The Question of the Reformed Ages: Baptism and Local Church Membership
Several years ago the elders of Bethlehem Baptist Church, which is pastored by John Piper, wrestled with the issue of allowing Christians to join their church who have not been biblically baptized. Every reformed pastor I know has admitted to me that he and his elders have also wrestled with this issue. John Piper is currently preaching a three sermon series to explain their dilemma. I commend him for courageously preaching on this topic, admitting the struggles of their eldership, and calling upon us all to think about this topic. Literally, this issue has been the question of the reformed ages!
Watch the first video which explains this dilemma and defines church membership. This sermon is entitled "How Important is Church Membership." (read)
Watch the second video which explains the definition of biblical baptism. This sermon is entitled "What is Baptism, and How Important is It." (read)
Watch the third video entitled "Teaching and Admonishing One Another in All Wisdom." (This video may not work properly.)(read) (listen)
Reformed theologians of our generation are truly wrestling with this question:
How should our church relate to those who are born again, and deeply committed to the Bible and to Christ, but are not yet persuaded that their infant baptism is unbiblical and invalid? Should such believers be admitted in some cases to membership at Bethlehem? Or to put the question in the larger general way: Should the front door of the local church be roughly the same size as the door to the universal body of Christ? In other words, should we say to any person: We know you have truly entered into membership in the universal body of Christ, but you may not enter into membership in this local expression of the body of Christ?Simply put: If the elders interview a person for membership whose understanding of baptism is wrong, and everything else about that person’s life and faith points to their being truly born again, can any exceptions be made to the membership requirement that a person be baptized?
I think this question may have a larger scope than some may think. For example, this is not just a question of whether I would let someone who was baptized as an infant in a Presbyterian church become a member of our church without being baptized biblically. No, if I decide to accept that Christian then born-again Catholics and Episcopalians, and the unbaptized Calvary Chapel and non-denominational Christians will all say "What about us?". If biblical baptism is not a prerequisite for church membership then baptism is no longer an ordinance. Rather, it would simply fall into a list of other acts of obedience that Christians may or may not "get right."
Nevertheless, with great respect for John Piper, I admit that he has asked a VERY important question. It is worthy of prayer and discussion.
Here is the end of John Pipers sermon manuscript from the second sermon:
So now after two sermons, we have two things that are important. Baptism is important. And the nature of the local church as a sacred expression of the universal body of Christ is important. Failing to be baptized is serious. Excluding genuine believers from the local church is serious. There are godly, Bible-believing, Christ-exalting, God-centered followers of Jesus who fail to see the dreadfulness of not being baptized as a believer. And there are godly, Bible-believing, Christ-exalting, God-centered followers of Jesus who fail to see the dreadfulness of excluding such people from church membership. The question we should ask is not only hard to answer, but it is hard to formulate. Perhaps the Lord in his mercy will show us how to do both in a way that will cut this knot for his glory. May the Lord grant a wisdom like Solomon’s or, even better, a wisdom like the One who is greater than Solomon.Notice the seriousness of this dilemma:
- Failing to biblically baptize is serious.
- Excluding genuine believers from the local church is serious.
What say you? How can baptism and church membership both be honored in a way that retains the biblical importance of each?
_______________________________
Click here and here for other FIDE-O articles that have tracked Piper's dealings with this issue in the past.
Posts
22 Spoke Up:
I like how our church does it. Member candidates agree to a certain doctrinal statement, and promise that they are baptized, or will be as soon as possible. Teacher candidates (elders, Sunday school teachers, deacons, etc.) agree to a more detailed doctrinal statement and must have been baptized. During the interview process, the circumstances of baptism are questioned (immersion/sprinkling, reasoning, etc.). That there are two "levels" of doctrinal statements (one for members, one for teachers) shows the importance of unity in the body, which is also very serious.
My point is that a local body of believers is doing their very best to understand and apply the Word of God. As soon as that local body begins to let other churches (or denominations) dictate what it believes are Biblical commandments, self-government goes out the window. This is not to say that correction of another church is never in order, or a case for post-modernism, but indicates that the local body needs to be in agreement on major doctrines.
