Church Membership vs. Baptism
Here is a thorny question: should a person who clearly shows evidence of a regenerate life be excluded from a local fellowship because they hold that their infant baptism is sufficient? Would allowing them to be a member show a disregard for the biblical command that all believers be baptized or is excluding them a case where a local congregation is putting greater restrictions on church membership than exist for membership in the church universal?
This is the issue that the leadership at Bethlehem Baptist have been apparently wrestling with for a number of years and their pastor, John Piper, spent three weeks outlining the issue before their congregation by taking them back to the bible on the importance of both church membership and baptism before finally bringing the series to a close with a call to community. This series is thought-provoking and sets before us questions of amazing importance that all believers should wrestle with.
*edited on August 3, 2008
Comments
3 Responses to “Church Membership vs. Baptism”
Leave a Reply
Polls
Loading ...
Mr. Patterson,
Just to clarify, the question the leadership at Bethlehem Baptist have been wrestling with is the second part of your question, “should a person who clearly shows evidence of a regenerate life be excluded from a local fellowship because they … hold that their infant baptism is sufficient?”.
They have not been wrestling with the first part, “should a person who clearly shows evidence of a regenerate life be excluded from a local fellowship because they refuse to be baptized …?” Being baptized is a clear command of scripture and still would be required for membership, even if other changes are made.
The issue revolves mostly around those people who believe their infant baptist was a valid baptism and have a real problem of conscience to believe otherwise. Should these people be excluded even from membership in the church? There is more to it but this is the general idea.
I am a member of Bethlehem Baptist and think my information is accurate.
David,
Thanks for the comment.
You are absolutely correct and my inclusion of the first point of the comment was me being an idiot. Thanks for point the issue out so I could correct it.
Russell
This is a matter which only the affected church can resolve. I believe men of good conscience could answer the issue either way. So, I would be able to accept either approach.
On the one hand, the church must consider important the command of Jesus to be baptized; the importance of which is further evident in the example of the early church. In my opinion, a church should potentially consider this of sufficient importance as to make “adult” baptism a requirement of membership (saying in effect that obedience to the commands of our Lord is essential).
As I think through the biblical examples of baptism all involved acts of human will obediently submitted as a ‘personal testimony’ before men and God about faith and a change that has taken place within. Ideally, it seems intuitive that the baptism of Jesus was a response to the awareness of that change on the inside. Thus, it follows that it should take place after, or simultaneous with the spiritual change that takes place within.
Infant baptisms cannot engage the will of the infant and there can be no personal testimony that the infant gives. Nor can the baptism be in response to an awareness of an internal spiritual change. Finally, I am not aware of any biblical examples of infant baptism (only infant ‘dedications’).
The church properly should worry that trusting in the effectiveness of infant baptism suggests that salvation may be more a matter of ‘mysticism and ritual’. That is, salvation (at least in some cases) depends upon a ritualized act of faith by someone else on our behalf. The biblical record seems more to show that salvation is the sovereign act of God who bends our will to His purposes; baptism is a personal acknowledgment of what God has done.
By way of personal opininon, I was baptized as an infant into the Catholic Church. God called me to Himself at the age of 40. I believe God respected the fervent prayers of my mother and chose me. But I do not believe my infant baptism was effectual in any way. I was baptized at the age of 40.
So, for all of these reasons, I believe the church as a matter of policy and practice properly holds to the doctrine and teaches that baptism is a matter of obedience and personal testimony. Thus, re-baptism for those baptized as infants (which clearly did not involve an act of personal obedience or personal testimony) is proper and acceptable (even preferable).
But that is not really the question. The question is: should the church exclude from membership those whose lives clearly evidence regeneration and who choose not to be re-baptized because in good conscience they believe that thier infant baptism does not need ’supplementation’?
For my part, I believe that a church can in good conscience accept such into its membership; but I don’t believe the church can be obligated to accept this.
To put it another way, I personally believe ‘true believers’ can and will disagree on this subject (just as we disagree on many others). If that is true, there will be ‘true churches’ who can find peace accepting such as co-members. But, there will also be ‘true churches’ who can find no peace and who would be divided if such were allowed. These should not accept such into their membership.
I prefer allowing such as members as an exception. My thinking is that there is a greater chance of finding peace together then there is apart. And that this doctrinal impurity is no greater than the many other doctrinal diversities and impurities that exists among the accepted members. But, I also would insist that the church continue to teach and preach that baptism is an act of adult obedience and to encourage that those baptized as infants be baptized. All in the loving hope that the Holy
Spirit will bring us to complete unity on this important doctrinal point.
Anyway, that’s my ‘ill-informed’ thoughts on this subject.