# Question for Reformed Credobaptists



## Reformed1 (Jun 17, 2005)

I continue to battle with Paedobaptism vs. Credobaptism in my mind. I will, however, be returning to an OPC church that I worshipped at before. I've already told the Pastor that I'd like to talk to him more about this. I've recently listened to Bill Einwechter's defense of Credobaptism and it is, in my opinion, the best defense I've ever heard for the position. I still, however, continue to battle in my mind over it. I will be listening to Bahnsen's defense of Paedobaptism soon.

One of the problems I have with Credobaptists, however, is that they do not view the baptisms of Paedobaptists as valid. I will concede that this is a logical conclusion of their position, but I have a problem with it nonetheless. My question is this: as a Credo, would you withold the Lord's Supper from a Paedo since they do not have a valid baptism? I've heard many Baptists address this question already, but I'm interested in what some on this board will say.

My problem is this, if you answer yes than you would (logically) have to hold the position that you would have witheld the Lord's Supper from the Reformers. Even if you say no, than you would have to say that nobody ever had a valid baptism (including the Reformers) until the English Puritans came on the scene (I already know that Credos will make the argument that the Early Church was a Credo Church). I know that it would be a fallacy to reject the Credo position based on this reason alone, but it does cause me to second guess it when I think about it. I find it hard to believe that Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, Knox, Owen & Edwards did not have valid baptisms. It seems a little too extreme for me (no I'm not postmodern ).

[Edited on 11/04/2004 by Reformed1]


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jun 17, 2005)

Rick,

I hear you brother, logical inconsistancies like this one are a problem. If you get a good answer I'd like to see it my self.



> find it hard to believe that Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, Knox, Owen & Edwards did not have valid baptisms



It is a bit hard to swallow isn't it! Especially when in former calvinistic SB churches I've attended the same person's you mentioned, and moderns like RC, Sinclaire, et al., teachings are allowed into, accepted and taught in the same churches. Yet, there's that Infant sprinkling/Lord's Supper thing for these same teachers. 

Usually the answer is that though on paper and in doctrinal teaching of baptism to their people (that is they would never allow a lay person the same courtesey as say an RC Sproul) this is their position (no Lord's Supper to invalid baptisms/infant sprinkling), in practice they would not deny them the Lord's Table. Yea, unfortunately it is a punt, but that's the answer I've gotten - for better or worse.

Good Luck (ooppps, bad calvinist, bad calvinist!),

Larry


----------



## Reformed1 (Jun 17, 2005)

Thanks Larry. It is really hard to swallow. I just can't get that out of my mind. If I ever become a Credo, how then can I say that Edwards, Van Til, Bahnsen, Sproul, Hodge & every other Presbyterian you can think of did not have valid baptisms (and in some churches would not be allowed the Lord's Supper)? This is one thing, if I remember correctly, that Einwechter was getting at. I'm sorry, but I can't swallow this bullet.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Jun 17, 2005)

My pastor uses that same argument (historical argument).

My take on it..... in good conscience, I would accept the paedobaptism as legit, provided their confession of faith is legit. I understand the system they were baptised in and though I disagree with the position, I truly do believe, based on credible profession of faith, that this person is a part of the body of Christ.

Of course, I've already been put on notice by my pastor that I need to have a much better defense of credobaptism in order  But it really hasn't been a major issue for me over the past month or so.


----------



## pastorway (Jun 17, 2005)

Our church sides with John Bunyan, who taught that baptism is not required for access to the Table. We also find no Scriptural proof that "baptism is the door to the church." One does not have to be baptized in order to join our church. If you are saved then you are already in the body. (we do encourage baptism, but more on that in a minute).

Back to the question at hand: In our church, to partake of the table, you must examine yourself, first to see that you are in the faith (make your calling and election sure) , and then so that the Holy Spirit might convict and convince you of any undealt with sin. If you profess faith in Christ and are not under discipline from our church or any other, then you are free to partake of the Table with us. That means that any believer (not under discipline) who worships with us is able to participate with us in communion.

I would not ask a person baptised as an infant to be baptised to join our church either. as I stated, we do not require baptism for church membership. If you are convinced that you were baptized when sprinkled as an infant, then upon profession of your faith you may join our church. If you conclude, as we believe, that infant baptism is not a valid baptism, then we would gladly baptize you by immersion. And also on this point, if you have been baptized as a believer by a mode other than immersion, we would not require you to be immersed.

But I do understand that we are not the norm for Reformed or Bapitst churches.

Phillip


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jun 17, 2005)

Pastorway,

Thanks for the reply. That's actually encouraging to here! I actually just read that about Bunyan and wondered if others follow suite today. You are right its not the norm, I had a good SB brother say that Bunyan was not a good baptist, tongue and cheek, "sort of".

Very encouraging way to handle it!

Larry


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 17, 2005)

That's nice that your church doesn't follow the 'anabaptist' methodology, Pastor Way. Interesting to hear, and it is rare, as you say.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Jun 18, 2005)

Which works specifically, Pastor Way ? Bunyan's going to get added to my 'must buy' list.


----------



## pastorway (Jun 18, 2005)

The John Bunyan Archive

see specifically this PDF titled "Differences in Judgment About Water Baptism - No Bar to Communion".

Phillip


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 18, 2005)

> My question is this: as a Credo, would you withold the Lord's Supper from a Paedo since they do not have a valid baptism?



I wouldn't. Especially if they have a good testimony in Christ.

Where does Scripture tie the two together? I have communed with many paedos. We share a common testimony and bond in Christ death, burial, and resurrection. We are commanded to do it in His rememberance. Where is baptism assigned here as a prerequisite? Yes, I do believe one must follow Christ into baptism. But seriously where in scripture are the two attached? Maybe I am ignorant. It wouldn't be the last time.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jun 18, 2005)

Randy,

I'm not sure it is other than an inference to membership into the church. But I've seen it on paper (by-laws) and taught in almost every baptist church I've attended (about 5 or 6). The LBCF merely states "worthy receivers" and leaves it open ended. Likewise the SB-F&M attaches it (Lord's Supper) to "church membership" which explicitly makes immersed adults necessary, else "church membership" in their context is an empty term.

However, most by-laws state it explicitly. And it was indeed one of the arguments Bunyan had against his fellow baptist. So, the concept (immersed adults only can partake) is more usual than not. Furthermore, it was a recent issue in John Piper's church for which he and his elders considered the situation, since persons like Sinclaire, Packer and others frequently speak/teach at his conferences. So, again it is more the norm than not.

Though, like I said in actual practice it is rarely outwardly enforced.

Ldh


----------



## Wannabee (Jun 18, 2005)

RC Sproul was told he had to get baptized before they'd let him speak at the Shepherds' Conference. However, since he's ordained, they said he could do it himself. He asked if taking a shower was good enough. He was told that immersion was the only acceptable method. I hear it was the first bath he'd had in years.






Don't quote me. It's a joke guys. C'mon.


----------



## blhowes (Jun 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Wannabee_
> RC Sproul was told he had to get baptized before they'd let him speak at the Shepherds' Conference. However, since he's ordained, they said he could do it himself. He asked if taking a shower was good enough. He was told that immersion was the only acceptable method. I hear it was the first bath he'd had in years.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Joseph Ringling (Jun 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Wannabee_
> RC Sproul was told he had to get baptized before they'd let him speak at the Shepherds' Conference. However, since he's ordained, they said he could do it himself. He asked if taking a shower was good enough. He was told that immersion was the only acceptable method. I hear it was the first bath he'd had in years.
> 
> 
> ...






