Immersion and Membership

I think this misunderstands the nature of baptism and Baptist ecclesiology. Baptist ecclesiology holds firmly to the idea of regenerated church membership. If you are not saved, you cannot be a member. In Scripture, baptism is the public confession of Christ as Lord, and therefore is the public statement of regeneration. That is why it is necessary to be a member of a Baptist church. If you have not publicly confessed Christ, then you cannot be a member.

This idea of walking the aisle and standing down front to tell people you were saved is not hte biblical method. It is fine to do that, but that is what baptism is for.

As for baptizing in jail, there is no need to that I can see. Baptism is a local church ordinance. It is not an ad hoc party that just anyone can throw. Baptism is to be carried out in front of the body of assembled believers as the public confession of Christ by the one being baptized.

When someoen gets saved in jail, you teach them about baptism, and then baptize them when they are released and can join a local church.

 

I'm with you on the teaching.

 

Pastor Larry says: Baptism is to be carried out in front of the body of assembled believers as the public confession of Christ by the one being baptized.

Pastor Larry, do you have any idea what church the Ethiopian eunuch was baptized into in Acts 8:38? It seems to me that New Testament baptism is more a rite of initiation into the Christian faith rather than into a particular church. Colossians 2:11-12.

 

Pastor Larry can speak for himself, but here's my take.

The best we can figure, only one congregation existed at the time--at Jerusalem. The Jerusalem church was the sole entity charged with carrying out the Great Commission. It was the only entity authorized to teach, make disciples and baptize.

We get a clue from the early part of chapter 8 Philip was a member of the Jerusalem church. He went to preach in Samaria, and baptized converts there. The church sent Peter and John down to Samaria, and Philip accepted their authority. Until those Samaritan converts could organize into a local church, they were members of the Jerusalem church.

The same for the Ethiopian eunuch.

We have to remember that it is we who have defined how baptism is public. And we have to be careful about using the baptism of the eunuch (and those in Samaria) as the standard for today. There were no churches in Samaria. There were no churches in Ethiopia, as far as we know. When Paul and Silas went out from the Antioch church in their mission trip, there were no New Testament churches where they went. There were no congregations to witness the baptisms. The same situation existed in Philippi for the jailer and his family.

But the pattern is consistent. Philip, Peter, John, Paul and Silas all acted under the authority of a local church. And those new baptized converts became the material for new local churches where they were.

 

It's the Reform/Calvinist influence that comes via their Catholic roots (MOTHER OF HARLOTS) that teaches Larry this. In that original view, the "church" is the "gatekeeper" -- "keys of the kingdom" -- of heaven.

Plus, I must defer to John the Baptist's baptism. It wasn't in the synagogue/temple but was acceptable with God.

skypair

 

You are treading on dangerous ground to make or infer such an accusation. Go and study church history. Tell me which of the major denominations throughout history, even starting from the time of Christ, have not made baptism the door to the church. You won't find many, if any. There have been many that have been wrong on the mode of baptism, and even the time of baptism and the meaning of baptism, but all knew that baptism was the door to church membership. Historically that has been the case with all churches. When you find such a widespread practice throughout history one must conclude that it must have had some biblical roots somewhere. It wasn't just pure tradition. For it was praciticed among believers and unbelievers alike. It was the practice of the Anabaptists, the Waldenses, and many others.

To assert that this comes through the RCC (the mother of harlots) is wild speculation, and has no grounds in historical fact. Check your history before going on a wild rampage that you can't substantiate.
Your assertion is just the same as the Catholic's assertion that they discovered the "trinity."

 

The original premise was that these men would never get out of jail for their crimes. How would you as a pastor handle that?

Can a prisoner join a local church?

 

As for the Ethiopian eunuch, I am in agreement with Tom. I think that is a unique circumstance. As for prisoners in life sentences, I don't see how they could be a member of a local church since membership means something (like showing up and serving). Since church membership or baptism is not required for salvation, they can certainly learn and serve God where they are.

As for the Catholic roots argument, what can I say? Something so ridiculous hardly deserves a response.

 

DHK, all,

Sorry for "popping off" like that.

My thought was that those RCC baptisms had nothing to do with salvation being they were administered to infants. And this carried over to Reform such that "rebaptizers" were shunned if not persecuted for baptizing believers only.

Therefore, I do not see that local church as being only those baptized. While baptism is a testimony, I have had churches that asked before admission for you to give your testimony and that be the method of admission of those saved. It seems far better to me to require a good verbal testimony as it comports with the true definition of "membership in the body" to be saved than to be immersed.

Course I feel that same about admission to the local Methodist church where, as if I know nothing of the Bible and would ask for membership without believing as they do, I'd have to to through consecration classes before becoming a member.

A friend recently joined the Catholic chirch -- had to have a "sponsor." It all gets to be a bit much more than scripture calls for and a lot less biblical truth being taught.

skypair

 

But it doesn't have to be either/or. It should be both. While there are still too many easy believism churches out there that'll baptize anything that moves, it is encouraging to note that more churches are taking seriously their obligation to guard their own doors.

