First off I think we need to establish what baptism accomplishes. It by no means brings salvation but is a demonstration of faith by following Christ’s command. In the New Testament being baptized was the sign of being a believer. It was not taken lightly and was an imperative that all Christians be baptized. It symbolizes being a new creation in Christ. Like most things that we do it has at its heart an identification with Christ. Romans 6:3  and Galatians 3:27 tells us that we are baptized into Christ and his death, and Romans 6:4 goes on to say that we were baptized not only in his death but also his burial and resurrection. Here is the major argument for believer’s baptism or someone being baptized after they are a believer as opposed to as an infant. The Great Commission has baptism falling between preaching the gospel, which is making disciples, and the growth of the believers, which is teaching them to observe all. Likewise Acts 2:41 makes it even clear when it says that the proper order of things is, receiving the Word, being baptized, and then being added to the church. So from these Scriptures we can see that baptism is identifying with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection and it is also used as a requirement for membership into the church.

So baptism can be seen in two different lights. The first being that as we are saved we are baptized with the Spirit of God and welcomed into the universal church and then as we are baptized in water we are welcomed into the local church. So far however this is the practice of most every major denomination of Christianity. They all read the Scriptures and see baptism as a requirement for admission into membership. Where Baptist differ lies in who they baptize.

For admittance into the membership of a Baptist church one must be baptized after becoming a believer. If they are coming from a denomination that practices infant baptism then they must be baptized again. Not only this but some Baptist churches require that a person be baptized by immersion (completely dunked) and be baptized by a Baptist church (not all churches adhere to this though). There has been some discussions and evaluation of this issue though. John Piper and Wayne Grudem find themselves at odds on this matter. John Piper believes that to deny membership to a godly person who was baptized as an infant is more serious a fault than infant baptism itself. While Wayne Grudem disagrees and says that to be consistent with Baptist theology we can’t just not baptize some people yet require it for everyone else. This issue does raise some questions though, is baptism as a believer a clear command of Christ or is it just a different interpretation of Scripture? Also if it is just an different interpretation how can we balance our desire to be generous and welcoming with our convictions?

Scripture affirms that baptism is a command of Christ but even the reformers Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli still held on to infant baptism. They did not affirm baptismal regeneration but basically these children were accepted into a covenant community under the charge of their parents and the church. So to summarize the who is eligible for baptism, if we are to be consistent with Scriptures I think we have to affirm believer’s baptism.

The second think we must consider is how a person is to be baptized. In some churches sprinkling and affusion are practiced but the word bapitzo means immerse. The New Testament desciptions of baptisms are described as coming up out of the water (Mk 1:10, Acts 8:39) and the symbolic meaning of dying Christ’s death and being raised with him is a symbol that fits immersion.  Also if the Scriptures meant sprinkling there are other greek words to use instead of baptizo, like rantizo for instance.

I also want to discuss just for a second the timing of baptisms. Scriptures in Acts show us that the baptisms were done immediately after conversion, although not exhaustively. Faith is clearly required for baptisms and so there must be time to validate that faith. The accounts in Acts were all of adults and so when should children be baptized? In my opinion for adults or for children there should be time after conversion to make sure they understand the importance of baptism as well as the time to evaluate whether or not true conversion has happened. Just like with membership before there can be admittance faith has to be evident and so I do not think there is anything wrong or unbiblical in delaying baptism to accomplish these goals.

With children this becomes complicated and opens up a whole host of issues that I won’t deal with today. What do we do if a child comes down and professes faith? Should we immediately baptize them and accept them into membership? I think that this is an unwise move. As I stated with membership we should rejoice with the child and then this is where a new members class fits in perfectly. Time is taken to assess if true conversion has happened and also the child can have time to fully understand the importance of it all.

Finally a lot of people think that baptisms have to be done by ordained ministers but there is no biblical basis for this. Baptism is into Christ and his church and so it seems to make logical sense that any member of that church should be able to perform the baptisms of believers.

I know this in no way is an exhaustive discussion on the matter and I am by no means an authority. However believer’s baptism is a biblical command and we should all come to an understanding of what we believe. The Bible commands us to test our faith, to examine our faith, to be able to give an account for what we believe and why. 2 Timothy 4:2 tells us to “preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.” The Bible is God’s self revelation to us and the only way to learn about him to show him the glory due his name.

