If you have been in ministry any length of time, you could compile a list for me of people who have offered themselves for baptism, seemed to know all the right answers and evidenced a strong profession of faith. Then, after the baptism, the faith that flamed fizzles fast. Where are they now? Who knows? It is an all-too-common story.
And any genuine minister of the gospel is bothered by that story. Did I fail to examine the candidate for baptism well enough? Should I have done something more? Something different?
One human and understandable response to this unfortunate story is for pastors to do extensive vetting of baptismal candidates, to demand that they demonstrate evidence of conversion before they are allowed to enter the waters. But is this biblically justified? Is this an acceptable biblical pattern?
I would like to examine that question today. Is it biblically acceptable to do extensive vetting and pre-baptismal discipleship? It has become accepted that this is a responsible and necessary preventative to these spiritual flame-outs that we have all seen. I have a problem with it. While I understand the motive, there seems to be little in Scripture to give warrant to the practice.
Baptism, in Acts, was an initial testimony of salvation that immediately followed profession of faith. No classes. Little vetting. When someone professed faith, they were immediately baptized thereafter.
As we debate issues related to baptism, we find that the Scriptures actually say very little about the issue. We have evidence that baptism was performed on believers only, after their profession of faith, as a symbolic picture of salvation, not a saving act of itself. And, of course, the mode of baptism was immersion. But other than that, there is no instruction book on baptism that defines these issues. The best evidence we have is the pattern of baptism in the book of Acts. Let us explore that for a moment.
The Baptismal Pattern in Acts
In Acts, there are seven examples of baptism we can examine. Is there a pattern there? I think there is.
Passage 1: Acts 3:38-41 Pentecost
And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.
Pentecost was the birthday of the church of Jesus Christ. Peter preached his lengthy sermon, inviting sinners to “save yourselves from this crooked generation.” Look at verse 41. Those who received his word were baptized – immediately. That day. Three thousand souls were saved and baptized. Practically, there can have been very little vetting or pre-baptismal examination being done. There were 120 disciples and 3000 converts. It was a long and glorious day, but one that allowed little time for discipleship classes before baptism.
But the process is simple. Peter proclaimed Christ and gave a powerful invitation to sinners to repent. Those that did were immediately baptized upon their profession in faith.
Passage 2: Acts 8:12-13 Philip in Samaria
But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip.
Some time later, Philip was preaching in Samaria and many believed. The teaching here could not be much more clear. “When they believed” Philip they were baptized. Salvation was followed immediately by baptism.
The story of Simon that begins in verse 13 may be most instructive here. Simon believed and was immediately baptized. Later, he turned out to have impure motives and was confronted rather harshly. But Philip baptized him on his profession and never apologized later when Simon’s heart was revealed.
Passage 3: Acts 8: 37-40 Ethiopian Eunuch
And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing.
Philip was carried out into the wilderness and met up with the Ethiopian Eunuch. He explained the Scriptures about Jesus. They saw the water and the Eunuch asked if he could be baptized. Philip did. We assume that there was some profession of faith in Christ, but that is not even mentioned in the text.
Passage 4: Acts 9:18 Paul’s Baptism
And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized;
Saul of Tarsus was the terror of the early church. He then had the vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus and was converted. Ananias was not thrilled to be directed by God to go and see this man with the horrid reputation. But he spoke to Saul and then, immediately thereafter baptized him. Don’t you think Ananias might have wanted some proof that Saul’s conversion was not some kind of ruse to draw out Christians for persecution? But when Saul made his profession, he was baptized.
Passage 5: Acts 10:46-48 Cornelius
For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
There was some initial evidence here of salvation – tongues and a desire to praise God. But many of those I’ve known who did not follow through on their profession gave strong initial evidence of understanding and commitment. Here, Cornelius and the others were immediately baptized upon their profession.
Passage 6: Acts 16:14-15 Lydia
The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.
Lydia’s heart was opened by God and then she was baptized. The pattern continues.
Passage 7: Acts 19:3-5 Baptism of John’s Disciples
And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Again, as soon as these men heard the gospel of Christ and responded, they were baptized in the name of the Lord.
The pattern is consistent in Acts and is not controverted in the Epistles. When one came to faith in Jesus Christ, just about the first they did was look for a place to baptize. There were no discipleship classes that preceded baptism. Candidates for baptism did not have to prove themselves. They simply made a profession of faith in Christ and were immediately thereafter baptized.
Why would we do anything else?
Here are some perspectives on the issue.
1) It is of primary importance that we proclaim the gospel clearly and fully, calling on people to count the cost before they trust Christ.
I believe that one of the reasons for the fizzled faith of so many who profess Chris is the weak gospel that is presented. A church in our town held a VBS and gave a “gospel” invitation that amazed me. One of our families attended and got a letter a week or so later congratulating them that their daughter had “made the big JC her best friend.” If we preach a weak gospel we can expect weak converts. I heard a celebrity give a “gospel presentation” once without even mentioning the Cross. Puh-leeze!
We must proclaim a clear gospel and call people clearly to repent of their sins and commit themselves to Christ, having counted the cost.
2) The only biblical condition on baptism is a valid profession of faith in Christ.
It would be appropriate to ask questions and to make sure that someone understands the gospel, especially younger candidates. But when someone offers a clear profession of faith in the grace of Jesus Christ, a repentance of their sins and a commitment to Christ, it is my duty to baptize them as soon as possible, in obedience to Christ.
