So,
the very fact that churches exist today as they have in every generation says
that we can more than just assume that church membership is commanded by
Christ. In fact, we can know for certain that Christ Jesus commands people even
today to join a body of believers, even before that person knows anything about
the Bible.
Daniel
Reg-lee, God gave man free will. Yes, He can both harden our hearts and break them as
He did Pharoah. God does not force us to do His Will in a way that violates the
free will.
However,
it was my personal experience that once I surrendered to Him and sought to do
His Will, I found that He could change my desires to obtain me to His Will. Our
Will is a strong enemy we must resist! It is for this reason that Jesus Christ
said if we were to follow Him, we must pick up our cross and carry it.That
cross is the surrender of our own Will to do the Will of the Father. Just as
Jesus spoke saying "I come not to do my Will, but the Will of Him who sent
Me"!
Are
we prepared to say likewise, Father let it be by Your Will"? When we come
to total surrender to the Lord, His Will becomes our guide.
Reg-lee
Daniel, “Wherefore,
my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much
more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it
is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” Philippians 2:12-13 KJV
Daniel
We
are encouraged to gather together with like believers. In doing so we maintain
the likeness of Christ and prevent confusion, for our God is not a God of
confusion.
Our
baptism is to one and puts us in a oneness with Christ. Just as there are two
births, there is likewise two baptisms! John the Baptist said " I baptise
with water, but He who comes after me of which I am not worth to tie His shoe
laces shall baptism thee in the Holy Ghost"! As one group or account was
given a number of people had come to a knowledge and been baptized of the Holy
Ghost yet when Peter inquired of they had been baptized of water they said no.
Thus He commanded them to be baptized of water.
I
believe it would be best that each of us ask ourselves, Are we baptized of both
that we can therefore know that Christ dwelleth in us and we in Him?
DanSa
D:
We are encouraged to gather together with like believers. In doing so we
maintain the likeness of Christ and prevent confusion, for our God is not a God
of confusion.
DS:
It is certain that the church is a place of assembly and that it is intended to
minister stability, understanding, and Christ-likeness to the flock.
D:
Our baptism is to one and puts us in a oneness with Christ.
DS:
It unites us to his church, those who profess the resurrection of Jesus with a
clear conscience (I Peter 3:21).
D:
Just as there are two births, there is likewise two baptisms! John the Baptist
said " I baptise with water, but He who comes after me of which I am not
worth to tie His shoe laces shall baptism thee in the Holy Ghost"!
DS:
It is certain that those are two different things.
D:
As one group or account was given a number of people had come to a knowledge
and been baptized of the Holy Ghost yet when Peter inquired of they had been
baptized of water they said no. Thus He commanded them to be baptized of water.
DS:
True. So it is possible that there are those who have experienced the work of
grace in their lives who are not yet members of the Lord's church. Being a
recipient of grace is one thing. Understanding the gospel is another. This sort
of relates to something I said in my last sermon: "Understanding is a
lagging indicator of grace."
D:
I believe it would be best that each of us ask ourselves, Are we baptized of
both that we can therefore know that Christ dwelleth in us and we in Him?
DS:
This much is certain, we are to give all diligence to make our calling and
election sure (II Peter 1:10). Amen.
Sing
Dansa, What meaneth " Understanding is a lagging indicator of grace"?
Please unpack a bit. Thanks.
Dansa
Sing, It means that spiritual understanding always comes after (or
"lags") spiritual quickening. Life precedes action. Stated another
way, we don't acquire spiritual understanding as a prerequisite to obtaining
saving grace, but only because we have previously been given the grace of
eternal salvation and spiritual life. Learning and understanding are the proper
motions of the life that's been given when it is under gospel instruction in
discipleship. Thus, "Understanding is a lagging indicator of grace."
Does
that help?
sing
DanSa, now you speak common sense, not enigmatically.
DanSa
Sing, I apologize for my initial, enigmatic response. It was not my intent.
Thanks for your patience.
Carly
Perhaps
some insight as to the Church and her Husband would clarify whether baptism is
required, compulsory, command, or suggestion.
sing
Carly, Sir, do Primitive Baptist churches have a "Members' Covenant"?
Husband and wife have a Marriage Covenant.
sing
I
actually heard some say, "Christ is the Husband of the church; He is not
my Husband."