[Edited on 6-19-2005 by Joseph Ringling]


----------



## Reformed1 (Jun 18, 2005)

Thanks everyone for your responses. Pastorway, I'm encouraged to see the stance that your church takes. However, as you stated, it is not very common. I too will begin to read more of Bunyan . This is still a difficult thing for me. I guess the problem for me still, however, is that even if Baptists don't deny a Paedo the Lord's Supper, in large part they will regard their baptism as invalid. However, on the flip side, a Paedo may disagree with a Baptist's mode and yet still regard their baptism as valid. So I'm still left with a dilemma. I'm still not ready to say that the baptisms of my heroes in the faith are invalid. =( Someone may say that I need to look to Scripture and not to anything else, and I agree with that. But I'm still seeing the Credo view as a little extreme for I feel it isolates a portion of the Church that has the only "valid" baptism while leaving other Giants in the faith out of the loop. That is not meant as an offense to my Credo brethren. I'm simply posting my thoughts. If someone can correct me, I'm open to it. Remember, I'm not on either side right now


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jun 19, 2005)

Joe, 

Funny!


Rick,



> Someone may say that I need to look to Scripture and not to anything else, and I agree with that



Remember that cuts both ways. To make it generic and not offend ANY camp look at it this way. You are the "seeker of a biblical truth" on a subject which has two opposing views A and B. Both camps have great scholarship and both camps have history. Both camps honestly, too, seek the truth and are not malicious in their views. Both camps outside of this particular truth issue have TREMENDOUS contributions to the faith on other aspects/issues. So, that you have firm right to believe that in both camps historic figures HAVE "Studied and shown themselves to be approved..." on much of the faith. 

Having said that - for camp B to assert "study Scripture and not men" would be a true and valid statement when and ONLY when taken as a whole to both camps. But to assert it to support their side of the controversial issue at hand (the one you are seeking clarity on), even if only implicitly done so or as a defense in the argumentation, is wrong and is the logical fallacy of a false appeal to authority. Which basically appeals to authority on one's side over a controversial subject among equal authorities.

All that to say that "study scripture and not men" cuts both ways.

Also, be aware of the inherent genetic fallacy that often arises from the misuse of this very statement - which attacks not the arguement but where it came from or who it came from. E.g., "Carl Sagan said the sky is blue, but that cannot be true because he was an atheist."

I hope that helps,

Ldh


----------



## turmeric (Jun 19, 2005)

I'm glad to know R.C. is finally clean. But, and this is important, did he wash behind his ears?


----------



## Reformed1 (Jun 20, 2005)

Thanks for the advice Larry. I'll definitely keep that in mind.


----------



## heartoflesh (Jun 23, 2005)

Please forgive my ignorance, but do most Baptist churches teach that you must undergo a "believer's baptism" to share in communion?


----------



## JonathanHunt (Jun 23, 2005)

Rick

Everyone keeps insisting that baptist churches do require this, and I don't doubt that many do. However, I have never been to one that did!

JH


----------



## heartoflesh (Jun 23, 2005)

I looked up the C&MA position, and it just states "baptism is not required for salvation, but is encouraged".

So I assume at my church you could partake of communion without being baptized.

[Edited on 6-23-2005 by Rick Larson]


----------



## Puddleglum (Jun 23, 2005)

My experience with Reformed Baptists is that they require believer's baptism to be a member. If you're a visitor, and a member of Presbyterian church, they'd let you partake of the Lord's Supper, though. 

From the church constitution of my old church (a reformed baptist one - you might be familiar with it, Jonathan):

"Membership is open only to those who have received Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour, and have publicly expressed their faith in Him through the ordinance of believer's baptism. However, in exceptional circumstances a person may be accepted into membership without having been baptized as a believer, provided that they can explain to the satisfaction of the Elders their reasons for not being baptised, and provided that they meet all the other requirements of membership expressed herein."

You did have to be a member of the church (unless you were visiting and a member elsewhere) to take part in the Lord's Supper.


And from the church constitution of the reformed baptist church sort-of near where I now live:

About membership: "Any person exhibiting adult maturity shall be eligible for membership who, in the judgment of the elders, has a credible profession of repentance toward God and faith in Christ, manifests a life transformed by the power of Christ, has been baptized as a believer, expresses substantial agreement with the Confession and Constitution of this church, intends to give wholehearted support to its ministry and submit to its government and discipline, and is not under the biblically warranted corrective discipline of a church." 

About the Lord's Supper: "In order to maintain the purity of this ordinance, the policy of this church is that only believers who are members in good standing of a true church (i.e., a church holding to the basic tenets of evangelical Christianity) are permitted to partake of the elements of the Lord's Supper. If a visitor wishes to partake of more than one Lord's Supper, he must consult with the elders.

Church membership is a duty of every Christian (except in extraordinary cases). The New Testament does not envision Christ's disciples living in any other way than joined together in local congregations, in which they are formally committed to the body and under the oversight of its elders. Christians who are able to be members of a true church, but who will not do so, are walking in a disorderly way and are not eligible to partake of the Lord's Table. In this policy we have the same standard as for our members, should they walk in a disorderly way."

(from www.oldpaths.cc)


----------



## Reformed1 (Jun 26, 2005)

I think any Baptist, however, would say that a Presbyterian who is "converted" should be rebaptized. As Ligon Duncan said: "Historically, Baptists have not acknowledged other baptism than immersion. And therefore if you have received some other form of baptism, and you desire to join a Baptist church, and especially a Reformed Baptist church, immersion will be required. Now that is not because Reformed Baptists are just being mean and nasty and picky. It is because of their very theology of baptism that that is required, so there are definitely ecclesiastical divides on this issue. And it is an important one to study."

I still find this hard to believe in. How can we now write off the baptisms of 80% of our forefathers in the faith as "invalid?" This makes me lean more and more towards a Paedo view. Perhaps I can pose the question in this way. Would a Reformed Credobaptist be comfortable knowing that they would not have extended full membership to John Calvin if he were around today (or if they were around back then)?


----------



## Wannabee (Jun 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Reformed1_
> I still find this hard to believe in. How can we now write off the baptisms of 80% of our forefathers in the faith as "invalid?" This makes me lean more and more towards a Paedo view. Perhaps I can pose the question in this way. Would a Reformed Credobaptist be comfortable knowing that they would not have extended full membership to John Calvin if he were around today (or if they were around back then)?



This is really a very pragmatic argument though. I understand the sentiment, and tend to share it. However, considering _sola fide_, we could make the same argument about Rome for at least 800 years prior to the Reformation. The challenge isn't over salvation, it's over a proper understanding of baptism and agreement for membership. It seems like a very individualistic thing in regard to churches.


----------



## Reformed1 (Jun 27, 2005)

Joe, I've thought about that myself. However, the argument would be made that Rome departed from the teaching of the Fathers (not to mention Scripture). With Rome, it's pretty easy to see how she departed from the roots she claims such high fidelity towards. However, not the same can be said of the Reformers and baptism. I'm still finding it hard to believe that I (as a Baptist pastor for example) would have to come to terms with the fact that I would tell John Calvin, Greg Bahnsen, John Murray, Van Til etc to get rebaptized if they wanted to join my church (hypothetically speaking, of course). To me it seems that I'm gleaning what I like from them with my right hand while slapping them with my left (that's a pretty harsh analogy, I know). Again, this seems too extreme for me.


