Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Do We Need To Be Baptized?
Yesterday's news of the day was that Henderson Hills Baptist, in Edmond, will soon be voting to forego the requirement of Baptism for church membership. I think the term is "open membership". I watched their pastor's sermon from this past Sunday, "on line". He's very persuasive. The Church will be voting on this as a by-law change in a couple of months.
This idea isn't a new idea. John Bunyan and Henry Jessey were suggesting back in the 1660's that Baptism should not be a requirement for local church membership. The core argument in summary is that people are accepted into the global church, (the body of Christ) based on their faith and conversion. And so, it is inappropriate for a local church to then require Baptism for membership in a local church.
John Clifford while talking about freedom of conscience in ecclesiology spoke of this in the late 1800's........... and more recently John Piper at Bethlehem Baptist has adpoted open membership.
The idea has been a topic of discussion for theologians for many years. It's more accepted in other denominations. We baptists are among the last to change..... if and when we do change.
Henderson Hills is still affirming baptism. They are still going to be baptising and encouraging believers to be scripturally baptised. That's the good news.
The bible doesn't setup baptism as a requirement for church membership. Henderson Hills would argue, and did make the statement in yesterday's message, that the only requirement for membership is being a believer. Yet there are examples of church discipline that speak of removing people from the church based on lifestyle. A Christian who has fallen into sin could be removed from the church. So I'm not sure it's completely accurate to say that faith in Christ is the only biblical requirement for local church membership.
Henderson Hills acknowledges the great commission command to Baptise them.
This won't surprise anybody...... but I'm of the mind that while Baptism doesn't save us, it is a command. It is an ordinance of the Church. The first Church practiced it. I don't think we error by saying to new converts... that this is so important, that we are going to require you to be Baptised before you can be a member in good standing of our local Church.
Henderson Hills is worried about people rejecting this and then not joining their membership, thus preventing Henderson Hills from then teaching them the importance of Baptism. I don't know.
I would guess that we as Baptists need to be prepared for this. I'm sure we'll see more of this in the years to come.
From Ephesians 4:11 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching.
I do pray for that time when "the Church" will be mature, and not tossed back and forth by the waves..... blown from shore to shore by every wind of teaching.
This idea isn't a new idea. John Bunyan and Henry Jessey were suggesting back in the 1660's that Baptism should not be a requirement for local church membership. The core argument in summary is that people are accepted into the global church, (the body of Christ) based on their faith and conversion. And so, it is inappropriate for a local church to then require Baptism for membership in a local church.
John Clifford while talking about freedom of conscience in ecclesiology spoke of this in the late 1800's........... and more recently John Piper at Bethlehem Baptist has adpoted open membership.
The idea has been a topic of discussion for theologians for many years. It's more accepted in other denominations. We baptists are among the last to change..... if and when we do change.
Henderson Hills is still affirming baptism. They are still going to be baptising and encouraging believers to be scripturally baptised. That's the good news.
The bible doesn't setup baptism as a requirement for church membership. Henderson Hills would argue, and did make the statement in yesterday's message, that the only requirement for membership is being a believer. Yet there are examples of church discipline that speak of removing people from the church based on lifestyle. A Christian who has fallen into sin could be removed from the church. So I'm not sure it's completely accurate to say that faith in Christ is the only biblical requirement for local church membership.
Henderson Hills acknowledges the great commission command to Baptise them.
This won't surprise anybody...... but I'm of the mind that while Baptism doesn't save us, it is a command. It is an ordinance of the Church. The first Church practiced it. I don't think we error by saying to new converts... that this is so important, that we are going to require you to be Baptised before you can be a member in good standing of our local Church.
Henderson Hills is worried about people rejecting this and then not joining their membership, thus preventing Henderson Hills from then teaching them the importance of Baptism. I don't know.
I would guess that we as Baptists need to be prepared for this. I'm sure we'll see more of this in the years to come.
From Ephesians 4:11 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching.
I do pray for that time when "the Church" will be mature, and not tossed back and forth by the waves..... blown from shore to shore by every wind of teaching.
# posted by kjam22 @ 5:36 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
"The first Church practiced it."
The first Church did more than practice it. The first CHurch also held that baptism was not merely symbolic. Read the early Church writings:
The Didache - http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html
Cyril of Jerusalem - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310103.htm
The first Church did more than practice it. The first CHurch also held that baptism was not merely symbolic. Read the early Church writings:
The Didache - http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html
Cyril of Jerusalem - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310103.htm
# posted by 
: 10:13 AM
: 10:13 AM
:) Interesting document. I remember reading something about this when I was at SNU. (the first time,and it was called BNC back then) :)
Aren't there at least a couple of places that this document conflicts with the bible?
Like this from chapter 6..... "For if you are able to bear the entire yoke of the Lord, you will be perfect; but if you are not able to do this, do what you are able. And concerning food, bear what you are able; but against that which is sacrificed to idols be exceedingly careful; for it is the service of dead gods."
That doesn't really fit real well with some of Pauls epistles does it?
Do you think there's a reason this was left out of the cannon?
And incidently, regarding baptism, doesn't it just give instructions about how to baptise?
Aren't there at least a couple of places that this document conflicts with the bible?
Like this from chapter 6..... "For if you are able to bear the entire yoke of the Lord, you will be perfect; but if you are not able to do this, do what you are able. And concerning food, bear what you are able; but against that which is sacrificed to idols be exceedingly careful; for it is the service of dead gods."
That doesn't really fit real well with some of Pauls epistles does it?
Do you think there's a reason this was left out of the cannon?
And incidently, regarding baptism, doesn't it just give instructions about how to baptise?