Because baptism is a serious doctrine, members ought to agree with the local body's expression of it. If not, he is free to express his perspective (Biblically), but ultimately it is a matter of obedience and submission. A willfully disobedient member is no member at all. This is not to say that churches who differ on the subject of baptism can't fellowship, but it does place a premium on church unity. How can we serve God with kinks in the machine?
Blessings
Tom
A willfully disobedient member is no member at all.
Very well said.
should stuff like this be left to the "classroom" instead of being preached on sunday mornings?
Are Sunday's a time for proclamation? or instruction?
Im not condemning anyone here... I just believe that Sundays are a time for God's truth to be proclaimed, if people don't hear the good news on sundays when will they?
Derek,
I cannot fathom how one could have listened to these sermons and not have heard the gospel.
In the first sermon, church membership was explained. It was an incredible proclamation of the gospel.
In the second sermon, baptism defined. Again, the gospel was profoundly proclaimed.
In the third sermon, the exposition of Colossians 3 should be preached in every church on Sunday mornings!
Derek, I am no trying to make fun of your comment or be offensive to you in any way. I just am wondering if you really listened to any of the sermons in totality.
The "apostles doctrine" was clearly preached! And that is what we are instructed to do when preaching on Sunday's. So, I affirm Pastor John's sermons!
Over here in the Campbellite corner, there's no question. There has not been a time when we're soft on this.
Please note: we're not baptismal regenerationists, no matter what some may say. For my part, from what I see in scripture, baptism and church membership are completely intertwined with and organically connected to salvation. Paul refers to all Christians as "having been baptized" and as being members of one another. Where's the argument against that?
David,
Good to hear from you on this subject. I was just talking to someone today about the Campbellites.
I too am not "soft" on this issue. I believe that the Bible is clear about the definition and mode of baptism. We too agree that baptism and church membership are intertwined and connected to salvation.
The dilemma that is addressed in the post above is, in my opinion, a dilemma of individual believers, not of churches. At least that is how it should be. In other words, I am not responsible for getting R. C. Sproul to get biblically baptized but I am responsible for the members of my local church. So the Bible causes the individual wanting into our membership a dilemma but it does not cause our church a dilemma.
In fact, we are willing to disciple non-members for as long as it takes to help them come to a biblical understanding of baptism. And most do.
Now concerning the Campbellites, I can't help but say that I do not agree with the way you guys deal with this subject. Ultimately you divide the people of God into two groups: those who are members of the Church and those who are not. Such a division does not exists in Scripture.
Rather, we Baptists believe that all believers are members of God's Church, spiritually speaking, even though our local church will not accept them into our membership if they are not baptized. Thus, we recognize that God deals with those outside of our membership and they aren't our responsibility.
John Piper is my pastor, so I certainly respect his view on this issue. And yes, I lean toward his position. As he pointed out, belief in the five points of Calvinism isn't a prerequisite for membership at Bethlehem, but it would be his prayer that those who didn't believe would become convinced under the teaching and instruction of the church.
Baptism is an ordinance, but so is the Lord's Supper, and while we have a basic example of how that is to be performed, we have churches who vary greatly on the practice. Real wine or grape juice? Bread, crackers, or communion wafers? Weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly? Closed to church members or open to all believers? Should church membership also hinge on one's conviction regarding the Lord's Supper?
What if a prospective member has a physical condition that prevents baptism by immersion? Do we forgo the baptism altogether, or could we resort to sprinkling in that case? Would that violate our belief in biblical baptism?
I'm not making light of the issue. I think these are all questions worth pondering.
On a related note, I'm wondering if anyone knows how Presbyterians deal with those seeking church membership who were not baptized as infants. Are believers' baptisms acceptable, or do prospective members have to be re-baptized into the Presbyterian church? Just curious.