Instead of waiting until somebody walks an aisle to ask them for their testimony, it should be done much earlier. What we have now in too many cases is a new convert who has no concept of the gospel or the obligations of church membership, and a church that won't ask them for their understanding of the gospel. The questions, and the teaching, should come well in advance of baptism and church membership.

skypair, I guess we'll just have to disagree over whether baptism is a Christian ordinance or a local church ordinance. My stance is that we are born into the kingdom and baptized into a church.

 

I have some significant concerns with the latest parts of this discussion.

1. Pastor Larry seems to indicate that a local church cannot exist within prison. By every Baptist definition, "believers gathered together" constitutes the local church. Why don't believers in prison who gather together for worship and Bible study constitute a church? What if they have an ordained pastor (perhaps a pastor from the "outside"), deacons (all prisoners), and regular times of worship?

2. Assuming then that local churches exist in prisons all over the world, what right have we on the outside to deny these churches the right to baptize and celebrate the Lord's Supper? Should the physical impossibility of immersion deny the far more important spirit of obedience to the commands of Christ? (Can Christ, under the law of grace, expect from us what we cannot do? Can we, as believers, expect more than Christ expects from our brethren?)

Note that under many baptist understandings of the ordinances, the Lord's Supper is not proper for those who are not baptized; for those who are in life confinement and cannot be baptized by immersion, would you deny them also this second symbol of grace?

3. Paul held authority over many churches while he was in prison. By the conversation here, Paul could not have been a pastor of a church, because he couldn't have been a member of a church, because he couldn't have physically showed up, thus he couldn't fulfill the responsibilities of a Christian in the church. Tell me how this makes sense?

This same reasoning would deny the true membership and service of persecuted Christians (and particularly pastors!) around the world. (Note that the argument presented previously as to why a prisoner shouldn't be a member of a local church is that he can't show up, not that he can't be baptized.) Should this also not deny membership to those who are "bound" by the chains of illness and physically cannot attend?

Also, whether or not a man like Paul could exist today, the statements that he operated only under the authority of the local church misunderstand Paul's role as an apostle.

4. One final thought. Any model of church governance and membership that falls apart when prison comes into the picture needs to be reconsidered. If we all are arrested, the local church doesn't disappear!

 

What is at stake here is not what a particular denomination does, it is what the Bible teaches.
1. Baptism was thought important to Jesus. He was baptized and then commanded it.
2. The apostles and early Christians baptized others and thought it important. A person cannot read the book of Acts without that being impressed on his or her mind.
3. Then when you come to the Pauline writings, baptism is everywhere.
4. Baptism was important to Jesus, the early Christians, and therefore it should be important to us.
5. And it should be by immersion for believing Christians only. Isn't that what you see in Scripture?

 

Believers gathered together does not constitute a local church. There is more to it than that. Secondly, I didn't say that a church could not exist in a prison, I don't think. I think it could, but it has to be organized in a NT fashion.

I am not denying anyone the right to baptize. But they have to baptize and that means immersion. Pouring or sprinkling is not baptism. So if a prisoner can get baptized I am all for it. But it has to be baptism.

Yes. We don't determine theology and practice by "what works" but by what is right.

It doesn't make sense because it is based on faulty facts. Paul had authority as an apostle, not as a pastor. A pastor has authority in the church that he pastors. Paul was probably never the pastor of a church, per se.

No, not at all.

Why? Why shouldn't the issue of prison be fit into the NT on the local church?

 

There is no precedent set for a prisoner to become a member of a local church. When a criminal goes to jail he gives certain rights of his citizenship. It used to be that he gave up his right to vote. He gave up his right to partake in society in any useful way. He was kept away from society, the general fellowship of the people in general because of his crimes. That was in Biblical times, and to a good extent it still is now.
When one committed heinous sins or crimes what did the church do? In 1Cor.5, a man committig the immoral act of incest was cast out of the church. He had to pay for the crime that he had committed. He was not allowed back into the church until he came to a full place of repentance. In fact he "was delivered over to Satan."
The jailor of Acts 16 got saved, but we don't know if the prisoners did or not. Probably some did. If they did, it is quite probable that they didn't have the right to join the church at Phillippi until they were released from jail. There would be no way that they could partake of the Lord's Supper with other believers in NT times. A prisoner forfeits his right to be a member of a local church. The proper method would be to baptize the person who comes to Christ in a prison ministry, after he gets out of prison in a local church. He then is able to grow in grace and knowledge of the truth taking other steps of obedience as we walks with God.
You do the crime; you pay the time. A prisoner has no "right" to claim extra "rights," on the basis of religion. On that basis one opens the door to the Sikhs wearing both their turbans and their cerremonnial daggers.

 

Do you believe that any time someone switches local church membership, he must be rebaptized?

 

1. The Local Church is the Gathered Saints

The historic confessions of Baptist faith are of one accord that the "visible Church" is a congregation, a gathering, if you will, of believers. The New Hampshire Confession says "baptized believers," the London and Philadelphia Confessions say "visible saints." The Abstract of Principles says that "Christians are to associate themselves into particular societies or churches." Indeed, the traditional Baptist confession is that the local church is the gathering (the congregation) of believers.

