# SBC letters to Different Denominations--Membership



## caddy (Sep 20, 2007)

I recently asked that mine and my wife's letter be sent to the Presbyterian Church were we are about to join. We have been members in good standing for the past 10 years at a local SBC church. Our secretary emailed me back stating: 

"I cannot send a letter to a different denomination church only to a Baptist Church...."

I was not aware that this was SBC policy. Anybody familiar with this?

We know that we will be required to go before the elders for our testimony for membership, but I did discuss with one of the elders about our SBC church sending a letter as well. Thing is, this particular elder grew up in the SBC church we are now leaving for his church years and years ago. Just looking for other SBC pastor, deacons out there to shed some light on what your policy is in your churches. I was a deacon at this church since 2001.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Sep 20, 2007)

Typically, Baptists only send letters to other Baptist churches or maybe even non-denominational churches. The litmus test seems to be baptism.

I don't necessarily like that practice. I would think if you are joining another Bible-believing church, even if we disagree over baptism, we would be able to recommend you for membership.


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 20, 2007)

caddy said:


> I recently asked that mine and my wife's letter be sent to the Presbyterian Church were we are about to join. We have been members in good standing for the past 10 years at a local SBC church. Our secretary emailed me back stating:
> 
> "I cannot send a letter to a different denomination church only to a Baptist Church...."
> 
> ...



This would be the local church policy due to the nature of the SBC. It also is not surprising since they (unless they are liberal and perhaps not even then) would not accept a letter from a paedo church and would require baptism by immersion to join the church.


----------



## caddy (Sep 20, 2007)

I agree Douglas. I think the letter of recommendation was what I was looking for. 

I distinctly remember the Pastor at CP ( Covenant Presbyterain ) in our new members class stating that Presbyterians will accept the Baptism of other churches but that Baptists won't accept those of Presbyterians. It seems the whole issue of Baptism is the issue here. I was simply looking for my SBC pastor--who I consider my friend--to send CP something to the effect that I have been a vauled member of the church and contributed not only my tithes and offerings, but with my prayers and labors for the congregation for years. I guess I am just a little taken back by this. Is this really too hard a thing to ask? This should not be a padeo vs. credo issue. Maybe I was asking for too much. I know that it might not be needed on CP's part, but I thought it would say something to my new church home--the member(s) that I think my wife and I were to that body of believers for years.

Thanks 





Calvibaptist said:


> Typically, Baptists only send letters to other Baptist churches or maybe even non-denominational churches. The litmus test seems to be baptism.
> 
> I don't necessarily like that practice. I would think if you are joining another Bible-believing church, even if we disagree over baptism, we would be able to recommend you for membership.


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 20, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> Typically, Baptists only send letters to other Baptist churches or maybe even non-denominational churches. The litmus test seems to be baptism.
> 
> I don't necessarily like that practice. I would think if you are joining another Bible-believing church, even if we disagree over baptism, we would be able to recommend you for membership.



To those baptistic folks who agree with this: Would you accept someone coming from a paedo church who doesn't see the need to be immersed and regards his infant sprinkling as valid baptism?


----------



## Calvibaptist (Sep 20, 2007)

Pilgrim said:


> To those baptistic folks who agree with this: Would you accept someone coming from a paedo church who doesn't see the need to be immersed and regards his infant sprinkling as valid baptism?



It is one thing to recommend someone for membership in another church who varies from you in baptismal beliefs and practices. Basically recommending someone for membership is informing another church that the prospective member is, in fact, a member in good standing with your church and you believe they would make a good addition to their church.

But, it is another thing to receive into membership in your church someone who disagrees with your views of baptism. I know that Piper is currently discussing this with his church and, so far, I disagree with him. I would be thankful for the information from the other church, but would also require the person to be re-baptized. That is because I am a Baptist. (I can't say that I will always hold this particular position, but I do at this point)


----------



## elnwood (Sep 20, 2007)

Pilgrim said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> > Typically, Baptists only send letters to other Baptist churches or maybe even non-denominational churches. The litmus test seems to be baptism.
> ...