3) Baptism is the beginning of discipleship, not the end of a process of discipleship.
Baptism is a public testimony of the act of faith. It is the initial act of discipleship. In fact, it can be argued that by delaying baptism, we are causing people to be disobedient to Scripture and thereby potentially hindering discipleship. Repent, believe and be baptized.
4) Ultimately, it is not my job to separate the wheat from the tares or the sheep from the goats.
We are all grieved by the presence of the tares (Matthew 13:2-30) and the goats (Matthew 25:32-33). But Jesus made it clear in both passages that ultimately it would be he who separated the good from the bad. In fact, Jesus warned to be very careful about pulling up the weeds lest we also pull up the wheat in the process. The church will always have false brethren among it. We can disciple. We can discipline. But we cannot completely purify the earthly church. And, as Jesus warned, we must not allow the process of purification to damage the real believers.
We must not, in our efforts to prevent false conversions, do anything that hinders real believers from following Christ. Better to baptize an occasional false convert than to prevent a true convert from following Christ.
5) Perhaps we err by making baptism an automatic entry into membership in the church.
In pretty much every church I’ve ever been a part of, baptism automatically enters membership. Maybe this practice is a problem. Perhaps we should baptize people into some sort of provisional membership in the church, then put them through some kind of initial discipleship and membership class and then when that is completely, give them fully vested membership.
But baptism should be performed as soon after profession of faith in Christ as is reasonable.
6) Pre-baptismal vetting is not the answer. Biblical discipleship and discipline is.
This restates and emphasizes points I have already made. But the point is important. Once a believer is baptized, he should then be discipled carefully. If he fails in his commitment. A loving and redemptive process of discipline should be applied to him. But all of this seems biblically to follow, not precede baptism.
I realize that I swim against the current tide here. Recent emphases on increased standards for membership and for discipline in churches have led the majority to increase their practices of pre-baptismal examination. I understand the reason for this, but I believe it is contrary to Scripture. The only requirement for baptism, in the Bible, is a clear profession of faith in Jesus Christ. That baptism is the beginning of the discipleship process, not a point along the process.
Could we actually be hindering discipleship in our desire to prevent false conversions and failed baptisms?
Something to talk about!
The problem with false converts is not solved by setting ourselves up as the judges of false and true conversions. It is solved by discipleship and discipline.
But there will still always be those who are false among us, whose profession is empty and shallow. There will be tares among the wheat and goats among the sheep. No amount of vetting is going to stop that.
“The problem with false converts is not solved by setting ourselves up as the judges of false and true conversions. It is solved by discipleship and discipline. “
Good word, Dave. That’s as good as anything in the post itself.
Dave, is discerning someone’s profession a type of pre-vetting?
Depends on what you mean by that.
If you mean, I am seeking to ascertain that they evidence an understanding of grace and repentance and the gospel, then I would say yes.
But it is not my job to determine if a profession is genuine. I do not have the ability to discern the wheat and the weeds. Philip did not “vet” the eunuch.
The evidence in Acts seems to be clear. Profession of faith. IMMEDIATE baptism. Even in the case of Simon, who turned out to be false.
Dave, all of those who were baptized in the New Testament understood they were laying down their lives to follow Christ. Baptism cost them something. I think we must make sure that professed believers understand that Christianity is taking up one’s cross and following Christ. You hit on this in your point about sharing the gospel. Many times, there is no sacrifice that’s presented; often it’s easy-believism. Then, we’re surprised when folks aren’t willing to sacrifice their time to worship the Lord; they never sacrificed their lives in coming to Him to begin with.
You and I are saying the same thing, just using different terms. I don’t use a new membership course or anything. I just try to discern whether the profession is genuine or not. You may not call this “looking for evidence of fruit,” but it’s very similar. A genuine profession is a result of the Spirit’s work.
You and I seem close on this.
Except that I do not think I am given the biblical warrant to decide if a conversion is genuine or not. That is above my pay grade.
The only thing I can do is see that the gospel is clearly proclaimed and that the one professing faith has a genuine understanding of that gospel and has made that profession.
Judging whether it is genuine or not is simply not my right. I see no evidence of it being done at the point of salvation in the NT either.
Dave,
Jared (and I) are using the word “profession” and you used the word “conversion”. That’s a difference. We are trying our best to see if the profession is a valid profession…which means the same thing that you do when you say, “genuine understanding of that gospel”.
Dave, I agree with what Mike said. I think you, him, and I are largely arguing the same thing.
Let me be clear about what I am saying. There is no universal language and we each imbue these words with different meanings.
But I am saying that it is warranted to make sure the understanding of the gospel and the profession of faith is accurate. If someone says, “I believe Jesus will help me clean up my life,” then the profession is confused at best and more teaching/instruction on the gospel of grace is necessary.
But what is not warranted, in my understanding, is trying to determine if a biblically-clear profession is genuine. Simon, in Acts 8, made a profession clear enough to be baptized, but turned out to be false.
I need to clarify the profession – it would be irresponsible to do otherwise. But I am not responsible to discern whether that clear profession is valid or not.
I am instructed here by Jesus’ parable of the wheat and tares referenced above. The servants of the master asked if they should go out and try to remove all the weeds. The master responded (Mt 13:29), “No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them.”