----------



## Wannabee (Jun 27, 2005)

I appreciate what you're saying Rick,

There is a tension here that is tough to address. However, regardless of how we "feel" about it, Scripture first. If I have studied out the passages and my convictions are firm in regard to the clear teaching of Scripture, then the tradition and history of men is merely a check and balance, to affirm or challenge me, however, never to compell me. To think that the great reformers had it all right is beyond naive, it's irresponsible. In fact, the way that some worship the divines and reformers would have them rolling over in their graves. They would denounce such behavior as idolatry. 
On the flip side, one better be sure of his convictions in the face of such testimony and not refute it lightly. It's a tremendous battle. But we have to own our convictions for ourselves, not blindly lean on the faith and understanding of others.

I obviously have no trouble fellowshipping and ministering with PBs. However, as my convictions stand, I would be compelled to require believer's baptism for all members. If they were unwilling it would show me two things. One, that becoming a member of our church wasn't that important to them. The obvious follow-up to that is number two, a matter of pride. I don't think that anyone here denies that believer's baptism is scriptural. The tension is in the Scriptural warrant for infant baptism. CB=no, PB=yes. So, why not identify one's self with Christ in believer's baptism?

Think about this. Do you expect your children to follow in your footsteps? Or, would you rather they stood on your shoulders and reached new heights? I often tell my boys to watch me closely. In areas that I shine, praise God and hold on to those things. In areas I need improvement, note it, pray about it, and strive to be better. In areas that I fail utterly, vow to not be like me. Take the meat and spit out the bones. It gives them a higher plane to start from. 
Same goes for a pastor. He's not only striving for the growth and maturity of the church. It he's worth his salt he's preparing the church for the next guy, so that they can grow to new heights. This is how we should look to our predecessors. They were giants. However, they had much to overcome and reveal that we don't. We don't have to overcome the abesence of the _solas_. We don't have to overcome Rome. We have a host of obstacles, but they've illuminated much Scripture for us so that we can stand on their shoulders as we continually study and strive to know God's Word.

So, the CB would say that you are right in your analogy, however, we also perceive that the reformers didn't finish the job. They overcame much, but baptism isn't one of them. In fact, it can be shown that part of Calvin's struggle with baptism lied in his ecclesiology, which obviously was flawed. He wanted "reform." What was needed was a complete destruction and rebuild.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 27, 2005)

Joe, what you're saying reminds me a lot of the distinction between Semper Reformata and Semper Reformanda, and the rightful place of each. More on that below.



> _Originally posted by Wannabee_
> This is how we should look to our predecessors. They were giants. However, they had much to overcome and reveal that we don't. We don't have to overcome the abesence of the _solas_. We don't have to overcome Rome. We have a host of obstacles, but they've illuminated much Scripture for us so that we can stand on their shoulders as we continually study and strive to know God's Word.



But unfortunately, we still _do_ have to overcome the absence of even something as basic as the Solas, particularly in contemporary evangelicalism. Even in current Reformed circles, justification is the new hot topic of innovation and controversy. Furthermore, in the church in which I was raised was a relatively conservative church for the Assemblies of God. Yet most of the members wouldn't be able to give a one-minute talk on Sola Scriptura, may never have even heard of Soli Deo Gloria, and would have a lot of trouble clearly explaining the differences between the other three Solas. And that is why Semper Reformata is so important to keep focused on, and while we should certainly be consistent with Semper Reformanda at all times, all-too-often that focus seems to come at the expense of the former.



> _Originally posted by Wannabee_
> So, the CB would say that you are right in your analogy, however, we also perceive that the reformers didn't finish the job. They overcame much, but baptism isn't one of them. In fact, it can be shown that part of Calvin's struggle with baptism lied in his ecclesiology, which obviously was flawed. He wanted "reform." What was needed was a complete destruction and rebuild.



For one thing, I have actually heard it commented by many historians that in the Reformation, Luther and his followers generally kept all they didn't have to throw out, while Calvin and his followers generally leaned more toward throwing out all they didn't have to keep. Furthermore, the Calvinist Reformers _did_ throw out Rome's doctrine of baptism, as our doctrine of paedobaptism has as much to do with theirs as our doctrine of Lordship Salvation has to do with their doctrine of justification by works.

Continuing from my above mention of Semper Reformata and Semper Reformanda, I often get the impression that many Reformed Baptists think they are the only ones truly carrying on the latter, while Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed believers are only carrying out the former in many ways. I think that is an over-generalization that is incorrectly assumed simply from the fact that we do not believe Reformed paedobaptism to be one of the things that needed more reforming after the Reformation. But we certainly agree with you in following Semper Reformanda in addition to Semper Reformata. One of the best examples of that is the fact that some of the most staunchly confessional Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed theologians of our day are Van Tillian in their apologetics.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Joe, what you're saying reminds me a lot of the distinction between Semper Reformata and Semper Reformanda, and the rightful place of each. More on that below.



My latin is rusty. Actually, I know how they are translated but what do you mean by them?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> ...



I simply mean them as I have heard them used in the past, as "Always Reformed" and "Always Reforming," respectively. The former is usually used to essentially mean faithfully and consistently holding to the historic, confessional Reformed faith as understood by men like the Reformers and Puritans, and the latter is of course what makes that standard different in principle and nature from, say, Rome's standard.


----------



## Reformed1 (Jun 27, 2005)

Joe, I appreciate your responses. I'm not saying that I'm heading over to the Paedo side simply because Calvin was a Paedo, however. The original intent of my post was to find out from Baptists if they felt comfortable knowing that they would have rejected membership in their churches to the Reformers if they were around today. I did get an answer from you and I thank you for your honesty. I still think it is extreme. I am not implying that I'm going to end up a PBer simply because the Reformers were. I recognize the huge fallacy and irresponsibility in that. However, I am recognizing how extreme the Baptist view is in my opinion. Again, I know you could rip that logic to shreds (it doesn't come down to my opinion but Scripture). I'm a staunch child of the Reformation and tout Sola Scriptura as much as the next Calvinist. However, I can't help but think how extreme the credo view is. "Nobody else has a valid baptism except us Baptists" We've just stripped our Fathers in the Faith of their sign and seal of the New Covenant. Again, I know it comes down to what Scripture says, but that view makes me want to visit Scripture one more time...

[Edited on 11/04/2004 by Reformed1]


----------



## pastorway (Jun 27, 2005)

I'd like to know the chapter and verse that makes baptism the door to the church and a requirement for membership.........

Phillip


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 27, 2005)

> Acts 2:41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Jun 27, 2005)

Rick - have you read anything from Fred Malone ( http://www.founders.org ) ?

I think one of Mark Dever's elders (Capitol Hill Baptist) is a former PCA elder. I wonder if he got re-baptized ?

This convo is informative, since you (Rick) are debating some of the very issues I had burning in my brain a few months ago. 

At the end of the day, historical and tradition-based arguments are secondary. Folks believed the perpetual virginity of Mary for millennia on end (including Calvin and Luther)..... so them having Baptism wrong wouldn't surprise me.

