A.A. Hodge on Church Membership

[Gforce9]

Has this always been the case, particularly with regard to Presbyterianism?

Historically speaking, Presbyterianism did not maintain "explicit" particular church membership. This was the invention of Independency and has only arisen in Presbyterian circles because of denominationalism. The Presbyterians of the 17th century argued that the sacraments were signs of church membership, and therefore admission to the sacraments was an "implicit" form of membership.

Were the requirements for receiving baptism different from the requirements for coming to the Lord's Table?

With baptism being an outward expression of an inward change, I dont see why any church would require baptism for membership.

Richard,
You have put your finger on the very difference between Baptists and the Reformed here.

 

[au5t1n]

JWithnell,

Gentlemen, here in the Americas it seems that some kind of membership was in practice in the days of the New England Puritans. That was at the core of the question regarding who should/should not receive the sign of Baptism and who should/shouldn't be admitted to the Lord's table and led to the difficulties involving Solomon Stoddard and Jonathan Edwards. While the churches I have in mind were congregational, it would seem that their form of church government would be likely to create looser ties rather than something "denominational" in nature as is being argued in this thread.

Sorry for the delay, but I did want to continue this discussion a bit. I recall from reading Rutherford's A Peaceable and Temperate Plea for Paul's Presbytery in Scotland that the Separatists maintained that neither membership nor ordination extends beyond the particular congregation. Rutherford focuses on Church officers and argues very persuasively that a minister is a minister wherever he goes, etc. One of the authors Rutherford is addressing was the pastor of the New England Pilgrims before they sailed to the New World.

The vows seem to be the primary dispute here?

The dispute is not so much over vows themselves as whether it is lawful to make them obligatory as conditions of communicant membership. Zooming out further, the broader question is whether particular church membership, as such, is envisioned in the historic Presbyterian system in a manner distinct from the admission and reception to the sacraments.

Rev. Winzer,

I will have to double check the sources to make sure I have the details exactly correct, but quickly looking at Alexander Henderson's "Government and Order," we can conclude that baptism was considered initiatory, and therefore it was necessary to make a profession of "the faith" on the part of the parent or vice-parent. There was also a commitment to teach and nurture the child in the faith, and promises were made to this effect.

Over the last week I have thought about this some more, and I think I am still missing a step in the logic. It was first established that - for the sake of argument - it is unlawful to add obligatory vows to an ordinance of the Lord. However, when I brought up church officers, a qualification was introduced that they are a distinct order and therefore there may be distinct requirements. Likewise, when baptism came up, a qualification was made that baptism is initiatory, and therefore a profession of faith must be made. Please feel free to stop me here and let me know if I have misunderstood anything.

With the above in mind, it is not clear to me how this reasoning is consistent. The Lord's supper is a distinct sacrament from baptism, and therefore it might be argued (similarly to ordination) that there are distinct requirements. And of course, confessionally, there are distinct requirements in that the ignorant and scandalous are barred from the Lord's table, but not necessarily baptism. If the response is that this is not sufficient to require vows because vows are not part of those requirements, then how is church officership being a distinct order sufficient to require vows for them without Scriptural warrant? Finally, if it is binding the conscience to add an obligatory vow as a condition of the Lord's table because it is the ordinance of the Lord, how does the initiatory nature of baptism or the distinct-order nature of ordination permit us to add an obligatory vow as a condition to either of those ordinances of the Lord?

At any rate, since Due Right has come up now in several conversations between us and I still haven't read it, I've decided to make it my next read after finishing Calvin's Institutes and Rutherford's Pretended Liberty.

 

[au5t1n]

Has this always been the case, particularly with regard to Presbyterianism?

Historically speaking, Presbyterianism did not maintain "explicit" particular church membership. This was the invention of Independency and has only arisen in Presbyterian circles because of denominationalism. The Presbyterians of the 17th century argued that the sacraments were signs of church membership, and therefore admission to the sacraments was an "implicit" form of membership.

Were the requirements for receiving baptism different from the requirements for coming to the Lord's Table?

With baptism being an outward expression of an inward change, I dont see why any church would require baptism for membership.

Richard,
You have put your finger on the very difference between Baptists and the Reformed here.

This statement may be true of many Baptists today, but it is not the historic Baptist position.

 

[MW]

Likewise, when baptism came up, a qualification was made that baptism is initiatory, and therefore a profession of faith must be made. Please feel free to stop me here and let me know if I have misunderstood anything.

Profession of faith is made for admission to the Lord's supper. In the old system, that made one an "implicit" member of the church. Now add "explicit" particular church membership. What happens? Profession of faith is made to become a church member. Now add a vow. What do we have? A vow to become a church member. It is something other than the profession of faith connected with the Lord's supper.

 

[au5t1n]

Likewise, when baptism came up, a qualification was made that baptism is initiatory, and therefore a profession of faith must be made. Please feel free to stop me here and let me know if I have misunderstood anything.

Profession of faith is made for admission to the Lord's supper. In the old system, that made one an "implicit" member of the church. Now add "explicit" particular church membership. What happens? Profession of faith is made to become a church member. Now add a vow. What do we have? A vow to become a church member. It is something other than the profession of faith connected with the Lord's supper.

I believe I have a good understanding of the argument as it pertains to the Lord's supper. What I am missing is how the differences in baptism and ordination are sufficiently different that the same argument against obligatory vows would not also apply to them. You said earlier that a profession of the faith was required of parents or vice-regents for baptism, and promises were made pertaining to raising the child in the Lord. This was the profession I was referring to in this quotation.

 

[MW]

I believe I have a good understanding of the argument as it pertains to the Lord's supper. What I am missing is how the differences in baptism and ordination are sufficiently different that the same argument against obligatory vows would not also apply to them. You said earlier that a profession of the faith was required of parents or vice-regents for baptism, which is the profession I was referring to in this quotation.

Perhaps we should recap. Profession of the true religion is the fundamental mark of the visible church. Hence required for baptism and the Lord's supper. "Much is given" to ministers, therefore "much is required;" and the voluntary engagement to fulfil specific responsibilities of a solemn nature makes it appropriate to make use of vows to this effect.