Dave,
Do you think it is necessary in someones profession for them to have “counted the cost”? If so, then I don’t disagree with anything that you are saying in that statement. But I do want to safeguard against someone just reciting biblical facts b/c they’ve grown up in a Christian home. I think my little boy (who is 4) could probably articulate the gospel pretty well. But I know from living with him that he doesn’t really understand the gospel yet.
From the post above, “We must proclaim a clear gospel and call people clearly to repent of their sins and commit themselves to Christ, having counted the cost.”
That’s a good quote. Who said it?
Dave,
Would you say that those baptized today have the same Old Testament understanding as those baptized in the above biblical references?
Also, do you do immediate baptisms – why or why not?
Probably not. What is the point?
My point is that since you answered “probably not” to both questions your whole line of reasoning in the post falls apart.
Unless our confidence for believers lies not in WHAT they know, but in WHOM they know. If they have been baptized into Christ…if the Holy Spirit indwells them…then is the presence of the Spirit so weak as to need a Bible degree to prop it up?
Bart, I did not vie for a Bible degree. LOL I was also trying to answer Dave on his own ground as he presented his positions. I mean – don’t we do exegesis et al in context to the best of our abilities?
However, if we are to follow Scriptures lead it is worth examining to find how to be as biblical as possible. Besides, it seems that if we do a little reductio on your rhetoric we could claim the power of the Spirit to the point where the Bible is dismissed all together. I.e. Peter did not have to go through all of that OT explanation in Acts 2 identifying Jesus.
Mark,
Rather than doing away with Bible study altogether, I’m content to argue that he who has the Spirit will necessarily study the Bible. Ad interim, the leadership of the Holy Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit will qualify the new convert in whatever way one needs to be qualified in order to receive baptism and to function in the body.
Well, with that devastating analysis, I should probably take the post down.
Why don’t you make your point instead of asking leading questions and leaving snarky comments.
Dave, Dave, Dave….what’s got your knickers in a twist? Listen, I know your Yankees are going down to a team with a significantly lower payroll and all, but hey, at least you guys made the playoffs, right? Isn’t that enough?? I mean, the honor is just to be there, huh?
🙂 I added the emoticon cause I know you love them so much. LOL
Snarky comments? Excuse me? I meant no snark whatsoever. My apologies for coming across that way.
The questions were to uncover a bit more about your understanding, etc. I basically said the same thing that others said in several paragraphs.
My point was simple, but I had to ask questions to be sure it was correct. To compare those in NT times who most likely had a much greater understanding of the Messiah and the OT with today’s Christians isn’t exactly apples to apples, IMO. My perspective is that your “probably not” answer reveals that you may feel the same. Therefore, the first part of your post where Scripture is used seems to be a less substantial argument.
Peter’s sermon and gospel call at Pentecost is a good example showing that those he was preaching to understood much more about the Messiah than your average American unbeliever who visits Sunday and hears a sermon.
I still don’t see how that changes the fact that baptism immediately followed conversion in every instance in Acts. Did Simon have that same understanding? Lydia? Cornelius?
Dave, transcribing the actions and responses of first century Christians on to the Church today does not strike me as offering an effective way forward on this. I think those that are becoming more interested in “pre-baptismal vetting” are trying to faithfully translate the actions and responses of the first century to ours. The differences in the contexts of the earliest believers to our own are so different that I think the transcription you are advocating is completely inadequate to the task of discipling a healthy church body.
Everyone agrees (or should) that discipleship is the key issue, but how that’s done has changed a lot over time. The different methods have had different effects in different contexts. The issue is not just faithfulness to something you perceive to be a prescribed method to be faithfully followed no matter the cost. The issue is also faithfulness to what the church is supposed to be and look like in the New Testament. If pre-baptismal vetting gets us closer to the NT ideal of the Church then it would seem that that should outweigh the legalistic impulse to follow a method of gospel presentation, “belief” then baptism.
I don’t know what those 3000 converts found so compelling on Pentecost that brought them to believe, but I’m not going to pretend that my 21st century understanding of the “gospel” based on the developments of theology and mission in the last century are sufficient to the task to replicate that kind of conversion in exactly the same way I want to imagine it as a 21st century person. The challenges of our present are different than the challenges of the first century. They require great care in thoughtfulness and prayer to overcome in a way that is faithful to scripture. We have many “weak converts” living their entire lives that way preaching a “weak gospel” and making many more “weak converts” whose weak faith may or may not be found out. I think one of the surest ways to continue this damaging cycle is to pretend like history has no effect on us and that merely following the English words in our Bibles literally we’ll overcome this (or at least overcome as best can be done) and make things better.
Discipleship is not separable from our view of what the Church is supposed to be. I think more attention does need to be paid to the cost of following and the cost of the grace we preach and these things need to begin with a radical re-evaluation of what we think God expects of those who claim to follow him lest we incur the judgments many of the churches in Revelation were threatened with. Does our response to God’s grace really change our lives in all the ways the Bible describes a changed believer? The answer for weak converts on their lips may be yes, but in their hearts it’s an emphatic no. The Nicolaitans are alive and very well due to our belief that history doesn’t affect us and conflating transcription of Biblical principles with translation of biblical principles.
I should also make clear to those who think I sound harsh that I neither know or have met Dave personally. I would not dream of passing judgment on him or Southern Hills. I am only engaging with his ideas based on the way I’ve personally tended to see such sentiments work out in Christians around me. Any alarmism others detect is the passion I’ve come to have for this subject in my growth as a Bible-believing Christian. I hope this exchange can further help both of us to grow in understanding and fellowship and challenge us to both live more Biblically.