I will deal with baptism in detail in the next post but here I will just mention it. First of all I do not think that a person has to be baptized every time they move to a new church. I will however suggest that it appears to be biblical to baptize people before they are admitted into a fellowship, even if that fellowship is into the church as a whole. We see in Scripture, in the gospels, where Jesus was baptized before his ministry started. He also commands us in the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20) that as we are going, that we are to make disciples. It then qualifies what a disciple is when it says to baptize them in the name of the Triune God and to teach them to observe all that Jesus says. This shows us that as Christians we are to follow Christ’s own example as well as his command and be baptized. It is important to state here but will be dealt with in detail later that nowhere in Scripture do we see that baptism imparts salvation.  It is a symbol that symbolizes our death to sin and our resurrection to a new life in Christ. I think that it is important that before a person can be admitted into membership of a church that that person has to have been baptized (as a believer, but we will deal with that next) at some point.

In addition to baptism there has to be some mechanism that is in place to filter believers from unbelievers. It is at this point that American Christianity on the whole has come up short, although there has been a resurgence of these filters as of late in some churches. In Baptist history we saw this rigorous standards for application to membership, as I spoke about in the last post. They were so concerned with regenerate members that a person was examined and tested and would only be admitted if they possessed faith. As we saw last time this practice was lost, on the whole, and we have to get it back. Today in American churches they are so worried about being exclusive, being distinguished from the world, and unattractive to people that we shirk on what it means to be Christians and to live in Christian community. The problem is that this belief contradicts everything that the Bible teaches! We are, by our very nature, distinct from the world and must live like it. We have to distinguish ourselves from the world when it comes to who we allow to be members of the church. If we do not then the church will continue to decline to the point where there is no difference between the church and the world.

So how do we get this holy standard of living back? How do we sift through the false teachers and unbelievers? A great way to do this is a new member class/new believer class. In too many churches today we find that anyone can just walk down the aisle and seek to join the church when next to nothing, if anything, is known about them. In an community that loves growth and the American ideal then we have just accepted this method as gospel truth. And because of this we find our churches in a dire state today, overwhelmed with lost members and the church is losing its identity and mission. We are so concerned with “putting butts in the seats” that we don’t care about the spiritual condition of those butts! And when lost people try to make spiritual decisions God is lost and the mission is blurred and growth, prestige, pride, and trivial arguments are all that remain.

New member classes will help to alleviate and kill the cancer that has infected our churches today. You may be asking what exactly is a new member/new believer class? Well it is very simple!  It is a class that must be taken and completely by every new believer of the church, as well as every person who is seeking to be admitted as a member of the church. In the class there are very important topics that must be covered. These topics include but are not limited to the following.

1.) What is faith and what does it mean to be a Christian?

2.) What do we  as (insert church name) believe?

3.) What does it mean to be a member of this church? i.e. what is expected of me?

4.) Looking at the churches covenant, bi-laws, or documentation of the church.

5.) A crash course in systematic theology (alongside of number 2)

During these classes these topics are paramount. It will show a person seeking membership what the church believes and allows them to see if their beliefs line up with the church. If the person is a new believer it explains the very essence of Christianity and displays (hopefully) the great love of Christ, of God’s glory, and our responses. These are all important and during these classes the elders, deacons, pastors, members, are to be analyzing this person to see if faith actually exists, if they are striving for growth in Christ. I also think it is important to say that the length of these classes is flexible. Can you accomplish all of this in depth in an afternoon? I think not. In my personal opinion, anywhere from 6-8 weeks is a good amount of time to analyze, commune with, hang out with, learn about, and interact with a potential member to see if faith is present. It also allows sufficient time for the prospective member to see if the church is the “right fit” and to develop the relationships that will be vital to a healthy, God edifying and glorifying life with the church.

So what does this all mean? What do we do when someone walks down the aisle? How can we not instantly accept them or baptize them? Well I think that we instantly accept them into membership or instantly baptize them into faith and membership because we have a very poor view of Christ and his church. I am not saying that this is a universal truth but I think if we really cherished what it meant to be baptized and what it meant to be a part of the church (BIBLICALLY) then we would see that rushing these two things and admitting unbelievers into membership will hurt the church and hinder the mission of sharing the gospel and glorifying God through fellowship, worship and all the ways a church is called to show that glory.

When someone walks down the aisle then we rejoice with them if they profess faith or we offer them up as a candidate for membership, all the while being excited and showing love as the church. At that point the person will attend the new member/new believer class. After that class is attended and completed then the person can be brought forward and voted on as a member, or can be then baptized. All of this hinges on of course, true faith, a regenerate heart, and an actual change in their heart and lives.

If we as a church will commit to these practices and treasure and cherish the church as Christ does, then we will see health in our church that hasn’t been seen for quite some time. As we seek to have regenerate church members I hope that these are some ways in which we can truly seek this goal.