When Pastor Larry says "there is more to it than that," I'm assuming he's talking of the organization and activity of the churches. Of course, congregations are to be governed according to the pattern of the church, with bishops/elders and deacons, observing the ordinances, exercising church discipline.

In prisons where baptism by immersion and some freedom of assembly is permitted, I hope that no one will argue that the local church (by every requirement posed here) indeed can exist in full purity.

The question then becomes, to what extent do external limitations on the physical actions of the gathered believers impair their ability to truly be a church? If there is no bread and juice, is the church no longer a church because it cannot rightly observe the Lord's Supper? Can one use bread and water? Or just bread? Or just juice?

2. Non-Attendance and Church Membership

An inability to attend the services of the church and participate fully in its fellowship does not disqualify one from membership in a church. The argument by DHK that prisoners give up their right to be part of a church is ludicrous, as many are falsely imprisoned, and many are imprisoned BECAUSE of their faith.

The distinction is whether the absence is of wilfull disobedience, which by all means should disqualify one for membership.

3. Pastoral Authority

You have a house church of 20 or so believers. The pastor gets arrested on false charges and imprisoned for life. Does he lose (1) his pastoral authority and (2) his church membership?

4. Prison and the NT

I agree that prison should fit with the concept of the NT church; my argument is not that we should ditch the NT, but rather that the prevailing interpretations here may not be faithful to the NT if the imprisonment of believers effectively elimates the local church and the ordinances of Christ.

 

Quote:

No.

Although, If I remember correctly, I've read on the BB that at least one church baptizes all new members, just to make sure it's done scripturally, as they see it.

Brother Bob might be able to enlighten us about that.

 

Immersion, Aspersion, etc.

Having seen rather large humans being immersed in rather large bodies of water by rather small ministers of the gospel, I would make the observation that adjustments can be made to make scriptural symbolism. If the procedure has salvational qualities, the whole process is skewed. Immersion is a picture of death, burial and resurrection. No other mode pictures these things. Baptizo=immerse.

Now what?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

That indeed is what I said. A prisoner (read convict or criminal) gives up their rights by reason of the crime that he has done. There are very few in America that are in prison for preaching the gospel. And if they are it is usually for a day or two, hardly enough time to miss even a service.

To which I agree, and gave some Scriptural examples in my post.

However for sake of argument, lets go to the Scripture again.
Paul was a missionary. His home church was at Antioch, from whence he was sent out, and to which he returned at the start and finish of every missionary journey. Often he suffered various forms of persecution, even to the extent of being thrown in jail (Acts 16). This did not affect his membership in his church at Antioch. It only limited his fellowship with them. I am sure that upon hearing this situation the believers prayed for him, as they would for any other missionary facing difficult situatioins on the mission field. I too have faced extremely difficult situations on the mission field and have appreciated the prayers of others.

Peter in Acts 12 was in a completely different situation. Herod had taken James and had killed him. He had hoped to do the same with him. It seems that Peter was a member of the house that met at the mother of John Mark's house.

Acts 12:12 And when he had considered the thing, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying.

There the church had gathered and were praying unceasingly for him:

Acts 12:5 Peter therefore was kept in prison: but prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God for him.

Neither Peter or Paul had done nothing wrong. In this case the church's prayer was answered miraculously. An angel of the Lord came and led Peter out of the prison, opening prison doors for him, and leading him to his freedom (Peter in a daze not realizing what was quite going on.)
God does answer prayer. Again Peter was already a member of the church. Again he wasn't in prison for a life sentence, but just a day or so, as most Christian leaders are.

Near the end of his life Paul was in prison for two years. But he had considerable amount of freedom, and guests were permitted to come and go as they pleased.

Acts 28:30 And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him,

There are many churches mentioned in Romans 16, but a church in the house of Paul is not one of them. It seems that prisoners had no church, even if they were Christian leaders.

We also have the case of Onesimus, the run away slave. He went to Paul for advice, for he had stolen from his master, Philemon. Paul was in prison at that time. Paul led him to the Lord, told him to go back to his master, and begged Philemon to accept him as a brother in the Lord, forgiving him of any wrong that he had done. In fact he said that he, Paul, would pay back anything that Onesimus had stolen. Put that on my account, Paul said. The church was in the house of Philemon, not in the prison. The forgiveness had to come from Philemon. Onesimus had to be restored to a place of fellowship by Philemon. Paul was still in prison, and could not have fellowship with this assembly except through letters.

A church by its very definition (ekklesia) means assembly. It is an assembly of regenerated baptized (immersed) members that gather together to carry out the Great Commission and the ordinances of Christ (baptism by immersion and the Lord's Table). One cannot do that in a prison. But a released prisoner can do that if he has been saved, and repented of his wrong, is willing to be baptized and join the church and willing to follow the Lord.

 

DHK, it seems that your point of view is US-centric, and ignores what is happening around the world. Christian leaders are not in prison for just a day or two. They are tortured, killed, imprisoned without trial, held for long periods. Many we don't even know about. But here are profiles of a few:

http://www.prisoneralert.com/