I tend to be a 'one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' person. There are plenty of folks walking around in baptist churches nowadays with right theology, but their hearts aren't right with God. I wouldn't require a rebaptism, were they to admit one day that they were unregenerate and now coming to faith 'for real'. So I wouldn't have an issue with bringing a Paedo person into my church as a member. But I *do* believe that the new covenant sign (Baptism) should only be (and is only) administered to professing believers in the NT as a general practice.

Of course, I'm kinda where you are, Rick. But it's a 'side issue' for me, honestly. So it's on the side burner for now.... I'll come back and 'settle' on it one day definitively.... but for now, I'm working on getting the CoW/CoG down and a few other things....


----------



## Reformed1 (Jun 27, 2005)

Kerry, I'm actually ashamed to say that I haven't read anything from Malone. I know how influential his writings have been. However, as I said in an earlier post, I have finished Bill Einwechter's study on the Covenant and Baptism and it is in my opinion the best defense for the credo position I have ever heard. You can find it here: http://www.visionforum.com/search/productdetail.aspx?search=baptism&productid=85674

He speaks very affirmingly of Malone's book yet takes issue with Malone on the topic of theonomy. Einwechter is a theonomist (one of the reasons why I listened to him) and he critiques Malone's opinion that the theonomic hermeneutic would automatically lead to a Paedo position. Einwechter is a bit different from most Bapsits because he (along with Doug Phillips) takes a very Reformed and covenantal approach to the whole issue. He ascribes to Covenant Theology en toto, yet departs on the issue of baptism. It was actually helpful for me because it showed me that there is another baptistic position besides the dispensationalist type. I am currently listening to Bahnsen's and Butler's series on Transcendental Arguments. Once I'm done with that I'll tackle Bahnsen's series on Baptism.


----------



## Steve Owen (Jun 27, 2005)

I myself thought it right to be baptized by imersion when I came to baptistic convictions ( I had been 'done' by an Anglican vicar as a baby). My church is firmly baptistic, but we are evangelicals first and Baptists a long way second. We would accept Calvin as a member should he apply (not so sure about Luther for other reasons!) without his being baptized, but he would not be eligible for Eldership 

OS_X wrote:-



> I tend to be a 'one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' person. There are plenty of folks walking around in baptist churches nowadays with right theology, but their hearts aren't right with God. I wouldn't require a rebaptism, were they to admit one day that they were unregenerate and now coming to faith 'for real'. So I wouldn't have an issue with bringing a Paedo person into my church as a member. But I *do* believe that the new covenant sign (Baptism) should only be (and is only) administered to professing believers in the NT as a general practice.




 Except that I would leave out the last four words.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Wannabee (Jun 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> I'd like to know the chapter and verse that makes baptism the door to the church and a requirement for membership.........
> 
> Phillip



Wouldn't it be a matter of obedience? If someone isn't willing to submit to being baptized... well, you know where I'm headed.


----------



## pastorway (Jun 27, 2005)

if a person is saved are they a member of the Body of Christ? Or do they have to be baptized before they are part of the Body?

Is requiring baptism for chuch membership the same as requiring MORE than being a member of the Body of Christ for membership in a local assembly?

In Acts, new believes were being baptized, but it says that those added to the church daily were those being "saved." 

Yes we should preach and encourage baptism as a step of obedience for disciples of Jesus Christ, but I do not see a requirement in the Scriptures for a person to be baptized before they can join the church.

Phillip

[Edited on 6-28-05 by pastorway]


----------



## kceaster (Jun 28, 2005)

*Pastor Phillip....*

Do you not think that perhaps the early church deemed this as sort of a rite of passage? I don't want to get into the connection between circumcision and baptism, but it is well known that most religions have something that a proselyte must do in order to join the assembly. The Jews certainly did. No uncircumcised male could be among them.

Why would the church, who was made up by these same Jews, not baptize someone immediately who wanted to join them? If we look at the Great Commission, it certainly suggests that we baptize and teach those whom God gives us.

Paedo/Credo aside, it still seems to me that one was not truly a full member of the church until they had been baptized. I think we could look at a passage like Ephesians 4. When we look at those "ones," it should be apparent that the one body and one Spirit and one baptism should give us a sort of membership requirement. I know you don't believe that an adult should be baptized before a profession of faith, and neither do I. But it would seem that Paul is saying that, if there is one body, then the rest of the "ones" are true about that body. They have the same hope which we read in other places. They call Jesus Lord which we know they may only do by the Spirit. They have the faith once for all delivered to the saints. They have been baptized with the baptism of Christ. And, they call none but God, father.

I think it is safe for us to assume that they may have been allowed into the assembly because it is clear from I Cor. 14 that there may be uninformed persons in their midst. But I do not believe that they would be considered "members" until they had been baptized and informed as to the faith, In other words,, baptized and taught just as Jesus commanded.

What do you think?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Wannabee (Jun 28, 2005)

Some good points Kevin.

I can't believe I'm agreeing with you against Phillip! Yikes!


> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> if a person is saved are they a member of the Body of Christ? Or do they have to be baptized before they are part of the Body?
> 
> Is requiring baptism for chuch membership the same as requiring MORE than being a member of the Body of Christ for membership in a local assembly?



Joining a church is not joining the body of Christ. I'm a member by God's election. Furthermore, can you give ANY scriptural instructions for people joining churches? 

To answer your rhetorical question, of course they are members of the body. However, if they are unwilling to submit to the instruction to repent and be baptized, then I would doubt their salvation. If they are not saved then they should not be members of our church. The obvious return question would be, "If you allow them to be members of your church, does that make them members of the body of Christ?" Will there be unsaved "members" of our churches? Of course. But this is one thing that can be done to witness obedience of true believers.

Jesus has decided who will be members of the Church. He's left the responsibility of the local flock to us though. I'd rather challenge a disobedient believer than admit a false professor.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 28, 2005)

blah blah blah ... ignore my posts ... blah blah blah


----------



## Reformed1 (Jun 28, 2005)

> Jesus has decided who will be members of the Church. He's left the responsibility of the local flock to us though. I'd rather challenge a disobedient believer than admit a false professor.



Joe, we have finally agreed on something!


----------



## Wannabee (Jun 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > *Acts 2:41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.*





> Ignore my post.


Really Gabriel, I thought my post was a followup to yours; complementary. I know that Phillip has thought this through though. Let's see what he has to say.


> _Originally posted by Reformed1_
> 
> 
> > Jesus has decided who will be members of the Church. He's left the responsibility of the local flock to us though. I'd rather challenge a disobedient believer than admit a false professor.
> ...



Yikes! I'm agreeing with Kevin AND Rick. Hmmm. 

[Edited on 6-28-2005 by Wannabee]


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jun 28, 2005)

I guess what do we mean when we say "member" of a church (here on earth being presupposed)? That would be the starting point. Because if our concept of "member" is undefined all else is mere academic speculation.

So, what is meant, specifically by "member"?

Larry


----------



## Wannabee (Jun 28, 2005)

I'll make a proposal on this.

Member of the body of Christ is obvious. Only the elect are considered members of Christ's body. Physical baptism is in no way required for regeneration/membership. Agreed? 