Well, as regards "us guys", I don't agree with that either. There's a broad spectrum of belief and opinion within our brotherhood about such matters, so painting us with a particular historical brush according to certain statements of our founders is pretty ineffective, outside of some of the die-hard partisans who have fled the intentions of the movement anyway.
David, Fair enough... I understand that there is some variances of opinion among "Campbellites" and I definitely do not wish to paint you are anyone with the proverbial broad brush.
Do you personally have a position on this subject? In other words, do you think that Presbyterians, for example, are part of THE church even though they are not accepted into the membership of your church?
And if so, why do you treat baptism differently than all of the things such as listed above by Lee?
By the way, we practice believer's baptism as a prerequisite for membership, too. I am just wanting to hear your theological reasonings -- without assuming (with the broad brush effect).
Lee,
Presbys usually allow for both in their congregations. Many people join Presby churches via believer' baptism. And there is even a church in our town that will allow its members not to baptize their children if they do not agree with that doctrine.
But for me Baptism is not the same issue as things like Calvinism, Complimentarianism, etc. Baptism is a clear teaching in the Scripture that is intertwined with the conversion experience (though it does not actually regenerate).
And it is not just about baptism. If one has the Catholic view of baptism for example, his doctrine is so far off biblically the proverbial red flags are waving like crazy. Right?
If one has a Presby view of baptism then their view of the New Covenant and the Local Church is very different from ours. Note the differences here between the WCF and LBC1689; it is way different. Church government is different, definition of the covenant is different, etc.
So one just cannot compare Baptism to all of the other things that one may disagree on and yet can join the church.
No, baptism goes to the heart of some very real and broad differences. So much so that membership would best be postponed till those things are worked out...
in my opinion -- which happens to be consistent with all of church history.
Personally, I know lots of Presbys, among others, who are members of the Church. They're reading the baptism element with totally different glasses than I do, or my church does, but God's got 'em. I hope I have as little wood, hay, and stubble as they do on the last day.
If you're going to get wrapped up in mode, you'd better be prepared to drink wine on Sunday. We've had plenty of churches divide over stuff like that. I don't believe it's worth it, and it goes completely against the original Campbellite intention, which was to unite the church, rather than divide over minutae.
Anyhoo. My strong belief is that the important immersion is the immersion in the triune nature and Name of God Himself, as our Savior commanded us. The ordinance is an important sign of that unquestionable and essential reality. If we fail in the reality, the ordinance does less than nothing.
David,
I enjoy discussing theology with you as much as with anyone. Why? because I know you are a man after God's own heart. May God's grace be upon you and your family.
To engage our discussion, we both agree that regeneration is the true entrance into God's Church from a spiritual standpoint. Baptism is a necessary outward sign of membership in God's visible church. Indeed, I believe every believer should be baptized and a member of a local church.
"Wrapped up in mode" is a funny way of describing my position, for I am simply wrapped up in actually doing what Christ commanded. In other words, it is not like I am arguing for something that is extra-biblical. That would be getting "wrapped up in a mode" that would be ridiculous and divisive.
The Didache (c.100), for example, describes several possible modes of immersion. So, the early church was not wrapped up in which mode of immersion one uses and neither am I.
Remember the Presby definition of baptism is not just different in terms of mode; it is also different in terms of defining the nature of the New Covenant. Thus the scope of our division is not about mode but about the New Covenant. For example, Presbys baptize adult believers who were not baptized as babies. I even had one such church in Temecula wish to use our baptistery. We gladly obliged.
But their teaching that the New Covenant is a mixed covenant of believers and non-believers is something that goes against everything we believe about the discontinuity of the Old and New Covenants. Thus our baptism are different: different in meaning primarily and mode secondarily.
As far as communion elements are concerned, the only explicit teaching I find in the New Testament is to use "the fruit of the vine." It doesn't say anything about it being alcoholic. So again, I have no such dilemma as the one you assume.
I have always respected, and still do, your Campbellite desire for church unity. In fact, our church has great diversity of ecclesiastical backgrounds in our eldership and congregation. I have preached many men from different ecclesiastical backgrounds as well. So I don't believe our teachings actually divide the church at all.