Into membership? Baptist views generally fall into at least four categories regarding membership:
1. Accept those paedobaptized into membership.
2. Accept only those credobaptized regardless of mode.
3. Accept only those credobaptized by immersion.
4. Accept only those credobaptized regardless of mode and subscribe to credobaptism.
5. Accept only those credobaptized by immersion and subscribe to credobaptism.

1 is the most common in elder rule "Baptist" churches. The last couple churches I've gone to have been 3 and 4. I would tend to lean towards 4.


----------



## DMcFadden (Sep 21, 2007)

Don nailed the range of views common in Baptist churches. Many church constitutions require that candidates coming from another Baptist church enter by "letter (of transfer);" those who have received believer's baptism and come from another denomination or independent church may enter by "Christian experience;" those who were not baptized as believers (or in many cases "immersed") must be re-baptized.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Sep 21, 2007)

DMcFadden said:


> Don nailed the range of views common in Baptist churches. Many church constitutions require that candidates coming from another Baptist church enter by "letter (of transfer);" those who have received believer's baptism and come from another denomination or independent church may enter by "Christian experience;" those who were not baptized as believers (or in many cases "immersed") must be re-baptized.



Typically, "Christian Experience" is called joining by Statement of Faith and Christian Baptism. In other words, a person joining from a Bible Church would simply state that they have believed and been baptized by immersion as a believer. A lot (most?) of Baptist churches would not accept a letter from this type of church because they are not Baptist.


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 21, 2007)

elnwood said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> > Calvibaptist said:
> ...



I would say that #1 is more common than it was previously, but that it is not the most common in elder rule churches. But maybe it's different on the west coast. It does seem to be more common in independent churches as opposed to the SBC, etc. It would be rare at best in Founders churches.


----------



## caddy (Sep 21, 2007)

Gentleman

This is really not about going from Presbyterian to Baptist and what they accept. This was simply about me getting a letter from my Baptist Church stating I was in good standing and sending it to the Presbyterian Church. Does the Presbyterian church require it? Probably not.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 21, 2007)

It's tacky to say the least if you cannot get a simple letter that you were free of scandal and not under discipline. It's a statement; not a transfer. It probably is not required, but a good Presbyterian church would want to know about your back ground and standing and an official letter helps in that regard.


----------



## caddy (Sep 21, 2007)

Thanks Chris

I just called my old Pastor at that SBC church and asked him. Acutally he was not in so I left a VM for him to call me back. This is important to me. I guess we will see where it goes....


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 21, 2007)

caddy said:


> Gentleman
> 
> This is really not about going from Presbyterian to Baptist and what they accept. This was simply about me getting a letter from my Baptist Church stating I was in good standing and sending it to the Presbyterian Church. Does the Presbyterian church require it? Probably not.



Sorry if you think I hijacked the thread. But if they refuse to send the letter then baptismal views and the fact that the new church isn't Baptist are the reasons.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Sep 21, 2007)

Pilgrim said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> > Typically, Baptists only send letters to other Baptist churches or maybe even non-denominational churches. The litmus test seems to be baptism.
> ...




I know that some of my baptist brethren might disagree with me but I would. I tend to see this issue and Bunyan did and Piper does. While I would not practice infant baptism nor teach it, I would not refuse membership to good christian people who hold a differing view nor refuse the Lord's table as some extremists do. To make such a difference over this issue is to divide the Body of Christ over a nonessential secondary doctrine in my opinion.


----------



## caddy (Sep 21, 2007)

Not at all Chris, just trying to hone in on my aim and purpose for the Post. Your assessment just might be right.



Pilgrim said:


> caddy said:
> 
> 
> > Gentleman
> ...


----------



## DMcFadden (Sep 21, 2007)

Blueridge Baptist said:


> I know that some of my baptist brethren might disagree with me but I would. I tend to see this issue and Bunyan did and Piper does. While I would not practice infant baptism nor teach it, I would not refuse membership to good christian people who hold a differing view nor refuse the Lord's table as some extremists do. To make such a difference over this issue is to divide the Body of Christ over a nonessential secondary doctrine in my opinion.



