Is Church Membership Really Required?

[Larry]

Then you introduce even more problems because baptism is not an induction into God’s universal church. Faith is. Baptism is for those already in God’s universal church by faith who desire to obey Christ and make that known. There is nothing confusing (at least that I can see) about referring to church membership as belonging to a particular local church.

They may be spiritually mature in some areas and knowledgeable and gifted, but they are, by definition living in disobedience to Jesus’ command to be baptized, are they not? Having a “different interpretation” isn’t really the issue. Someone can hold a wrong interpretation in clear conscience. Having a clear conscience doesn’t make it okay. But more to the point, refusing leadership for disagreement on a fundamental point of a church’s doctrine isn’t really surprising, is it? Wouldn’t we expect that? Why would a church allow someone they believed to be living in open and persistent disobedience and who disagreed with a fundamental point of the church’s doctrine to be in leadership?

We have a slightly different position here. I don’t believe that all Christians who are not water baptised by immersion are ‘disobedient’ or ‘living in rebellion’.

I know many Anglicans look at ‘water baptism by immersion’ as a model in Acts whereby those coming out of ‘pagan’ religions publicly announced their conversion to Christianity. (very similar logic to the what cessations position on speaking in tongues).

[Larry]

Then you introduce even more problems because baptism is not an induction into God’s universal church. Faith is. Baptism is for those already in God’s universal church by faith who desire to obey Christ and make that known. There is nothing confusing (at least that I can see) about referring to church membership as belonging to a particular local church.

I think we would both agree that baptism in the spirit occurs at the point of faith. The time-frame between spirit baptism and water baptism can lead to problems.

JC, Larry is correct. Jesus commanded that all disciples be baptized. Anything short of immersion post-conversion is outside of Jesus’ command.

I don’t believe that all Christians who are not water baptised by immersion are ‘disobedient’ or ‘living in rebellion’.

If Jesus commanded something, and it isn’t done, how it is not disobedience? And if it is intentionally not done, how is not rebellion? That’s not unique to Baptists. Some Presbyterians think people who don’t sprinkle their infant children are living in disobedience. The question is, What does the Bible teach? It teaches one or the other, not both, and those who do not do what it teaches are in disobedience.

I know many Anglicans look at ‘water baptism by immersion’ as a model in Acts whereby those coming out of ‘pagan’ religions publicly announced their conversion to Christianity. (very similar logic to the what cessations position on speaking in tongues).

How Anglicans (or anyone else) looks at something is confusing the issue. The question is what Scripture requires. Water baptism is, as you say, a public announcement of conversion to Christianity. That is why there is no infant baptism (since they haven’t converted) and why there is no private baptism (it is public announcement). However, that appears to have no relevance to cessationists on speaking in tongues (or any other sign gift).

I think we would both agree that baptism in the spirit occurs at the point of faith. The time-frame between spirit baptism and water baptism can lead to problems.

Assuming that Spirit baptism occurs at faith (which I think it does), there is always a “time frame” between spirit baptism and water baptism. It never happens at the same time; it would be impossible. That doesn’t lead to any problems I can think of right now.

I have laid out my position, and I am not going to flog it again. I will say this, ‘membership of God’s church includes more than just those who have been baptized by immersion’.

[James K]…

Does the NT refer to nonmember believers? I don’t think so. All believers are to be joined to a local church. Why would I think a person is a disciple of Jesus if he won’t do what Jesus commands?

You do church discipline with the hope that the expelled person will repent, and return. It is suggested that the case in 1Cor5 is related to the repentance observed in 2Cor2. In expulsion, I believe, we still hope this person is a believer. 1Cor5 says that we judge those who are within and not those who are without. So it isn’t so much that we declare the expelled person is an unbeliever, but we stop saying that he’s a believer. (More of a “we don’t know anymore.”)

This means that some expelled people are believers - that some people outside are believers - we just don’t know who they are.