And I don't think the clear commands of Jesus are "minutae." But I know what you are intending to say.
But, we must not let the fear of or distaste for division cause us to lump too many important doctrines in the "minutae" category.
Grace and peace, my brother.
Baptism is not a doctrine on which we can disagree like eschatology or Calvinism. It is a direct commandment, and it is clear both in example and command that believers in Christ are to be baptized after coming to faith. As mentioned earlier, why would Bethlehem admit into membership people who are being willfully disobedient to Scripture?
The question I ponder is why someone would want to be a member of Bethlehem Baptist and not be willing to submit to Biblical, believers baptism. This is not a problem, as far as I am aware, in little country Baptist churches. I wonder if it has anything to do with who is the senior pastor at Bethlehem?
well for one is "membership" even Biblical?
I've heard the argument that God is a God of order but just because a church has membership doesn't mean its an orderly church (first-hand experience there) and the Bible as far as I know never states that the church is to be run as a democracy (i.e. voting on elders, church decisions, etc.). So if you feel that you can provide some expertise in this area, I would greatly appreciate it because at this point I do not believe church membership is Biblical.
Thanks for your reply, Jason. Actually, the people I was accusing of getting wrapped up in mode were my own people. I should have said, "If one is going to get wrapped up. . ., one should. . ." We have shown an incredible propensity for division among the Campbellites, even as our creed was unity. So I am a man of unclean lips from a people of unclean lips, but I'm asking for a coal.
Scripture is the great corrective in all matters. May we always have the heart of Josiah.
BTW, Big Jimmy, church membership is a fact and function of being the body of Christ. Read I Corinthians again.
Big Jimmy,
I would never use the "God is a God of order" thing to argue directly for church membership (rather, I would use it as the apostle did to argue for how the church is to behave itself in its gatherings and in the exercise of its gifts). Nor does church membership = democracy, necessarily. The two often go together today, but they don't have to.
I'd really recommend listening to Piper's sermon on this subject that Jason referenced in this post (here is the link again). He argues for the biblical nature of church membership with five reasons or lines of evidence from the Scriptures. I think it's a pretty powerful argument, and not the one you might typically hear. Let me know what you think.
Jason, great discussion. As a former Baptist pastor and now Presby for 16 years, I do have both perspectives.
I sympathize with my Baptist brothers. Really you all are mostly defined by this ordinance and of course the mode. And yes, Presbys do accept immersions for membership. In fact, I have been an ordained pastor in the PCA and I have only been immersed. There are some Presbys who will perform immersions.
But, I do also sympathize with what Piper is attempting to do. I don't think we Presbys violate our belief in our view of baptism by admitting the immersed into membership at all. We simply recognize our belief that the mode is not THE essential part of the ordinance. Rather it is identification with and union with Christ and an acknowledgement that it is only by Christ are we united to Him and cleansed (washed clean). Either mode portrays that.
It is amazing to me how little "squabbling" I see among our British counterparts at say Banner of Truth. There is enormous cooperation among those Reformed brothers of credo and paedo pursuasion with very little contention about the issue, at least as far as I can see.
One last thing. A funny thing I hope. I often hear it said that in addition to the Baptist reading of scripture on this issue, we should look at the early church practice as well. Well, if you do, you may find little concensus, and a few things you were not expecting. I posted yesterday on what BB Warfield had to say. He said that a reading of history is mixed at best. In part he also said,
"It may be broadly said that the Fathers, from the second century down through the patristic age, represent ordinary and regular baptism to be a rite performed on perfectly nude recipients by a form of triune immersion."
Another quote i posted said,
"We should note first that the mode used in the early church is not normative for us; e.g., all evidence indicates that people were baptized naked."
As for the Didache, it also says that,
"Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before."
So, I respectfully ask my Baptist brethren to not only fast prior to baptism (if we are to appeal to the Didache) and shed the clothes!
Wow! Maybe this will draw a good crowd!