Me too. I actually argued the point with a board once . . . and lost. Since I attended a school with 40% Presbyterians, it is very difficult for me to see the value in forcing rebaptism of sound people. Since the earliest baptists practiced non-immersion, it is even more difficult for me to see the logic in not accepting those baptized by believers' baptism by other than immersion.

As to our brother's point . . . I would simply ask the pastor to do you a favor and write a personal letter to the pastor of your new church commending your conduct and Christian conversation. Unless he is of the species of Baptist thinking himself the only true Christian, he should be willing to accommodate you.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Sep 21, 2007)

DMcFadden said:


> Blueridge Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > I know that some of my baptist brethren might disagree with me but I would. I tend to see this issue and Bunyan did and Piper does. While I would not practice infant baptism nor teach it, I would not refuse membership to good christian people who hold a differing view nor refuse the Lord's table as some extremists do. To make such a difference over this issue is to divide the Body of Christ over a nonessential secondary doctrine in my opinion.
> ...



Do you have documentation (I'm sure you do!) that early Baptists did not practice immersion? I am quite interested in fleshing out Bunyan's and Piper's reasonings within a Baptist framework (understanding that if it's biblical it doesn't matter if it's Baptist).


----------



## elnwood (Sep 21, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> > Me too. I actually argued the point with a board once . . . and lost. Since I attended a school with 40% Presbyterians, it is very difficult for me to see the value in forcing rebaptism of sound people. Since the earliest baptists practiced non-immersion, it is even more difficult for me to see the logic in not accepting those baptized by believers' baptism by other than immersion.
> ...



I believe it was the early Anabaptists who had practiced sprinkling, not the Baptists.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Sep 21, 2007)

http://desiringgod.org/media/pdf/baptism_and_membership.pdf

This is Piper's position. Pay careful attention to page 4.


----------



## wsw201 (Sep 21, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> It's tacky to say the least if you cannot get a simple letter that you were free of scandal and not under discipline. It's a statement; not a transfer. It probably is not required, but a good Presbyterian church would want to know about your back ground and standing and an official letter helps in that regard.



Even getting letters of transfers from other Presbyterian churches in the same Presbytery is not always easy. The letter from your previous church is not required as Chris has noted since you are not transferring. The Session at CP will mostlikely have you and your wife join via reaffirmation of faith.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Sep 21, 2007)

Blueridge Baptist said:


> http://desiringgod.org/media/pdf/baptism_and_membership.pdf
> 
> This is Piper's position. Pay careful attention to page 4.



Piper makes a very interesting statement when he says that he (and the elders) believe that the door to the local church should be as wide as the door to the universal church. In other words, he is saying that if someone is truly a believer, then we should allow them as members in the local church regardless of whether they were baptized as an infant, by sprinkling, or by immersion.

But there is inconsistency in this statement. Could someone be in the universal church and not have been baptized at all? Obviously, yes. Why then, if the door should be the same, require any type of baptism for membership? Could someone be in the universal church and not agree completely with the Membership Affirmation of Faith? Obviously, yes, because one does not need to believe in the bodily return of Christ in order to be saved. Why then, if the door should be the same, require prospective members to agree to a doctrinal statement in order to become members.

I understand the sentiment. I just think he is picking and choosing which doctrinal beliefs are necessary for church membership and which aren't. He has decided baptism isn't one of the necessary ones. So, why remain a Baptist?

Honestly, I am not just trying to be sarcastic or pick on the man. I love his teaching ministry and have great respect for him. He is one of the greatest preachers in the modern era. But, I am not sure (and I mean not sure) that I agree with him on this point. It will take me a lot more study and time to get there, if I ever do.


----------



## JM (Sep 21, 2007)

I thought there was a big to do in the 1620's or 1630's between Calvinistic Baptists who believed in immersion and the Arminian Baptists that sprinkled. I'll have to look around and see if I can find it again, I think it's on The Reformed Reader - Committed to Historic Baptist Beliefs .