I think church membership should requre certain guidelines. A common view of Scripture and similar convictions are a must, or there will be division. So a prerequisite to becoming a member of a certain assembly of believers should be an agreement to follow certain doctrinal positions of the church.
It is the church's responsibility to attempt, to the best of its ability, to allow only true believers membership status. This is based on their profession of faith and the appearance of the fruit of the Spirit.
Membership of a local church has its responsibilities and privileges. Responsibilities include ministering to one another and serving as the Lord has gifted you. Privileges include being ministered to in times of difficulty, sitting under the teaching and fellowship. 

Example-I think it is clear that this is one of the reasons that in order to be a "widow indeed" a woman has to have a reputation of service in the church. Otherwise every widow will come in demanding to be taken care of by the church. Many try anyway.

Of course this is an extremely brief attempt. I'm sure someone else can do much better. 

So, what precautions do we take to attempt to assure that no one joins our church unless they are truly saved? Membership class? Probation period? Baptism? Other????


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jun 28, 2005)

> I'll make a proposal on this.
> 
> Member of the body of Christ is obvious. Only the elect are considered members of Christ's body. Physical baptism is in no way required for regeneration/membership. Agreed?



Please clarify Christ´s body. Last sentence, yes, agreed.



> I think church membership should requre certain guidelines. A common view of Scripture and similar convictions are a must, or there will be division. So a prerequisite to becoming a member of a certain assembly of believers should be an agreement to follow certain doctrinal positions of the church.



Yes. I´m with you here.



> It is the church's responsibility to attempt, to the best of its ability, to allow only true believers membership status. This is based on their profession of faith and the appearance of the fruit of the Spirit.



Ok, if we are going to go here I´m going to have to request clear definitions and specifics. What is meant by true believers? And you´ve already inserted the term "œmembership" status before we´ve defined membership, there´s an inherent problem with this. What fruits of the Spirit qualify and what non-fruits would disqualify. Short of that one cannot perform the task at hand. Beyond a reasonable profession of faith what? And what prevents a subjective abuse of this, and how does this differ from priest craft affirming one"˜s salvation?



> Membership of a local church has its responsibilities and privileges. Responsibilities include ministering to one another and serving as the Lord has gifted you. Privileges include being ministered to in times of difficulty, sitting under the teaching and fellowship.



This I agree with but it does not define a member rather its duties and privileges after the fact.



> So, what precautions do we take to attempt to assure that no one joins our church unless they are truly saved? Membership class? Probation period? Baptism? Other????



Answer, we don´t Jesus forbid it. Why? Until you can explain to me how you will infallibly detect "œtruly saved", that is sit on God´s throne and know what He alone knows, you cannot. And if one cannot infallibly do so, one will damage young Christians with such an apish attempt to do so. We neither have such authority nor have the ability to do so. To say I can determine those truly saved IS to say I have infallible knowledge, this is obvious.

Ldh


----------



## Wannabee (Jun 29, 2005)

Wow Larry. It was just a proposal. The next guy was supposed to improve on it, not attack it.

Some points
- If you're uncertain of the meaning of the body of Christ you might read Ephesians. It's a good start.
- What does "we don't Jesus forbid it" mean?
- See the word "attempt" in the last quote you mention.

Finally, you should strive for some graciousness in your post. "Apish" is less than kind, and quite uncalled for. We're all better off if you keep such "insights" to yourself.

It may prove beneficial to go back and read this http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=5479

JKJ

[Edited on 6-29-2005 by Wannabee]


----------



## kceaster (Jun 29, 2005)

We can see the church in Acts take on some pretty seedy characters, can't we?

I would say if they are willing to come and to submit to the elders and have a willingness to learn of the Lord and worship Him, why would we preclude them? This is pretty close to the fruit of repentence in itself.

I think we've seen the product of trying to identify people as "haves" and "have nots," in the Lordship controversy, and now in the Auburn guys and the NPP movement. When we boil it all down, isn't it just trying to label someone as a "true" Christian?

We shouldn't allow unrepentant people in our midst. But if they come and they sit under the Word preached, they submit to their elders when discipline is needed, isn't this enough?

Maybe I'm asking the wrong questions.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Wannabee (Jun 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Reformed1_
> 
> 
> > Jesus has decided who will be members of the Church. He's left the responsibility of the local flock to us though. I'd rather challenge a disobedient believer than admit a false professor.
> ...



Good observations Kevin. But we need to protect the flock as well. Do you think that faithful attendance and an apparently submissive heart is good enough? Can it be said that they are generally submissive if they are not willing to follow the teaching of the church in regard to baptism?

You lost me on the comparison of the Lordship and NPP issues. One's the evidence of the fruit of the Spirit, the other is a heresy. ???


----------



## kceaster (Jun 29, 2005)

*Joe...*



> _Originally posted by Wannabee_
> 
> Good observations Kevin. But we need to protect the flock as well. Do you think that faithful attendance and an apparently submissive heart is good enough? Can it be said that they are generally submissive if they are not willing to follow the teaching of the church in regard to baptism?



In our OPC congregation, we extend a bit of latitude in regards to baptism. The elders have been amenable in the past to baptizing by immersion on the profession of faith. Of course they baptize the infants of professing members by sprinkling (we haven't had anyone request infant baptism by immersion).

But those latitudes aside, they would not be membered with us without a prior trinitarian baptism. That doesn't mean that they stay away or are not welcome in our services. But they may not partake of the table (I think) nor can they vote on anything involving a vote.



> You lost me on the comparison of the Lordship and NPP issues. One's the evidence of the fruit of the Spirit, the other is a heresy. ???



Both "controversies" revolve around the basic question of what is a Christian. At the heart of all these issues, we're trying to mark people either one way or another.

My approach to all of this is let them come. Feed them when they need fed. Wash them when they need washed. Discipline them when they need disciplined. Encourage them always.

Naturally, the people outside of this frame should not be considered members. But each and every one who comes to the Lord and who want to submit themselves in this way should be baptized and taught as disciples.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Theological Books (Jun 29, 2005)

I don't know if this has been addressed from "my" viewpoint, or my personal viewpoint regarding how I will handle such a situation as a future Baptist minister. Grace, charity, love, and conscience. I think there are a few situational (or contextual) scenarios that are plausible.

(1) A paedobaptist (prebyterian) visiting my church. He was baptized as an infant and is now a communicant member in good standing of a valid church (i.e. PCA, OPC, URC, etc.). We are distributing the Lord's Supper, and this man does fit the qualifications of my fencing of the table: a baptized member in good standing. While my view of church (on paper) does not allow him to become a member, I believe because he is a member of an orthodox church, and his conscience is convinced of infant baptism, which is orthodoxy, I *MUST* allow him to partake.

(2) A paedobaptist (one baptized as an infant) looking to join my church. Here the issue of the Lord's Supper will arise, as well as other issues (i.e. his future children). I would, first and foremost, try to help him find a more suitable church, such as a PCA, OPC, or URC. I would tell him the wisest decision is to join one of those if possible. The whole time I would try to convince him of the errors of infant baptism, but I would not make it a point of contention to the extreme of excluding him if I could not convince him.

(3) A paedobaptist (baptized as an infant) joining my church with other churches available. I would allow it, and I would accept his infant baptism as valid, though would not let him hold office, nor would I tolerate any schism on the issue.

