Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

DaveW

Baptism and church membership?

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, that guy said:

Acts 4:1 And as they spake unto the people, the priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, came upon them,
Acts 4:2 Being grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead.
Acts 4:3 And they laid hands on them, and put them in hold unto the next day: for it was now eventide.
Acts 4:4 Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand.

Five thousand Believers... no Baptism.

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

If Baptism was a necessity in order for one to be a member of the Church, Jesus Christ would have commissioned Paul to baptize those who heard the Gospel and believed.  No commission to Baptize.

Baptism is not a pre-requisite to becoming a member of Christ's Church.

Really interesting passage in which we see 5000 saved, but neither baptised NOR added to a church.

Try again.

As for Paul.......

1 Cor 1

14  I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;

 

So, wrong again.....

Acts 2:41 stands clear as to the order: believe, baptised, added.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saved, but not part of the Church?

 

preposterous!

 

Acts 2:47 (KJV) 47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

 

The saved of God are added to the Church... whether water baptized, or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The context of this bit of the discussion is this statement by you, SFIC:

20 hours ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

One thing that they teach that is wrong, "A church is an organized assembly of scripturally baptized believers called out to do the Lord's work according to the New Testament.

Nowhere does the Bible say that the Church is only comprised of baptized believers.

The teaching you disagree with speaks of an "organised assembly". So would you agree with the teaching if it said this instead:

"A church is an organized assembly of scripturally baptized believers and non-baptised believers, called out to do the Lord's work according to the New Testament."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Alimantado said:

The context of this bit of the discussion is this statement by you, SFIC:

The teaching you disagree with speaks of an "organised assembly". So would you agree with the teaching if it said this instead:

"A church is an organized assembly of scripturally baptized believers and non-baptised believers, called out to do the Lord's work according to the New Testament."

I would say, "The Lord's Church is comprised of all who have trusted Christ for their Salvation and as the propitiation for their sin; whether they are baptized in water or not."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your past betrays you.

Go back and do a solid study on the church.

Your definition is not baptist, nor is it biblical, but very much in line your pentecostal roots.

Look again at Acts 2:41 and see the order clearly laid out - believe, baptised, added. If your definition of church is valid, then these people were saved only after they were baptised - BECAUSE THE ORDER IS PLAIN. They were baptised before being added to the church.

Do you hold to baptismal regeneration?

I don't think I have seen you promoting that, and yet unless you reject Acts 2:41, your definition of church NECESSITATES baptismal regeneration in the case of those spoken of in Acts 2:41. The order is inescapable.

 

And considering Acts 2:47 follows on directly from the events of Acts 2:41, it is reasonable to suggest they were added in the same way: after being baptised.

Context is kinda important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

I would say, "The Lord's Church is comprised of all who have trusted Christ for their Salvation and as the propitiation for their sin; whether they are baptized in water or not."

Right, but the teaching you quoted was discussing an "organised assembly". So if a local Baptist church required prospective members to be baptised before becoming members, that would be unBiblical in your opinion. And in your own church (I think elsewhere you said you are a pastor of one--sorry if I'm wrong), you allow people to become members before they are baptised. Are both those statements of mine fair?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



We do allow membership without water baptism.  We hold to the belief that people are saved prior to baptism, and that if they are saved, they are a member of Christ's Church, whether baptized or not.

As to other churches requiring water baptism in order to join their assembly, we believe this to be an un-Scriptural  requirement.    Nowhere in the text of Acts 2  is water baptism mentioned.  That which happened in the beginning of acts 2 was a Spirit-baptism.  There is no reason to believe that Peter was speaking of water baptism in either Acts 2:38, or Acts 2:41.

Now, before you accuse me of teaching Pentecostal doctrine, I am not.  I am teaching exactly what is written in the word of God, keeping the context of Acts 2..      The last IFB Church I was a member of, (prior to God putting me in Set at Liberty Baptist) Victory Heights Baptist, taught exactly what I teach concerning Acts 2... that it was not speaking of water baptism.  So, the teaching that Acts 2 is not speaking of water baptism is an IFB teaching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh that's right - you like to ignore context and put your own definitions on bible passages - I forgot that.

 

This is now a fuitless pursuit, since we cannot even agree on the basics of definitions, and you choose to ignore anything but that which you can twist.

I would like to ask a mod to lock this thread before he can continue to promote a flase definition of both the church and church membership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

The last IFB Church I was a member of, (prior to God putting me in Set at Liberty Baptist) Victory Heights Baptist, taught exactly what I teach concerning Acts 2... that it was not speaking of water baptism.  So, the teaching that Acts 2 is not speaking of water baptism is an IFB teaching.