If we do not look at the pattern in the Scriptures as a guide, but instead substitute our own wisdom for that in the Bible, I think we are on shaky ground.
Maybe, if the way we do discipleship has changed from the way it was done in the early church – that in and of itself is the problem?
Amen
A guide is one thing. An inflexible agenda is something else. Does God not provide us with wisdom? Can the Holy Spirit not reveal what the best way forward is for our particular situation? Did God’s incarnation give Him no sympathy towards different expressions of culture? Is the true Church the one that has done things exactly the same way and had the same theology for 2000 years? Where/what/who is that church?
The church before Constantine and after the NT regularly required potential converts to be discipled for 18-36 months before they were allowed to be baptized and join the local congregation. Most of that time was spent in exorcism, thelogical instruction and the development of good virtues and repentance of vices. I know you’re not advocating that.
I’m reticent to discuss church history with the good Dr. Barber lurking around here, but am willing to be instructed. As I remember it, though, the post-apostolic church descended rather rapidly, disturbingly so, into a number of heresies. Baptismal regeneration. Gnostic-type practices. Christological problems.
No, I am saying that the revelation of Scripture is authoritative for these things. If there is a clear pattern in Acts (and no one so far has argued against that clear pattern) then perhaps we should seek to follow that pattern ourselves, not assume that we have grown to understand something superior.
Church history is instructive, but is not authoritative. God’s word is inerrant truth.
Fear not. Be of good courage, Dave.
[…because you’re right.]
Church History only becomes authoritative when I teach it.
You are kind of on a roll today, Bart.
The Doctor adjusted my medication again.
The NT church already suffered from numerous troubles and false teachings. Paul didn’t write all those warnings and admonitions to a pristine Church and John warnings in Revelation confirms this. The NT church was not pristine and perfect any more than the Church has been in any period or place since.
I agree with you that Scripture is authoritative and I have argued against your pattern before. I’ll refresh your memory in a comment below.
Man, I need some of that medicine = please share!
Rob
this was fun 🙂
Dave I would like your thoughts on this issue. I don’t think it is as much a baptism problem as it is a conversion problem. The misuse of a sinners prayer, which many pastors use, leads to a verbal profession without a positive possession.
We as pastors, most of us anyway, are at the mercy of the church when it comes to receiving new converts. A mother who is a member of the church can stir up more trouble than a pastor can handle because there was a delay in her five year old child not being baptized or failure not to bring the child into church membership, or failing to acknowledge their profession of faith.
How much fault lies with the pastor and how much lies with the church?
Well, as I said in the post, we must be careful to proclaim the gospel clearly and call people to repent and believe.
If there is a flaw in our gospel presentation, there will often be flaws in the gospel response of people.
Of course, we must be very careful to present the gospel accurately.
Dave,
This has been a very interesting conversation in our church as we are rewriting our constitution and by-laws. It has caused me to really dive into this issue and I’m thankful for it.
At the end of the day I think our positions would be pretty similar. I too don’t find any scriptural evidence for “discipleship classes” before baptism, or “extensive” vetting as you say. But I also wonder why you are using such strong words like “extensive”. If you are against lengthy periods of “trial” then I am too. In your first two points you are saying something very similar to what I have been saying recently. A valid profession of faith is what is required. But that begs a question in my mind…
Did a profession of faith in Christ mean something different (or look differently) in the first century context than it does in the vestiges of 21st century Christendom? Or even today, does it mean something different to “profess Christ” in the Deep South–where parents and grandparents will attend your baptism and cheer–than it does to “profess Christ” in a Muslim-country in the 10/40 window where your parents and grandparents will disown you or even behead you?
While I agree that the description of baptism in the New Testament is profession and then baptism, I have to wonder is this something that is also prescriptive. As you noted it gives a pattern but not an instruction book. Does that pattern remain the same if it’s practice is done in a different context?
Those are questions I’m struggling through.
Also your #5 is something that we have been considering. But it opens up a whole other can of worms. If baptism is part of an initiation rite into the family of God and as modeled in a local assembly of believers then how can we have full-fledged members and some that are not? You don’t really see that in the NT. What you see is that when people are baptized that is their initiation into the body of Christ. It seems like a practical solution but it gets just as sticky.
Well, I’m not sure how to answer the question. Of course, we all carry different conceptions into our confessions. But the core would still be the same, an expression of repentance and faith.
As to point #5, this might be a key. We could develop a system in which we baptize into Christ and into a provisional membership. Once an introductory new-members class is finished and any issues are ironed out, then full membership is vested.
I think this discussion will lead down the same path as that which happened at Bethlehem on the issue of membership in their church for those that did not affirm believers baptism. I believe that Piper argued that the door of the local church shouldn’t be more narrow than the door of the universal church.
I think where you land on that question determines the validity of a system that has some baptized into the body but only into a provisional membership.
I guess I believe that the door to the universal church and the door to the local church can, in fact, be very different.
We recognize many people as members of the Body of Christ who we do not recognize as members of our church. And would not.
So, I think that the door to the local church is necessarily narrower.
The wayward member you kick out of fellowship through church discipline is still a member of the universal church. If you would make local church membership coextensive with universal church membership, you must necessarily either abandon church discipline or side with Cyprian to declare extra ecclesiam nulla salus and pronounce an anathema upon any who is subjected to discipline.
extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
Thankful for wikipedia today.