I cannot, in good conscience, bar someone from the table with an orthodox view of baptism, even though I disagree. If his conscience is settled on the matter, and the settled matter is orthodox, I cannot pretend I should not allow a person to join the table when I think it is acceptable to call my paedobaptists and their churches valid and Christian. Grace, love, charity, and conscience.


----------



## pastorway (Jun 29, 2005)

just a few quick notes:

I never argued for allowing anyone to be a member of the church who is deliberately rebellious to the Lordship of Christ by REFUSING to be baptized. But there are people out there that have not been, for wahtever reason. In some cases it is the fault of the church itself. One RB church I know of will not baptize anyone under 12 years of age!  So what are we to do if the parent has been led to believe that their child CANNOT be baptized until they turn 12....but they have moved to our town and want to all join our church? Yes we explain baptism and teach and instruct them - but I would not deny them or their child membership over the issue that their child had not been baptized yet.

The Book of Acts and verses quoted prove nothing about baptism as a requirement for church membership it just shows that baptism was in fact your public profession of faith and was done AFTER repentance and faith.

Whatever your view of membership and the duties of members, WHY do churches REQUIRE baptism (valid baptism in their own denomination) before membership? Is it a command of Scripture? Is it inferred from any text that a Christian must be baptized rightly before he is allowed at the Table or allowed to be a functioning part of the Body?

Go back to the link I posted for Bunyan. That is my position. He explains it better than I do.

Phillip


----------



## Wannabee (Jun 29, 2005)

Thanks Phillip,

That Bunyan link is a fair piece of work. Won't be gone over any time soon. I appreciate the challenge here. For now I think I'm settled, but not set in stone.

Fellowship - yes
communion - yes
membership - no, too much opportunity for division

However, I don't know of any reason I would ever discourage someone from attending our church unless they were disruptive or divisive.


----------



## Reformed1 (Jun 29, 2005)

Wow, you all had some pretty good insights. I didn't know I would  Joe, I do agree with you on some points. I do believe that baptism should be required for membership. I think the guidelines you set for membership are correct (and I know that you're not claiming to be omniscient as to people's salvation  ). I'm still holding to my first observations of the credo position, but it is good to have some clarification and insights.


----------



## Theological Books (Jun 29, 2005)

Man, I'm glad my OPC church let me join as a Baptist.


----------



## just_grace (Jun 30, 2005)

I remember my Elders saying each time we remembered the Lord's supper, ' the table is open to *everyone who loves the Lord* ' and that was about the only requirement needed.

Which is how it should be I think, how can you stop a true Christian from participating in what is rightfully his. The Lord is Judge not any mere man.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jun 30, 2005)

Joe, 

I was not attacking, I'm sorry it came off that way. I'm a scientist type & we tend to speak quite frank when it comes to assessing things. I hope that helps. 

Now, having said that I will get a bit emotional so as not to confuse the two posts:

""Apish" is less than kind" is not meant to be unkind and a mere attack, but rhethorically set forth the tremendous damage such efforts by men vainly seeking to determine what they have not been given in ability or authority - that is "who is truly saved". I've have seen damage to weak and budding Christians occur under this false cloak, and Christ Himself commanded His Apostles to not remove the tares from the wheat. It is very daring to say the least to counter that command today. I understand reasonable inspection of a person's profession of faith, but that is altogether different from claiming to detect "who is truly saved" or "regenerate". It is a matter of language. It is exceedingly arrogant to claim to determine "who is truly saved" if that is what is really meant by the words used and yes "apish" would be the right term. If "truly saved" is not what you meant then I suggest using another more proper term.

My heart truly goes out to the weak Christians, the struggling Christians, those who love Christ and have seen Christ and have almost lost Christ because of such gross efforts of "truly saved" "regeration detection". I've been there, I've been on the brink of spiritual suicide, even suicide and know the hellish pain, and I mean hellish, that these type of statments can do to someone. I know what it feels like to lay in the dark on the floor crying so hard you'd think your blood vessels in your brain would rupture - knowing the truth, wondering, "Am I in the Kingdom, I'm so sinful, where is Christ, I've lost Him, I thought the Gospel was free grace and mercy for sinners, etc..." and much of this driven by "did I get my baptism timing correct, was I really saved when..., if I don't get rebaptized maybe that's a sign I'm not saved, etc..." and falling into that hellish circle. In the during these times in the past I had asked and asked and asked baptists/baptist pastors in order to get some help, a sheep coming to the shephard. Not to argue for infant baptism, which was foreign to me, but a sheep needing guidance from their shephard, "How do you know - its killing me." And I always gotten about the same answer colorfully stated - deer in the headlights, crickets and frogs - in short nothing absolutely nothing for they couldn't explain this inconsistency. 

So, if the tiny term "apish" offends you, then I do truly I apologize. Really I mean that. But know just how much "knowing who is truly saved" damages the flock, the very flock you are charged with feeding. Too many today try to protect the reprobate from false professions, which they are going to make anyway, and not the real Christian who struggles who IS a Christian from unblief. And that is the over all problem - the damage of the smoking flax and bruised reed by these efforts. AND that is why Jesus warned the Apostles to NOT attempt to remove the tares from the wheat - not because tares might be damaged but the young wheat. 

I understand what Eph is saying cocerning the body of Christ. My Q to you was very simple how do you understand the body of Christ to be as administered here on Earth - the realm, if you will, you & I function in? If you say pure "truly saved" which is to say flawless knowledge of a person's election, then you need to prove to me 1. how you will execute this knowledge/where the ability comes from, 2. where you find authority for such, a testimony from scripture for both.

Also, in Timothy Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit Himself states that God alone knows who are His. How do you square that with "knowing who is truly saved".

Truly Your Brother In Christ,

Larry


----------



## Reformed1 (Jun 30, 2005)

Ok, Larry, I think I'm going to try to stick up for Joe a little here. Where did Joe say that he has the ability to detect who is "truly saved?" The only thing which he said that was remotely close was "It is the church's responsibility to attempt, to the best of its ability, to allow only true believers membership status." What is wrong with this statement? I believe nearly every Reformed teacher (Credo and Paedo) would agree with it. It is not our job to determine who is "truly saved" (and I don't believe that Joe was implying that). It is our job to detect fruits in someone's life however. It is the Pastor's and Elders' jobs to grant membership to those who have made a true profession and exemplify the fruits of the Spirit in their lives. That is the point that Joe was making. I don't think that there is any reason to attempt to be argumentative over it.

[Edited on 11/04/2004 by Reformed1]


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jun 30, 2005)

Rick,

Don't hear me wrong. Just because I'm pointing out something doesn't mean I'm personally attacking Joe. We are just discussing the issue here, spirited as it may be. I love Joe as my brother, and though we've never met if I can ever assist him I would do so without question as my brother. I just want that to be clear up front. But spirited debates do occur and this happens to be one of them.

Now:



> So, what precautions do we take to attempt to assure that no one joins our church unless they are <<<<truly>>>> saved?


 (Emphasis added ldh) 

It is very different to say "true believers to the best of our ability" and those "truly saved" (keep in mind that as baptist we/formerly myself always speak with the context of regeneration in mind NOT faith alone, so that adds to the force of what was stated in "truly saved"). "Truly saved", the limiting adjective "truly" makes it even more clear - it puts tremendous force behind it, actually the term "truly" puts absolution behind it as if to say, "without the least doubt or falsehood or error". To say ..."unless they are truly saved" is to say, "I have perfect knowledge of and can declare this person 'truly saved' and by extension this person 'not truly saved'. That's the danger.