All for Christ and a little fun.
Really Les, all Baptists need appeal to is the explicit command and example of the Scripture. That and that alone supports believers baptism by immersion. Who needs Didiache when we have Christ?
Arthur, I didn't bring up the Didache. Jason did.
"The Didache (c.100), for example, describes several possible modes of immersion. So, the early church was not wrapped up in which mode of immersion one uses and neither am I."
In fact in recent conversations with my immersionist brothers, they are the ones who appealed to church history to bolster their claim about immersion being the only proper mode. That is why I found it funny that history shows that baptisms were likely done with the participants nude and fasting. So, my point was that to appeal to history for the immersion mode, one needs to be consistent and fast and strip down.
If as Jason says above he is not "wrapped up in the mode" and there are others with that sentiment, then maybe there is at least an open door to accept into immersionists churches those who have not been immersed.
BTW, on my blog I have asked for someone to show exegetically where the mode was immersion without falling back on the definition of baptizo only (since it is demonstrated that submersion was not the only meaning of the word). No one has yet.
Les,
Which is it: Are you "having a little fun" with your non sequitur, or are you serious? I haven't commented about your statements above because I thought you were just trying to be funny. But your last statement misrepresented everything I have said. So, are you just trying to be funny and got sloppy, or do I need to get down in the weeds with you on this and defend myself against your misrepresentations of my position?
Grace and peace,
Jason, my hopelessly misguided (LSU) friend (War Eagle!). I was just trying to have some fun. My quoting of you was not at all meant to misrepresent your position. I was just pointing out to Arthur that you were the one who mentioned the Didache. I took from your additional remarks that you were apparently "not wrapped up in which mode" was used. That is all.
I went on to reference recent conversations with other brothers about the appeal to church history for their view. I in no way meant to say that you were appealing to church history for your beliefs. I am sorry if that is the way it came across.
Of course the early church practice of nude baptisms and fastings are interesting and frankly amusing to discover. That is all.
No need to get down in the weeds unless you just want to.
Blessings,
Les
Les,
Thanks for the clarification.
Let me just then address where I think you are misrepresenting or misunderstanding my remarks:
I said to David that I am not wrapped up in which mode of immersion one uses. The distinction there is that I am only discussing variations of immersion not other so-called modes of baptism. Thus the following statement that you made is a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of my argument: If as Jason says above he is not "wrapped up in the mode" and there are others with that sentiment, then maybe there is at least an open door to accept into immersionists churches those who have not been immersed.
Do you see why you have misrepresented my position? You are claiming that I am "open" to accepting so-called modes of baptism that are not immersion.
I have very clear that I believe that the Bible is very clear on the mode of immersion. My quote of the Didache was to prove historically two things:
1. The church fathers believed only in the baptism mode of immersion.
2. The church fathers were open to variations within the mode of immersion.
I then explained that my position is consistent with the Bible and the church fathers.
As far as the other things that you brought up such as what one may or may not wear when being baptized is not an issue dealt with in Scripture so I do not know why you even brought it up -- other than to try to stir up something with a little humor, as you say.
Anyways. The issue is not about modes, therefore. It is about the definition of "baptism" and "church membership" and the nature of the "New Covenant."
Jason, I see where you are coming from. I did indeed mis-read your words, even after I copied and pasted them. My apologies.
I do see that you are a true blue immersionist only brother. No question.
No I am not at all trying to "stir up something." I was just pointing out that when one looks into history to bolster their immersion only position, one finds aspects of those immersions that one might not expect--such as without any clothing and requiring fasting. That is all.
I am not looking for a "dispute" here. Being a former Baptist and having very close brothers (one of whom is my blog partner) and family who are Baptist, I get along with them very well.
But aside from the biblical argument, the historical evidence is mixed at best, as I pointed out (from Warfield) on my blog.
All aside, again, I apologize for mis-reading and then mis-concluding your position.
You are surely correct when you frame the issue around the nature of the New Covenant.
Blessings!
Post a Comment