“extra ecclesiam nulla salus”
On point as usual – a further validation of Dave’s point that human authorities are not in the position to validate or determine a condition of the human heart which is God’s business (salvation). He knows who is in the universal church – and our list is not the same as ours I recon. All were given is to obey Him.
Brilliant.
Rob
Bart,
“The wayward member you kick out of fellowship through church discipline is still a member of the universal church. ”
Just a point of clarification. I think this should read, “The wayward member you kick out of fellowship through church discipline MAY still a member of the universal church. Maybe not.”
While a true believer may be excommunicated and be treated as an unbeliever, excommunication may in fact also be done on a tare person…a false professor.
Les
I agree, Les. Thanks for helping me to write with better clarity.
Bart,
BTW brother, I was sure you meant what I said too. But you know how it goes…someone might misunderstand.
Blessings,
Les
So, here is a question. An open homosexual professes faith in Christ. He has been living that life for a long time and it has a strong hold on his life.
Do you demand that he work through all of the ramifications of his sinful lifestyle before he is baptized? Or do you baptize him on profession and then guide him through the discipleship process as the Holy Spirit transforms?
My guess is most would withhold baptism until he “cleans himself up.” I think that is wrong. Understandable, but wrong.
Dave, I’d baptize a repentant homosexual.
What is his attitude toward that sin?
Not necessarily the ramifications of it. But what is his attitude concerning sin? Is he fighting it?
I wouldn’t withhold baptism until he “cleans himself up”. But is he in the process of cleaning up? If he has an attitude towards sin where he does not model a life of repentance then if you baptized him you’d then need to exercise church discipline shortly thereafter.
Credible profession of faith? Dunk him.
I would baptize him because the question might be: “If the head of some agency whose goal was to hunt and kill Christians professed Christ, would we baptize him or hold out until he proves himself?” I think God answered that question in Acts 9. Also, I think John the Baptist in Matt 3 is a great pattern for us – he called for repentance but nowhere in the ready of that passage do I see John the Baptize refusing to baptize them.
Dave
We baptize folks based upon a testimony of their faith in which they are able to explain the gospel,(not perfectly), their need for Christ. and their conversion experience which includes repentance and faith in Christ alone.
I gladly baptize them before the church-but in order to join the church they need to go through new members class like everyone else who joins the church. In this class we have more intensive discipleship before they enter into membership. Our goal is to help them understand the benefits and blessings of being a church member at MMBC. Great article, thx BJ
Overall: AGREE. The biblical pattern is conversion, baptism, then teaching. In fact, that’s also the order in which these things appear in the Great Commission.
1. AGREE.
2. AGREE.
3. AGREE.
4. Don’t necessarily disagree with the concept you’re advocating, but I do differ with your exegesis of this parable. This is not what the parable of the Wheat and the Tares signifies. The field is the world, not the church. I believe that this is actually a parable about religious liberty. We’re not to go about binding up and burning the “tares” in the field of the world. I would rather than you made your point with something other than this parable.
5. Disagree entirely. It is only a big, hairy, frightening deal to acknowledge someone’s church membership when you know that church discipline will be a problem or an impossibility. Otherwise, church membership is not final.
Frankly, I believe that CONVERSION makes someone a member of your congregation. It’s just that the congregation becomes certain of one’s conversion when that person has publicly testified to it by baptism, and that the member who refuses or avoids baptism has to be disciplined out immediately before their membership even begins.
I’ll put it this way: Do we not owe the “one another” responsibilities in the New Testament to the newly converted believer? And halfway membership is no more biblical than is delayed baptism. Don’t go all Solomon Stoddard on us here! 😉
6. AGREE.
I’m not advocating a halfway covenant or anything like that. I am not really advocating anything at this point, but opening a door of discussion.
But, what I am wondering about is the wisdom of a “probationary” period for membership. I was in a church once that did it. You joined a home fellowship group, then 3 months later, if you had given indication of a willingness to fulfill the covenant of membership, you were recommended for membership in the bigger church.
The problem comes when someone whose life is broken by sin comes to Christ. Sometimes, there are issues that have to be worked through in the membership process, but I do not think the discipleship process should precede the baptism.
I am interested in this question. Do you, as a church, allow attenders who are not members to serve in any way? To take communion (assuming for this discussion that they have been biblically baptized)?
If we allow non-members to partake of SOME of the blessings of church fellowship, is that not de facto a form of halfway covenant?
I’m all in favor of a probationary period of membership…
…so long as it never ends.
Brilliant.
Dave,
I think this is an excellent post. I think you give a great foundation for helping people come to a “full, exciting, fruitful” life in Christ beginning from the springboard of baptism.
I think you avoid the “extremes” of “pre-vetting” and “non-discerning.”
I couldn’t have done better myself — which is why I enjoy Voices.
Dave, thanks for a very scripturally based and definitive post on the subject.
Two thoughts
1. In our new church plant we implemented a phased membership. When someone is baptized upon their profession of faith, seeks membership int he church through transfer of letter of statement of faith they are immediately accepted in to “Watchcare” or provisional membership. They are members of the fellowship but can not vote or hold office UNTIL they complete a New Member Orientation class that is built around the Church’s Covenant and ends with their public signing of the Covenant.