Beyond understanding and professing faith in Christ and its fruit repentance from sin and self-righteousness. What fruits? Show me the testimony from Scripture that sets up this subjective examination by mere men. Which is all we have, subjective, that IS the nature of all secondary causes (i.e. fruit/effects) in this matter since we cannot see the heart from which the externals come and anyone can be a hypocrit such being the deceptive nature of all fallen men.

I understand and fully agree with examining reasonablly someone's profession of faith. But to examine so as to be able to either make an explicit declaration or implicit declaration by using the terms "truly saved" or "regenerate" is ALL together different.

And the REFORMER John Calvin commenting on Matthew 13:28-30 about letting the wheat and tares grow together until the harvest states, "To know who are His is a prerogative belonging solely to God, 2 Tim 2:19, For those who seemed utterly lost and quite behind hope are by His goodness called back to the way; while those who more than others seemed to stand firm often fall."

As a matter of fact the warnings of falling away from Paul's and John's epistles to the CHURCHES and the members therein presuppose a mixed body. Not to mention Simon Magnus and Judas. Church discipline presupposes this too.

Part of this fruit detective approach, I suppose, is over reaction to arminian easy believism. But there's a huge difference. In arminian type churches the reason they are over run by false professors is not due to people coming to Christ to Whom they were called falsely, but coming to something they did - an alter call, a prayer prayed, a walking the aisle again, a believers baptismal, an infant baptismal, a hand raising drill, a "I'll do this thing, this one work to secure my salvation". That is entirely different from a true Gospel preacher calling someone to Christ alone without an action that purchases that grace.

The danger in looking for "regeneration" or "truly saved" is that it goes into error in the opposite direction of the arminian. The arminian immediately directs a man to a work he can do to be saved (as mentioned above). But the over-reactors to this over shoot the Gospel, because trust in Christ alone seems too easy for their liking, and so they begin to examine for fruit and pointing the professor/believer NOT to Christ alone but to his/her fruit production (a.k.a works). Thus, no functional difference from an arminian. Remember in John 15, Jesus says you must abide IN Him to produce fruit, not abide in the fruit to produce salvation.

Let me give you a real example that I've mentioned before. And I've seen more than one. A woman at a SB church desired to become a Christian. Yet, the pastor in a zeal for a "regenerate" church membership said on multiple occassions, "X, I don't see any fruit in your life, I can't baptize you because I don't see evidence of your faith." (paraphrased from memory) She went away sad but agreeing knowing her struggles with sin. Now, whether or not she was truly regenerate is irrelevant. What such a pastor who claims to proclaim the Gospel communicated to her is crucial though. He in essence said, "If you can clean up your life a bit and show forth fruit that I can see - then I will declare you a Christian and baptize you into our church membership". In other words he sent her off to do works in order to purchase grace. Now, what do you suppose the Apostle Paul might say to that?

Ldh

[Edited on 6-30-2005 by Larry Hughes]

[Edited on 6-30-2005 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## Wannabee (Jun 30, 2005)

Thanks Rick, I don't think I could have said it better myself.

Larry, I appreciate your expression of love and brotherhood, and they are returned. Now, in light of your comments, let me be frank as well.


> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> Now:
> 
> 
> ...


Emphasis added big time. It changes the meaning of what I said. If you insist on placing emphasis, let me help you.


> So, what precautions do we take to _*attempt*_ to assure that no one joins our church unless they are truly saved?





> It is very different to say "true believers to the best of our ability" and those "truly saved" (keep in mind that as baptist we/formerly myself always speak with the context of regeneration in mind NOT faith alone, so that adds to the force of what was stated in "truly saved").


Me thinks me being stereotyped. You're really reading WAY more into what I've posted than is necessary. Obviously I was understood by Rick, so let's leave it at that rather than doing a literary analysis.


> As a matter of fact the warnings of falling away from Paul's and John's epistles to the CHURCHES and the members therein presuppose a mixed body. Not to mention Simon Magnus and Judas. Church discipline presupposes this too.


 And deals with it severely if repentance is not evident. For clarification, the purpose is always restoration. Discipline is the final, reluctant, last resort.



> The danger in looking for "regeneration" or "truly saved" is that it goes into error in the opposite direction of the arminian. The arminian immediately directs a man to a work he can do to be saved (as mentioned above). But the over-reactors to this over shoot the Gospel, because trust in Christ alone seems too easy for their liking, and so they begin to examine for fruit and pointing the professor/believer NOT to Christ alone but to his/her fruit production (a.k.a works). Thus, no functional difference from an arminian. Remember in John 15, Jesus says you must abide IN Him to produce fruit, not abide in the fruit to produce salvation.


 And that you will know them by their fruit. Be careful you don't react so far that you miss the point of the text.

I'll admit that I may be over reacting to easy believism. I hate easy believism with a passion. It's an abomination that leads countless souls to hell. I have to ask, what blood bought man of God shouldn't hate this distortion of the Gospel?



> Let me give you a real example that I've mentioned before. And I've seen more than one. A woman at a SB church desired to become a Christian. Yet, the pastor in a zeal for a "regenerate" church membership said on multiple occassions, "X, I don't see any fruit in your life, I can't baptize you because I don't see evidence of your faith." (paraphrased from memory) She went away sad but agreeing knowing her struggles with sin.


Without knowing the man or woman I can't comment on this, other than to say it is a valid point. IF a woman came to me and said she had received Christ I would immediately try to get her with a godly woman who could disciple her. However, if this same woman continued in her sinful lifestyle I couldn't, in clear concience, baptize her, let alone let her join the church. We all struggle against sin, but there is always fruit. 1 John is absolutely clear on this.
Having said that, it is also apparent that some profess faith, display the fruit of the Spirit, and are not actually saved. We've all seen it. In this case we would baptize them and find out later. We've done all we can.


> Now, whether or not she was truly regenerate is irrelevant.


It is absolutely relevant. If she makes a profession but is not saved, yet is baptized and allowed to join the church then she will have a false sense of security. Is it more loving to worry about her "feelings" or her soul? I'm sorry Larry, but the eternal state of her soul is infinitely more important than her comfort level. I agree with the fact that the preaching and the teaching in a church should be such that the unregenerate should either get saved, or be too uncomfortable to stick around. But this is no excuse for entering into "fellowship" with unbelievers. We can't know, but we must be discerning as well (wise as serpents). 

Furthermore, we are not talking about a club here, we are talking about the body of Christ. We are not to pass judgment unto salvation, point well taken, but we are to protect the flock. We will answer for the condition of the flock that Jesus entrusts to our care. Precautions must be taken. Every single one of us takes precautions. Some are too stringient, some too lax. Perhaps I'm too stringient right now. Maybe that will change. But I think I would rather be a bit too stringient and hurt someone than too lax and allow the local assembly of believers to be infiltrated and hurt by an unbeliever (don't mistake my words, unbelievers are welcome, but shouldn't be allowed to join). 


> What such a pastor who claims to proclaim the Gospel communicated to her is crucial though. He in essence said, "If you can clean up your life a bit and show forth fruit that I can see - then I will declare you a Christian and baptize you into our church membership".