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the son and of the Holy Spirit." Matthew 29:19
Tht sounds to me like people who are professing Christ are supposed to be baptized...
Tht sounds to me like people who are professing Christ are supposed to be baptized...
And they are suppose to be baptized. And Henderson Hills from what I saw on the video yesterday agrees that people are suppose to be baptized. And they are going to continue to baptize them. But Henderson Hills is drawing a distinction between "suppose to be baptized" and "can't be a member of the local church unless you are baptized".
The pastor there is going to make a very convincing argument (from what I saw) that his church is about believing EXACTLY what the bible says. No more, no less.
Obviously I disagree with the interpretation.... as I'm sure you do. :) But there will be some pretty serious author/theologians lined up against what most "traditional" baptists believe.
The pastor there is going to make a very convincing argument (from what I saw) that his church is about believing EXACTLY what the bible says. No more, no less.
Obviously I disagree with the interpretation.... as I'm sure you do. :) But there will be some pretty serious author/theologians lined up against what most "traditional" baptists believe.
Here's a link to the sermon from this past Sunday. It takes about 40 minutes to watch it. But it has some good information in it.
http://media.hhbc.com/media/2006/061106/061106sermon_256k.wmv
http://media.hhbc.com/media/2006/061106/061106sermon_256k.wmv
Baptism isn't essential to salvation but it's certainly an important ordiance established by Jesus.
In Acts 2 we have the famous passage announcing that those who gladly received his word were baptized. It then states that 3,000 were added unto them. The question is, "unto what were they added after their baptism?".
Membership into the Southern Baptist church has historically included scriptural baptism. That may have something to do with being Baptist.
Another historical part of Southern Baptists has been having to be baptized a second time if you are coming from another denomination. Being baptized more than once isn't mentioned in the Bible. Some Southern Bapstist churches no longer require a new member be baptized a second time if they have already accepted Jesus as their savior and have been scripturally baptized, i.e. immersed. The Pentecostal and Nazarene churches would be of those whom the Southern Baptist churches would recognize. If this is what Henderson Hills is concerned with then there should be no trouble with not baptizing a new member. However, it doesn't look like this is their point of discussion.
The part about being a member of the Universal church isn't clear. If the idea is to be as the first church then the question still remains, unto what were they added after baptism?
In Acts 2 we have the famous passage announcing that those who gladly received his word were baptized. It then states that 3,000 were added unto them. The question is, "unto what were they added after their baptism?".
Membership into the Southern Baptist church has historically included scriptural baptism. That may have something to do with being Baptist.
Another historical part of Southern Baptists has been having to be baptized a second time if you are coming from another denomination. Being baptized more than once isn't mentioned in the Bible. Some Southern Bapstist churches no longer require a new member be baptized a second time if they have already accepted Jesus as their savior and have been scripturally baptized, i.e. immersed. The Pentecostal and Nazarene churches would be of those whom the Southern Baptist churches would recognize. If this is what Henderson Hills is concerned with then there should be no trouble with not baptizing a new member. However, it doesn't look like this is their point of discussion.
The part about being a member of the Universal church isn't clear. If the idea is to be as the first church then the question still remains, unto what were they added after baptism?
I can speak from our South American context...
Until a person decides to be baptized, they probably aren't saved. Baptism does not save, but people here realize that until they make that committment to be baptized, they are still trying to decide whether or not to fully follow Christ. I repeat, baptism does not save; but it is a sure sign that a person is taking seriously their decision to give their life over to the Lord.
If a person has decided to follow Christ, why not be obedient and go ahead and follow in our Lord's example and be baptized? If Jesus Himself was baptized, and commands us to baptize, who are we to think we don't need to obey?
Until a person decides to be baptized, they probably aren't saved. Baptism does not save, but people here realize that until they make that committment to be baptized, they are still trying to decide whether or not to fully follow Christ. I repeat, baptism does not save; but it is a sure sign that a person is taking seriously their decision to give their life over to the Lord.
If a person has decided to follow Christ, why not be obedient and go ahead and follow in our Lord's example and be baptized? If Jesus Himself was baptized, and commands us to baptize, who are we to think we don't need to obey?
Hey Guy..... how's it going? I agree with you 100%.
Hey... our CD is being pressed right now. We hope to have it back from the manufacturer in the first part of July.
If you want to email me an address... I'll snail mail you a complimentary copy :) Just let me know.
Hey... our CD is being pressed right now. We hope to have it back from the manufacturer in the first part of July.
If you want to email me an address... I'll snail mail you a complimentary copy :) Just let me know.
I would LOVE a copy of your new CD! One of the reasons I visit your blog so often is that I love listening to the music--you guys have a great sound!
James Guy Muse
Casilla 09-06-2388
Guayaquil, Ecuador
South America
Thanks a million. I can hardly wait, and don't forget to sign it!
James Guy Muse
Casilla 09-06-2388
Guayaquil, Ecuador
South America
Thanks a million. I can hardly wait, and don't forget to sign it!
Consider it done! I will send you one just as soon as we get them back.
And I updated the play song here so you could hear a different one :)
Talk to you later....
And I updated the play song here so you could hear a different one :)
Talk to you later....
I think the current song playing along with "Wayfaring Stranger" are my favorite. I am also a big fan of The Isaacs, ever heard of them? You guys sound a lot like them on certain songs! Maybe on our next furlough we can come hear you guys live--we would love that! My wife and I both have a lot of family scattered around the OKC area.
You said ...there will be some pretty serious author/theologians lined up against what most "traditional" baptists believe.
True, and most of them will be Presbyterians... ;-)
Thanks for engaging in this discussion.
Post a Comment
True, and most of them will be Presbyterians... ;-)
Thanks for engaging in this discussion.
<< Home