We used a similar pattern in our English Language churches in Europe back in the 70’s when I first entered the pastorate and it has proven to be useful in helping people solidify their understanding of their relationship with Christ even to the point where we have seen more than a few realize that they needed to accept Christ and follow in believer’s baptism.
Since our new church plant is only 3 months old and we’ve seen 5 adult professions of faith followed by 4 baptisms (the other one went to the church her family attends and was baptized) we are just now beginning our New Member Orientation for 15 who desire membership. Since the vast majority of these have little or no adult church history they have readily accepted the watchcare provision.
2. I struggle with those who develop extra biblical steps between profession and baptism. Two words I’ve seen repeatedly used in this discussion are “valid” and “discern”.
Both infer that as a pastor we somehow have the ability to know what only God knows. As you mentioned Jesus Himself cautioned us about making these decisions. (If I were to make it, I sure would have a problem with Lot vexing his righteous soul when his lifestyle was totally anti-God. In addition, if I were one of the original disciples I would have had a problem with Peter preaching the Pentecost sermon after he denied Jesus 3 times.)
To me the discussion is rooted in accepted the clear presentation of Scripture verses what some ‘THINK’. For me, the Bible says it, that settles it – whether I believe it or not.
Blessings my brother
I like your tiered system in point 1 and agree fully with your point 2.
It would seem that an open homosexual professes faith in Christ would also be called to repentance prior to baptism. If not, should the unrepentant be baptized? (Not, I’m not asking for perfect repentance.) If so, should only some sins be repented of?
The beauty of Baptism is that Our Lord Himself stood in line with some pretty rough repentent sinners of His day, waiting for St. John the Baptizer to baptize Him . . .
He was innocent, yet He stood WITH those people . . . they were imperfect, and weak, and knew it, and sought out St. John’s help,
and Our Lord stood WITH them . . .
something about that should give great comfort to a homosexual man who is repenting his life-style and wanting to live for Christ.
Our Lord still stands WITH us, you know . . . through all the sincere moments of faith in our lives . . . it’s His strength we are needing here on the rough side of the mountain
As old as I am, I may not have time to read all the comments to I’ll offer my simple opinion without that.
Separate baptism from membership. Membership classes, part of discipleship, as a pre-requisite to membership, make all the sense in the world to me. Think about it .. folks wander in, sit through a service, like what they see, so they want to join. They’ve been baptized, so we take them in, and neither one knows much at all about the other.
That ought not to be. I spoke a few weeks ago with a SBC pastor who has new member classes mandatory in his church, and has had since he heard a professor remark “It’s easier to join a Baptist Church than it is to join the Kiwanis Club”. And that ought not to be.
A member ought to be sure about the church and the church should be sure of the member. And that’s unconnected to baptism.
I am reluctant to leave what has been a thoughtful and interesting discussion here. But I’ve got to do some other things, like study for my Bible study tonight.
Enjoy the discussion and play nice.
At least you don’t have to study for your Wednesday evening prayer meeting…
Bart,
I appreciate your ad interim answer though it seems to shift the debate a bit.
Going back to the OT information Peter used in Acts 2 to explain Jesus is one way the Spirit qualifies the new convert. That is, Peter’s teaching was a vehicle to explain Who he was calling people to believe in.
Even so, defining Jesus today might look differently than what Peter preached to his audience. I’m not writing in absolutes, but hashing this out. Narrowing my point – unbelievers need to know Who they are called to believe in and Acts 2 gives a good example of how Peter explained Jesus.
Mark,
I presume that some modicum of knowledge about Jesus is prerequisite to conversion. That which one must know about Jesus in order to be baptized, one must also know about Jesus in order to be converted. I agree that my ad interim statement shifts the debate somewhat from my “Bible degree” comment. But you can take the ad interim comment as my genuine position and the “Bible degree” comment as my hyperbolic jousting for recreational purposes.
An excerpt from a paper I wrote in seminary on this (almost) very same topic:
When Miller sees “no evidence of any kind of screening process, membership class, or discipleship process that preceded baptism,” I would contend that each of those eight passages contains the “screening process, membership class, or discipleship process” within them.