If it is presented as you have presented it then you are correct. It is wrong. Your presentation reveals a lack of love and compassion on the pastor's part. If that is the case then I would agree with you. I have to wonder, because of the nature of your post, if you misunderstood the man though.


> In other words he sent her off to do works in order to purchase grace. Now, what do you suppose the Apostle Paul might say to that?
> 
> Ldh


In light of what I've presented, I think Paul might have agreed with James.


> James 1:21-25 (NKJV)
> 
> Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.
> 
> ...



Blessings
Joe


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jul 1, 2005)

Joe,

I appreciate the post very much.



> I hate easy believism with a passion. It's an abomination that leads countless souls to hell.



It is true that it does, but as I clearly pointed out easy believism is not the grace and mercy of the Good News, it too is a false gospel (easy believism). But so does over reaction to this by confusing the Gospel with the Law. As a matter of fact Paul condemned the later with a curse in Galatians. Fundamental both do the same thing. Both communicate, "You can work/maintain your way to heaven."



> I have to ask, what blood bought man of God shouldn't hate this distortion of the Gospel?



I do and I hate its over reacting abomination as well. Brother I am deeply concerned about souls, but I refuse to damage the sheep by propagating the over reacting error that basically does the same thing. The middle narrow way is the way to go. I'm assuming the Gospel, that is THE REAL Gospel, is being communicated NOT easy believism. I couldn't agree more and it cuts BOTH ways. The pastor, just so you will know, I know very personally (and I'll leave it at that, names are unecessary) so it is no mistake.

Fruit, comes forth from the Gospel and that is abundantly clear in the entire NT. When Jesus says "abide in Me", He means abide in Me as in the Gospel, that which produces faith and strenghtens faith and engenders faith - then from that true fruit is produce. Else as Paul states, "all apart from faith is sin". Externals are irrelevant for even devils can produce great externals.



> It is absolutely relevant. If she makes a profession but is not saved,



We are just not going to see eye to eye on this. Again it sounds like your assuming you can know infallibly beyond a reasonable profession and true repentance. The view that makes baptism primarily "my profession of faith", rather than a sign of the Gospel and promise communicated does cause this problem I'll admit. But don't you see how the emphasis is on profession, timing, baptism and not at all on the Gospel which is the occurance for life or as Paul says, "...is the power...". Brother don't you see how that one is really communicating about a persons "doing" and not the empty hand receiving. The only reason she would have a false sense of security at all is because one has locked it all up in profession, fruit production and the timing of baptism (her doings) and not the Gospel at all where true faith and assurance can only come from. ALWAYS look to WHERE you are pointing the eyes of their souls. Is it to Christ crucified or profession, timing of baptism, repentance, other? That's why it is irrelevant and my point was missed. Whether it be an unbeliever or a struggling believer who is unassured, where do you point them? Christ alone or in toward themselves and their doings? If the later one is communicating, "You can work/sustain your way to heaven." Pointing people to the Gospel/Christ, which is what I said clearly, and not to profession/baptism, which is what you said clearly, is the ONLY way to either have conversion or the strengthening of true faith.

Surely you recognize the fact that IF, hypothetically, a person is truly unregenerate and all one does is point them to some kind of moral renewal repentance, all one has done is create a deluded pharisee on there way staight to hell and commited the very thing you are worried about. The call for true repentance is necessary, that is true repentance, that includes not only crass open sin but false self-righteousness and that means stop trying to save myself by my doings, works or fruit. But to stop there or confuse this as if that is what is necessary is to have not delivered the Gospel at all. Where's Christ in all of this??? One is called to be a minister of the Gospel (2Cor3), that is preacher, broadcaster, proclaimer of the Good News of Jesus Christ that WILL unfailingly produce fruit (or do you not believe the Scriptures on this). One is not called to be a fruit inspector. If one REALLY wants true fruit, that is effects of saving faith, then preach that which engenders saving faith and that is faith's object Christ and Him crucified. Brother I know YOU believe this!

Just for a little clarity. The issue is this: There is a difference in conveying to someone that repentance as the flip side of faith is part of the entire Christian life. It is altogether different to communicate it falsely by 1. Presenting it in such a way that repentance purchases or makes one ready for grace (Rome) and 2. That one repents one time with no sin nor sin struggle (including the desires of) ever again the rest of your life (contra 1 John). 

Repentance, that is true repentance is passive contrition, true sorrow of heart, pain of death and hell. Not attrition, that is active. The former is a passive sorrow for sin as sin against a holy God. The later is, "I'm purchasing your forgiveness with this repentance of mine". The former is wrought out by the Gospel viewing back to the Law broken. The later is wrought out from Law alone having no Gospel communicated at all. The former is wrought by gratitude for the Christ Who died and gave Himself for me. The later is pure fear of punishment, and by extension hope of reward for its acting. The former is the fruit of faith. The later is hypocrisy. The former is by those reborn. The later is but the devils repentance "even they tremble".

I think your missing the real situation here, that is my fault for not being very clear and not your own. My apologies, I will correct it.

Some people when asked regarding repentance are asked, "Do you desire to leave all your sins behind." Now here is were real sheparding is in much need. A deluded pharisee type will likely jump right on that and say, "Oh, yea, I repent of all..." That is usually attrition and delusion because it bears the marks of, "I'm doing this God, so you need to give me Grace." But not always because we all speak in funny ways. But a person truly stricken by the REAL weight of the Law and the ensuing guilt will likely answer almost too honestly for many today. Having had the act of grace and the Holy Spirit shine the light on their filthy heart they may think to themselves, "I don't want to sin any more, I do want to repent, but I feel the desire for sin still within me - I feel my heart dragging and desiring sin." And thus they would communicate to a pastor asking do you desire to repent, being honest, "I don't know for I still feel the desire within me." That's almost too honest for some pastor's to handle and understand. The Romans 7 man would not be baptized by some pastors I've run into.



> If it is presented as you have presented it then you are correct. It is wrong. Your presentation reveals a lack of love and compassion on the pastor's part. If that is the case then I would agree with you. I have to wonder, because of the nature of your post, if you misunderstood the man though.



I promise you it is not, it is someone I love dearly, but he is dead wrong here. I just heard one of his sermons about two weeks ago and almost walked out. No Gospel at all, just scolding.

I got to get to bed. Brother thanks for the sentiment and spirited debate. I take no ill from it and pray and know that you do neither. I'll admit in the heat of the passion that I can be a jerk sometimes in my speaking, for that we will just have to forgive one another of mutual sins that all men struggle with. Have a restful night!

Yours In Christ,

Larry


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jul 2, 2005)

Joe,

I felt the need to post publically. Please forgive me for my sinfulness, I should not have so accused you or attacked as I did in this discussion as I have. I said I didn't but I did. I struggle a lot with debating truth and then spilling over into a sinful way of doing it. I hate my awful pride and arrogance.

You have done nothing wrong and need not apologize in the least. Please forgive me brother for my heart has been bothering me.

The last word is yours if you want it.

Your Brother In Christ,

Larry


----------



## Wannabee (Jul 3, 2005)

No harm done Larry,

I is evident that you've witnessed some misdeeds on the part of at least one pastor who may have been a bit overzealous. On the other hand, I was personally neglected because no one wanted to hurt my feelings (in a SBC). I wish they had.

I appreciate your humility, and hope I haven't caused you any grief in our discussion.

Be blessed,
Joe


----------