Carly
They
must not see themselves as part of the Church, and would not be.
Question:
Can you truly live the Christian life and not be a part of the Church?
sing
Carly, is "to be a part of the church" the same as being a member of
that church?
DanSa
Carly, The proper, biblical definition of "Christian" intends
"baptized disciples of Christ" (Acts 11:26). Strictly speaking, it is
impossible to live the "Christian life" if one is not a baptized
member of the Lord's NT church. That said, many do not speak so formally when
they refer to a "Christian life" and mean something more like "a
morally upright person." In that informal sense, one might make such a
statement toward someone who is not a "part of the church" (by which
I believe you mean "a church member in good standing").
However,
I would point out that those who employ this casual use of language reveal that
their concept of "Christian" is unscriptural. You can set that in the
menagerie of unscriptural ideas they cherish. That is a sad state of affairs.
Perhaps they've seen too many church members who behave terribly. At a minimum,
they reveal that their definition of a "Christian" is divorced from
the bible's use of that term.
sing
DanSa, I sometimes say, "If you are not baptized in Jesus Christ, you have
no right to be named Christ-ian." I thought it's such a basic principle,
but it's offensive to not a few.
Lloyd
Consider
this: someone asks to be baptized and to join the church. They publicly
profess, usually at the conclusion of a church service, that they believe that
Jesus is the son of God and would like to be baptized and join the church. We
accept them, they are baptized, and their name is added to the church members
list. They often remain on that list until they die regardless of attendance.
That or something similar is our process. It seems to me that the NT has a
different perspective. There is a command to be baptized, and there is a
command to not forsake the assembling of ourselves. That is the church
(ecclesia). The church (ecclesia) is literally a called out assembly or a
gathering. The command to assemble with the church is not a one time thing. You
are a member of the church as long as you continue to gather together with the
other saints. If you decide not to gather with the local church, you are not a
member regardless of whether your name is on a list. You may still be a
baptized disciple of Christ, but you are not a member of the church. We put too
much emphasis on membership lists. I understand we should do all things in
order. I’m not opposed to a list of members, so that we know everyone’s phone
number and birthday, for example. But my understanding of scripture does not
support the view that everyone on the list is a member of the church. You are a
member if you are a regular attendee. Otherwise, you must change the definition
of church (ecclesia).
sing
Lloyd, is what you have described common among Primitive Churches?
Is
removing names from membership practised? Under what circumstances is a member
removed from membership, and or excommunicated? Thanks.
Lloyd
Sing, I didn’t mention removing names from membership. That is a different
subject. The reasons for removing members (excluding them from the body) vary amongst churches. The scriptural examples I am aware of is glorying in the sin
of fornication between a man and his step-mother and heresy. Discipline in the
church is scriptural. Mercy, grace, forgiveness and love are, too. I am not
aware of a scriptural example that non-attendance is grounds for exclusion from
the church. Ironically, the person not attending has already self-excluded
themselves from the assembly.
sing
Lloyd, Thanks. So,
does attendance self-include a person as a member of the church, and
non-attendance self-excludes him from the church?
Is
self-exclusion from the assembly the same as self-exclusion from church
membership?
Thanks.
Asking to understand.
Lloyd
Sing, Suppose a young woman is baptized and joins the church. She is a regular
attendee and contributes to the church and its work. Some other members of the
church hurt her to the extent that it pains her to assemble with them. Not her
fault. She tries to make amends according to Matthew 18. To no avail. For her
sense of well-being and the peace of the church, she decides to start attending
another local church. She attends and contributes to that body for over 10
years but never formally moves her membership, transferring her name from one
list to another. She is afraid of being hurt again. Is she a member of the new
church? I believe she is. She meets the scriptural requirements of being a
member of the body. She assembles regularly with them and contributes. Now,
would I encourage her to formalize a transfer of membership by letter, so that
all things can be done in an orderly fashion? Yes.
Daniel
Lloyd, I sincerely believe that the attendees of a church ought to make
contact with those who are not in regular attendance and try to encourage them.
People become discouraged things happen and they are struggling. If we truly
love our church family we should check on those that are missing the
gatherings.