In Acts 2:38-41, Peter had just addressed a crowd in the preceding verses on Pentecost and we see in verse 40 that “With many other words he testified and exhorted them… (NET)” In Acts 8:12, Philip “was proclaiming the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ.” This preceded the baptism of many Samaritans. Later on in Acts 8 when Philip is lead to the Ethipoian eunuch we see in verse 35, “So Philip started speaking, and beginning with this scripture proclaimed the good news about Jesus to him. (NET)” The scripture the eunuch asked explanation for was Isaiah 53:7-8. The Isaiah passage did not reference baptism so it must be the case that in Philip’s proclamation of the good news that he taught the eunuch about baptism since in the very next verse the eunuch asks to be baptized in a body of water his chariot had come upon. With Saul’s baptism in Acts 9 there is not any mention of someone proclaiming or exhorting him. This is no trouble though if we consider the context. Saul is a learned Pharisee persecuting Christians. He would not be persecuting them if he were not aware of what they were claiming and had an idea of why it was false. Upon his encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus, his reasons were shattered and the Christian teachings he would already be aware of would have made perfect sense. The power of this encounter and the thoroughness of his transformation of mind and heart lead him to immediately be baptized into Christ. At Cornelius’s house in Acts 10 he summarizes a message he says these gentiles already know. When the Holy Spirit comes upon them they are baptized because it is obvious they are in Christ by now. Lydia heard Paul speak by the river outside Philippi and asked him in Acts 16:15, “If you consider me to be a believer in the Lord, come and stay in my house. (NET)” The verse then mentions that she “persuaded” them. This demonstrates not only an account of the Gospel given by Paul and the baptism undertaken by those who have “counted the cost,” but also an opportunity when Paul is made certain of the competence of her belief. Later on in Acts 16 is the story of the Philippian jailer. While the jailer was asleep right before the earthquake happened while Paul and Silas were “praying and singing hymns to God” (Acts 16:25) we see that throughout the rest of the New Testament that it was not uncommon for Paul to have preached while in jail. Assuming this was the case this time as well, the jailer would have already heard the message once which would explain the very abrupt answer Paul gives him to “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household.”(Acts 16:31) However, Paul still goes home with him and gives the message again. Finally, in Acts 19, Paul runs into some of John the Baptist’s disciples in Ephesus and baptizes them into Christ, since their former baptism was one of repentance. This is another passage that does not mention the Gospel being presented to them beforehand. Like Saul’s baptism it also is not unnatural that there is not an explicit mention of a gospel presentation. John’s disciples were obviously familiar with Jesus since they had no qualms being baptized into him. They had the facts and had counted the cost when they followed John, but they had not connected the place of Jesus in John’s preaching to their lives. The confusion in John’s disciples is similar to the confusion of the disciples after Christ had been crucified and buried. The disciples did not know what to do with themselves until Christ came to them and clarified what was going on before giving them the Great Commission. Similarly, it is now Paul who clarifies for them how what John preached is relevant to Jesus so that they made the connection to the calling upon their own lives.
It seems especially pertinent in these eight passages to highlight the Gospel presentations or knowledge of the Gospel the hearers had to emphasize a point. As Southern Baptists, we take too lightly the constant references to the preaching done by the disciples. It took them three years to come to the knowledge they had to begin to preach like they did. The 15 minute presentations to accompany a mass produced tract, the one-size-fits-all evangelistic strategies like “Share Jesus Without Fear,” and quaint one hour services once a week do not get at what these disciples were doing when they were sharing the Gospel. They shared a full robust gospel often in the week to a variety of people from different backgrounds. They likely took hours to share this message to those who would listen. Baptism biblically may not have catechism before it in the way the early church practiced it, but the messages that were preached in the Bible had a lot more heft to them than what we have accustomed ourselves to today.
To specify some of the things that the Gospel demands of us when we are “counting the cost” an examination of the duties of believers throughout the New Testament is appropriate. The writers of the New Testament gave many commands to the early church. Jesus called his disciples and those who wish to be his disciples to a life of poverty and traveling. Many Christians dismiss this as some kind of exaggerated call to radicality to dismiss the uncommitted (for better or for worse). Yet, there is still a long list of other things that we are called to that would be more or less beyond any expectations we hold for children. They are nonetheless necessary and the Church needs to see that people that commit to Christ are committing themselves to the body of Christ and therefore to the commands relevant to the Body. Here is a partial list of those commands:
– ability to do miracles and speak new languages (Mark 16:16-18)
– present their bodies as a sacrifice, resist conformity to the world, ability to test and approve what the will of God is, think with “sober discernment,” use the gifts God has given us, uplift one another, bless those who persecute us, live in harmony with each other and do not neglect associating with the lowly, and overcome evil with good (Romans 12)
– be united with other believers in mind and purpose (1 Corinthians 1:10)
– the ability to discern all things (1 Corinthians 2:15)
– ability to not be captivated by empty, deceitful philosophy (Colossians 2:8)
– admonish the undisciplined, comfort the discouraged, always rejoice, constantly pray, stay away from every form of evil (1 Thessalonians 5:12-22)
– reject myths (1 Timothy 4:7)
– do not lay hands on anyone hastily (1 Timothy 5:22)
– do not abandon meeting together (Hebrews 10:22-26)
share what we have (Hebrews 13:15-18)
These commands are to be adhered to in the Body of Christ as we exhibit an alternative community to the world. Those in the world that wish to join Christ are not only believing propositions but accepting the cost that those propositions have upon their lives which are given us by the authors of the New Testament.
Scripture hints at the seriousness of the sacraments given to us when Paul writes:
For every time you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. For this reason, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself first, and in this way let him eat the bread and drink of the cup. For the one who eats and drinks without careful regard for the body eats and drinks judgment against himself. That is why many of you are weak and sick, and quite a few are dead. But if we examined ourselves, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned with the world. So then, my brothers and sisters, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that when you assemble it does not lead to judgment. I will give directions about other matters when I come. (1 Cor. 11:26-34)
It is a very serious thing to be identified with Christ. While there are not the measures of judgment connected to baptism that we see here it is no less worthy to pause and consider what this reveals the seriousness of any thing we do according to the will of God as professed Christians. Baptism and the preservation of a holy communion of saints in the visible church deserves considerate, respectful and humble attention by those who administrate baptism and those who will be receiving the believer into communion with their local expression of the universal church.