That being said this semester I am in Christian Theology III, which is about the study of the church (Ecclesiology) and the study of the end times (Eschatology). The focus of this post and the biggest changes in my life have occurred in the realm of Ecclesiology. This semester I have found a love for the church which I didn’t have before. That may or may not seem odd considering I am already a pastor and have been on paid staff of churches for 7 almost 8 years. However odd it may seem I just didn’t really figure that the intricacies of the church matter to me as I was not going to be the senior pastor. Well this door that was so firmly closed has not appear that way as of late, but maybe more on that later.

As I was taken through the history of the church and the history of church polity (how it runs) I developed this love for the church, and with this love came a burden. See a burden is different than an emotion. In my case, thus far, I had always been discouraged with the state of the church. I would feel bummed out for a little while and then I would do something fun or entertaining and the feelings would be replaced. Now I am burdened for the church and I don’t like being burdened because it doesn’t go away or be replaced, it just eats at your soul until something changes! How does one person change the church, and does the church really need changing? I had so many questions spinning around in my head and continue to become more and more saddened and burdened by the state of the church. Today I am going to start this series looking at the need of a Second Reformation by comparing the history of the baptist church with the church today in the areas, of regenerate church membership, believers baptism, church discipline, sanctification, and moralistic deism.

The baptist have always been differentiated from other denominations by their theology (obviously) but also probably more-so by their polity. These differences were built off of one notion and that notion was regenerate church membership. This means that to be a member of a church then you have to be saved. Unregenerate people can attend and are encouraged to attend as it is them that need the gospel, but to be an actual member, with its privileges, you had to be saved (regenerate). This is important and the place to start because when this fails all the others fail too. The Baptist polity is built around this practice and without it the Baptist polity doesn’t work. In Baptist churches prior to 200 years ago there were very rigorous standards for membership. Once a person professed faith that faith was tested and analyzed and watched and nurtured to see if it was true. This person would not be baptized until that faith was shown to be true, they did not practice baptizing people immediately after a profession.

Why is this important? Well, the baptists are under congregational rule. This means that the congregation has the final say in what happens in the church. Obviously pastors and committees can offer up suggestions but at the end of the day it is all about the congregation. So following this to a conclusion that is logical, if your church members aren’t regenerate then how can they make decisions meant for the regenerate? How can we expect a church to be about the gospel, the Word, Jesus and his cross, or anything that a church is called to do if its members aren’t saved? We can’t! The Bible tells us in Romans 8:7 ”For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.” The Bible plainly tells us that a unregenerate person is hostile to God and does not and cannot submit to God’s law, ergo cannot give God the glory that the church is suppose to give.

So what? This isn’t true of our churches today, right? I mean what church would willingly let an unsaved person join? Well one would think that it is unnecessary to have to talk about this, but Billy Graham said that 50% of all church members are unregenerate. I believe this is true. Look at our churches today, you see the people there and know they can’t be saved, for the most part. You can tell by the way they live their lives for one and for two the directions they are trying to take our churches. Our churches are moving away from being gospel centered and moving towards trying to be cool, relevant, non-offensive, and basically non gospel. Churches today are little more than social clubs. Obviously there are still real churches who are doing it right but on a whole this is the church of America today. The question is how did we get here?

Well 200 years ago churches were serious about not conforming to the world, for living holy, and looking different. Their membership standards were rough and in a later post I will speak on church discipline, but the point stands. People would attend churches for years and years (30 and 40) and never join because they knew that as soon as they did they would be held accountable for the faith which they claimed. This was about the time that American Individualism started to rise and that infiltrated the church. The membership standards slowly and surely were weakened and growth looked so attractive that the inevitable happened. Charles Finney pioneered the hot seat and evangelistic techniques that scared people into “faith”. Put this together with lax membership standards and unregenerate people are now members of the church, making its decision. The membership classes were taken away or if left were such a joke they did not do their intended job of filtering the unregenerate out. This snowballed as most things do over time to today when there are hardly any churches in America that have a membership class. It is common practice for anyone that walks down the aisle and professes faith to be admitted into the fellowship without question or with very little discernment on the true state of their hearts.

This is bad. This should raise the alarm. We are in need of a Second Reformation of the church. We have to get back to distinguishing who is let into our fellowship. The Bible tells us repeatedly that we have to test our faith, why are we so afraid to do this, unless we know we won’t like the answer we find. Our churches have to take the people looking to join the church and test their faiths to see if they are legitimate. Our churches will never get out of the state we are in if we do not first close our membership to true believers. Only then will we be able to tackle the other issues that need to be address in our churches. Our churches hinge on this practice, without regenerate members then our churches will soon cease to be churches and just be moralistic social clubs. We have to have a resurgence, we have to have a reformation, we have to get back to regenerate church membership.