So Victory Heights Baptist would have a person join as a member before they were baptised in water? So let's imagine a new believer--that believer would join Victory Baptist and then the pastor might speak to them about water baptism further down the line. That sort of thing? I haven't encountered that before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, DaveW said:

Oh that's right - you like to ignore context and put your own definitions on bible passages - I forgot that.

 

This is now a fuitless pursuit, since we cannot even agree on the basics of definitions, and you choose to ignore anything but that which you can twist.

I would like to ask a mod to lock this thread before he can continue to promote a flase definition of both the church and church membership.

Your "suggestion" that Acts 2:41,47 is speaking of water baptism ignores the context. 

I haven't "twisted a thing.  Show me in Acts 2:41 where Peter said one has to be baptized in water in order to be a member of the Church.  It's not there.  Your "twist" puts it there though. Acts 2:47 says that the saved were added to the Church.

8 minutes ago, Alimantado said:

So Victory Heights Baptist would have a person join as a member before they were baptised in water? So let's imagine a new believer--that believer would join Victory Baptist and then the pastor might speak to them about water baptism further down the line. That sort of thing? I haven't encountered that before.

The Adult Sunday School  Teacher, Keith Kendall, was a member of VHBC for thirty years before being baptized in water. 

Edited by Standing Firm In Christ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Matthew 3:11, John baptized with water, but Jesus baptized with the Holy Ghost and fire.

Which baptism was Jesus commanding His Apostle's to observe?  His? or John's?

Seems to me the Apostles, as followers of the Lord, would have taught the baptism of the Lord, i.e; baptism with the Holy Ghost and fire. 
They obviously did not accept John's baptism in water as being proper in Acts 19, but baptized with the Holy Ghost.
Just sayin'



 

Edited by Standing Firm In Christ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two things - because you went to a heterodox so called Independent Baptist Church means nothing as to the truth of doctrine. 

The baptism in the passage isn't degoned - and so there is no reason to suspect it was "holy ghost baptism" (unless your past is showing???). 

But of course maybe they were following the command given to them by Jesus - you know:

Matt 28

19  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 

 20  Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Oh don't worry about that passage - it doesn't fit your ideas (pentecostal type ideas, or so it seems - what's your background again?????)

By the way - have you bothered to start the study on church yet - no way you could have finished looking at all 114 verses already.......

Tell me when you find one that teaches universal church.......

Acts 2:41 according to you teaches baptismal regeneration.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus baptized with the Holy Ghost and fire.  Why would He tell His Apostles to baptize any other way contrary to the way He baptized?  Nothing in the Gospels say that Jersus baptized with water.  Nor dows Matthew 28 say to baptize with water.  People read "water" into the text.

By the way, if the church I was a member of was "heterodox", then I would say that is a good thing.  They call them "Independent" for a reason.



 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, swathdiver said:

SFIC seems to be preaching a universal invisible church.

 

The scriptures show us that a person gets saved, gets baptized (immediately) and gets discipled (as a member of a NT Church).

Hmm.  So somebody who makes a decision is baptised immediately and joins a church?   So you ould be baptising unbelievers? Just thinking the implications.  I suppose that is scriptural as well, as Simon was baptised in Acts 8: 9-16.  Incidentally this passage contradicts SFIC as they were baptised but had not yet received the Holy Spirit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the request of the OP, I am locking this thread. But before I do...

There has been purposeful misunderstanding of the statement that began all of this. As I said in the other thread, LOCAL churches have the discretion to require or not require baptism before membership in THAT LOCAL church.  You know, that "independent" thing.

The local church IS an organized assembly of believers. MEMBERSHIP ought not be granted unless there is baptism BECAUSE that is an identification with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ and a testimony to everyone else about the salvation of the one being baptized.

In some churches, when one is baptized they automatically become a PHYSICAL member of the church. Other churches require that the potential member join by request. Again, up to each church how they are going to handle it.

PHYSICAL membership is not the same as becoming a member of Christ's bride, i.e. salvation. 

To be doctrinally sound, we cannot conflate becoming a part of the bride (salvation) with joining a physical local church.

(Invicta, the Jailer [and his house] and the Eunuch were both baptized immediately. Yes, there might be false professions, and that is not a good thing. But baptism is the first step in obedience and to make a new convert wait until they "prove" their salvation can actually hinder their growth. And to put non-baptized people into positions of leadership within the church is foolishness on the part of the pastor.) 

And now, locking this before it turns into a verbal conflagration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 93 Guests (See full list)

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...