to expand...


What about a situation in which a believer has left a church that had no formal membership but is barred from taking communion in the OPC because he is not a member of a Bible believing church?


----------



## Hippo

Pilgrim said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wannabee said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about a situation in which a believer has left a church that had no formal membership but is barred from taking communion in the OPC because he is not a member of a Bible believing church?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if he had left the church with no formal membership then he could just join the OPC and there would not be a problem. If he just did not want to join a church then he has decided not to be in a position to recieve the sacraments which is his decision, and not one a Christian would be expected to take.
> 
> If he attended a church with no formal membership then according to the reformed view that may not be a true church, which would have to be considered on a case by case basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Pilgrim

Hippo said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if he had left the church with no formal membership then he could just join the OPC and there would not be a problem. If he just did not want to join a church then he has decided not to be in a position to recieve the sacraments which is his decision, and not one a Christian would be expected to take.
> 
> If he attended a church with no formal membership then according to the reformed view that may not be a true church, which would have to be considered on a case by case basis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It takes a while to join the OPC, usually a month or more after one has decided to take that step. For someone coming from a different background, I'm sure that it's not uncommon to take a few months to come to that decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------