The Church I belong to would only accept only those credobaptized by immersion. A couple in there late 60's came to our Church from a Reformed Church and were baptized just a few years ago.

Peace.


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 21, 2007)

Bunyan's position as I understand it was that a profession of faith and not baptism is what marks the entrance into the visible church and thus enables someone to come to the Lord's Supper.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Sep 21, 2007)

Pilgrim said:


> Bunyan's position as I understand it was that a profession of faith and not baptism is what marks the entrance into the visible church and thus enables someone to come to the Lord's Supper.



I could almost buy that...

But, as I understand the Baptist thinking on baptism and the Lord's Supper, you should not partake of the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner. So, Baptist churches "fence the table," trying to ensure that only believers are partaking and that those believers are walking in obedience to the Lord and repenting of known sin.

If a Baptist church believes that the Bible teaches believers baptism by immersion and that to be baptized upon profession of faith is obedience to the Great Commission, wouldn't that church also be right to withhold communion from someone they believe is walking in disobedience to the first command they were to obey - be baptized?


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Sep 21, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> > Bunyan's position as I understand it was that a profession of faith and not baptism is what marks the entrance into the visible church and thus enables someone to come to the Lord's Supper.
> ...



It is a predicament for some I suppose. Yes I believe that the scripture teaches the credo postion but to me it is a secondary doctrine. I would not teach it ( infant baptism) nor embrace it but will embrace those who do as long as they do not embrace baptismal regeneration. I believe the Free Presbyterians have a good position in thier statement of faith. I couldn't imagine turning away one of my Presbyterian brethen away from the Lord's supper because of a baptism disagreement. But then, thats just me putting in my


----------



## elnwood (Sep 21, 2007)

On a related note, nonrecognition of other churches is not something that afflicts Baptist churches. Many (most?) churches in the United Reformed Churches will say that even Reformed Baptist churches are not true churches, so I doubt they would send a letter of transfer to a Baptist church.


----------



## caddy (Sep 21, 2007)

All is well. My Pastor left me a VM that he would be happy to write the letter after I left him a VM. Let's just say I am appreciative and thankful.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 21, 2007)

Blueridge Baptist said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> > Pilgrim said:
> ...




We discussed Piper's position here. http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/response-grudem-baptism-church-membership-23890/

And discussed it also in another place but here is my critique of Pipers position. Wayne Grudem also answered Piper back in a link which is in a post in the link above.



> I use to hold to Pipers view that the Baptism debate needs to take a back seat to Church membership. In fact, I had great admiration for the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland because they hold this view. But as of the last few years my convictions have sharpened a bit.
> 
> I have always held a view that a local congregation is not the whole body of Christ. Unity and Union are very important but Unity and Union are two different issues in my opinion. Union seems to have more of a connection to something than unity. When a union is entered into an attachment is achieved whereby others are put together as one. . Unity to me is a state or quality of being in accord or working harmoniously together. We all have Union with Christ as His body. But congregationally or denominationally we are like many members who may not be directly connected to each other. But we must be walking and working together in unity.
> 
> ...



At the same time I would not bar a believing Presbyterian from the Lord's table. I do not see any requirement for baptism before one partakes of the table . And I know that might bring some criticism. I would welcome the criticism in another thread if someone wanted to pursue it. 

When I wanted to start attending a Baptist church with my Dad for a season, while I was in the RPCNA, I was informed that I was not given a blessing to do it. I was trying to reconnect with my Dad and thought that it was a good idea. They were also worried about my engagement to my wife at that time. They were correct in the things they saw. So the blessings to come or go flow the same both ways. The Elders are just watching out for the flock. It is their responsibility.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 21, 2007)

caddy said:


> All is well. My Pastor left me a VM that he would be happy to write the letter after I left him a VM. Let's just say I am appreciative and thankful.



Any reasonable Pastor should want to do this. But I would think he should want to meet with you first and discuss it in person to clear any air.


----------