To
keep a church family healthy and strong, we are scripturally told that we judge
that within the church and God judges that without the church. We care for the
family so that no leaven can weaken the church. If they are in willful sin
fulfilling lust as the world we ought to separate them from amongst the family.
Bible tells us to not even sit to eat at the same table with such. That sounds
harsh, but it is to protect the church.
DanSa
Lloyd @
L:
Consider this: someone asks to be baptized and to join the church. They
publicly profess, usually at the conclusion of a church service, that they
believe that Jesus is the son of God and would like to be baptized and join the
church. We accept them, they are baptized, and their name is added to the
church members list. They often remain on that list until they die regardless
of attendance. That or something similar is our process.
DS:
Yes.
L:
It seems to me that the NT has a different perspective. There is a command to
be baptized, and there is a command to not forsake the assembling of ourselves.
DS:
Undeniably so (Acts 2:38, Hebrews 10:25).
L:
That is the church (ecclesia). The church (ecclesia) is literally a called out
assembly or a gathering.
DS:
This term intends “those that gather.” I point this out in distinction to
“those in the act of gathering” itself. In other words, the “church” proper is
the people characterized by regeneracy, belief, profession, baptism, and
assembly.
L:
The command to assemble with the church is not a one time thing. You are a
member of the church as long as you continue to gather together with the other
saints.
DS:
Correct.
L:
If you decide not to gather with the local church, you are not a member
regardless of whether your name is on a list.
DS:
That is true. You are no longer "one of those that gather” and have become
"one of those that does not gather” and thus have excluded yourself from
the church by your own practice.
L:
You may still be a baptized disciple of Christ, but you are not a member of the
church.
DS:
True.
L:
We put too much emphasis on membership lists.
DS:
In my experience, we put too little emphasis on MANAGING the list.
L:
I understand we should do all things in order. I’m not opposed to a list of
members, so that we know everyone’s phone number and birthday, for example. But
my understanding of scripture does not support the view that everyone on the
list is a member of the church.
DS:
The bible does not support that view either.
L:
You are a member if you are a regular attendee. Otherwise, you must change the
definition of church (ecclesia).
DS:
I suspect we are in full agreement in principle if not in expression. I don’t
think our problem arises from making too much of membership lists (though I
think I understand what you mean by that). I believe we have made too little of
what keeps someone on the membership list. Stated another way, our churches
have failed to exercise church discipline, preferring the passive affirmation
of those who have by their own actions forsaken the faith, while shunning the
biblical practice of excluding those who no longer assemble.
Lloyd
DanSa, what biblical reference do you use to support “the biblical practice of
excluding those who no longer assemble”?
DanSa
Lloyd, it would be a combination of Hebrews 10:25, I Corinthians 5:1-7,
and the case that the practice of forsaking the assembly is a willful,
persistent sin of spiritual adultery.
How
would you approach the matter?
Lloyd
DanSa @“How would you approach the matter?”
If
someone is not attending church and contributing as a member, the first step is
communication and a visit with the member. If the other active members are
doing their jobs, this comm and visitation should have been going on all along.
That
will uncover any problem early on. This prevents the situation we are often in,
where we are visiting a member who hasn’t been to church in years and some or
all of the deacons/elders/members don’t even know them.
In
my 45 years in the church as a member then deacon and now elder, I cannot
recall a single instance when we excluded someone for non-attendance. I may
have forgotten. We have excluded members for other reasons.
My
experience falls into 2 categories:
1.
We visit a non-attending member and that member is repentant and promises to
begin attending. They do for a while then go back to their old ways. Rinse and
repeat.
2.
We visit a non-attending member and that member shows no interest in attending.
We ask them if they would like us to remove their name from the membership
list. They say yes. We tell them we love them, and they can return to
attendance and membership anytime they would like to. And we will all look
forward to that day.
The
second is the most common.
I
cannot recall a single member that returned to being an active regularly
attending member.
Again,
my memory — not so good.
That’s
my approach.
Jeff
Lloyd, I agree with your comment. What I have struggled with is that we exclude
folks for non-attendance but not for lying, gossip, backbiting, railing, false
accusations, assumptions etc., which often causes folks to leave the church, hence exclusion for non-attendance.
DanSa
I
don't see church membership as explicitly commanded. What I mean by that is,
Jesus did not explicitly state, "You must join the church." That
said, the Lord set an example we are to follow in baptism and the church is
still to be about the business of teaching and baptizing men into the visible
kingdom of God, the church. So, I would say it is a logical implication of
following the Lord's example of baptism, and the repeated commands to be
baptized.
To
be clear, this matter seems to come up about once a year. I believe that men
are baptized into a local assembly and have become members of that assembly as
a result. The idea that it is possible to be baptized and not become a member
of the church is not consistent with my understanding of scripture. I recognize
that some insist the Ethiopian eunuch is an example of such. I find that
unconvincing for a few of reasons:
1.
Just because it is not explicitly stated that he became a member of the church
at Jerusalem does not definitively prove that this was not the case.
2.
So far as I can tell, there is no instruction given on how to join a church in
the New Testament if baptism does not accomplish this end. That would seem a
glaring omission if the apostles were tasked with building the church.
3.
There is no mention of how to govern the baptized-non-church-member. Are they
under the rule of the church? How could that be given they're not a member? How
long should this baptized-non-church-member state be possessed? In perpetuity?
For 10 minutes? Until some suitable church is discovered?
More
could be said, but I'll leave it at that for now.
Sing
DanSa, I once heard a sarcastic jest that the eunuch became a member of the
Desert Road Baptist Church.
DanSa
Sing - The way I heard it, he joined Desert Road PRIMITIVE Baptist Church. 🤣
Marty
It
seems to me that our Lord Jesus Christ commanded baptism:
-
[Matthew 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:
-
[Mark 16:16] He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that
believeth not shall be damned.
And
it seems to me that baptism causes a believer to enter the church:
-
[Acts 2:41] Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same
day there were added unto them about three thousand souls....[47] Praising God,
and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily
such as should be saved.
Therefore,
I conclude that church membership is commanded by Christ, and it is consistent
with a requirement that if one joins a church of greatly different beliefs, he
should again be baptized into that church.
I
do not know if church membership is assumed in the New Testament.
Sing
Marty, thank you.
Since
it is commanded, wouldn't it be assumed, .i.e. church membership is the context
in which discipleship takes place, e.g Mt 28:20, Acts 2:41f, epistles addressed
to churches.
DanSa
sing, I’m not offended by the notion that church membership is assumed in the
New Testament.
Also,
with respect to Elder Smith’s assertion that church membership is “commanded” –
I’m not offended by his explanation either. I prefer to avoid calling it a
“command” because I can’t point to an explicit statement. Nevertheless, if it
arises of logical necessity from baptism (as I believe it does) it is a
“command” of implication.
Consider
this: A man tells a misbehaving child to, “Sit down and shut up.” He did not
explicitly “command” him not to sing “Yankee Doodle Dandy” though this was
implicit in the command he gave him all the same.
In
essence, I believe that Elder Smith and I agree in principle, if not in
expression. Is it best to wrestle with a tar baby or not? Probably depends on
whether you’ve got any soap.
Sing
DanSa, I have no more soap; and a little bottle of dish liquid is running out
too. Thanks for not being offended.
The
Lord said, "... teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
COMMANDED you..."
Would
that have included the command of church membership of those baptised? How did
the Apostles understand the Lord's command to them?
DanSa
Sing, I believe the things commanded included the command for believers to
submit to baptism and for the apostles and the elders they appointed to
administer that baptism. Given that this joins one to the church, I believe
that joining the church could be said to be an "implicit command"
that is nested within the command to "repent and be baptized."
Michael
I
believe the connotative flow of Acts 2:37-47 strongly suggests church
membership accompanies baptism. Also, the Acts 2 passage can be seen as
establishing precedent since it is the first post-resurrection instance of
baptism, and it occurred in compliance with Jesus' instruction to the Apostles
recorded in Luke 24:49.
Further evidence is the complete absence in scripture
of a baptism which specifically excludes church membership. Moreover, the case
of Philip and the Eunuch argues for neither position because the rule of logic
rejects all arguments from silence, which applies in that church membership is
neither affirmed nor denied. Therefore, we are left with an instance of
precedence where baptism and membership are connected and no place where church
membership is specifically excluded from baptism.
=======
The last comment by Michael is an apt capstone to the discussion