With regard to the importance of believers being baptized into a local church, it does seem that Scripture takes for granted that being in the Body of Christ is inseparable from being a part of its visible manifestation. If not being connected to the visible church were an option then it would seem that admonitions to accountability and holiness would be inapplicable to those who give themselves no recourse to Christian fellowship. It is one thing for a person to come and desire baptism and go on to another church, but it is not scriptural at all for someone to become a Christian and then not submit themselves in any fashion to the visible church. Christ is head of a body of many interconnected and interdependent parts. He is not the head of a collection of individuals.
In response to Miller’s fourth point that proof of faith is never scripturally demanded, I would respond that it may not take the form of the moral transformation of an individual over the course of a three year catechesis, but it is hard to believe that a basic sincere humility and love would not be immediate fruits from a serious counting of the costs of following Christ. Further discipleship may be needed, but I would be inclined to trust in the insight of the disciples judging these things than to dismiss them as incapable of judging the heart of someone as we may be. That the Church showed evidence of being very cautious in who it let into its folds in the first few centuries should give us pause as to whether we interpret them as simply adding on unnecessarily to scripture, protecting themselves from persecution, potentially compensating for not having the clarity of vision and discernment that the disciples had or some combination of these.
“””That the Church showed evidence of being very cautious in who it let into its folds in the first few centuries should give us pause “”””
I think this is very true, but not absolute. I believe there will be people in heaven–many saved as children–who never “signed a church covenant.”
Was it Wesley who said, “In heaven I expect to see many people I never expected to see, and not see many I had” or something to that affect.
I think it is probably not in our best interest, as Dave points out, to make baptism and church membership a “hard-wired, no-questions-asked, direct one to one relationship.”
On the other hand, Acts says clearly that those baptized were added to the church, implying strongly that it was one transaction.
What I have begun to do is to have a “provisional” expression for membership in which persons are given the opportunity to demonstrate faithfulness after baptism to remain an active member.
This seems to be a working strategy that honors the spiritual nature of baptism and the Scriptural teaching of immediate baptism, without being so open-ended as to encourage non-regenerative church membership.
It always amazes me how little the Bible says about some things that have become so “well-defined” in our polity.
“”””but the messages that were preached in the Bible had a lot more heft to them than what we have accustomed ourselves to today.””””
It seems this statement assumes a lot. It assumes, for example: 1) I don’t preach the same gospel as the early church; or 2) I don’t do as good a job as the early church preachers; 3) or I don’t have as much of the Holy Spirit as those in the early church; or 4) I’m not as committed as those in the early church.
Not only does this assume as much about me, but about “all” preachers in general in our present age.
While proving this proposition requires a significant sampling of “all” the preachers and “all” the sermons preached, debunking the proposition only requires one instance in which it does not apply.
I’ve heard, and read, sermons from preachers (mostly unknown) which would compare admirably with any I’ve read from the Primitive Church.
I do not think your inductive inference stands on sufficient evidence to be relied upon as true.
Why you would assume that a child cannot, for example, speak in an unknown tongue I do not know. I’m assuming your assumption is based upon something other than examining all children who have come to faith. Also, this is not a command in any sense but a resultant activity that is administrated by God (1Cor. 12:4-5).
Also, I do not know why the one declarative passage in regard to this matter spoken from the lips of the Savior, Himself, did not make your list of appropriate Scriptures; that being Mark 9:42. The word, “believe” is not qualified in any way (that I can see) from any other passage in the Bible except that referring to the demons in James, which I think clearly does not apply.
I think there is much useful information woven through your post but I think the basic premise is flawed.
Frank L. said, “While proving this proposition requires a significant sampling of “all” the preachers and “all” the sermons preached, debunking the proposition only requires one instance in which it does not apply.”
This is simply untrue. I’m pretty sure I never said that “all” preachers preach a cheap gospel. I don’t need a large sample size when I’m referring to the trends I notice in my own experience. Of course, there are preachers who preach a robust Gospel, but I think they a very small minority of Christian preachers these days. If you disagree with that then we’ve either had very different experiences of gospel presentations among preachers or we have very different definitions of a “full, robust gospel.”
I also do not understand where you get that I think that a child can not speak in another tongue. I don’t believe I anywhere claimed that they could not do that or any of the things listed. My point is that the list of what is expected of a believer is very large, very difficult and requires much consideration. What I don’t believe is that the vast majority of children can uphold all of those commands/expectations or even nearly as many of them as an adult can (I’d remind you this is an excerpt from a larger paper where my position is more nuanced than it may seem from this selection). It seems to me that the expectations we have for someone who calls themself a Christian should be based on Scriptures like these and not on how nice or well-mannered they appear to be or how well they list off the propositional truths of orthodoxy.
Blake. Your right. We disagree on your check list of what a person must know or believe to be a Christian and qualify for baptism.
My checklist has one box–Jesus.
Also. We disagree on where the power lies–I believe it is in the message not the messenger. If I believed that it all hinged on me being “full and robust” as a preacher I would find another job.
Also we have a different experience to be sure. The preachers I know by a wide margin put everything they have and are into every message.
I don’t doubt your experience in your area is the opposite , except for yourself and a few others as you say. I cannot speak for you or even the “majority” as you say.
Our checklists are different, but our application of them seems to be. When I go to check off Jesus in someone’s box (to continue with this bad and maybe heretical analogy) I look to the rest of scripture to define what it means for someone to claim to follow Jesus. If I did not do that then Paul, the other disciples and Jesus himself wasted a lot of time with a lot of extra words and teachings. However, I also think some of our difference (or maybe miscommunication) comes because I do not know your concept of what the Body of Christ is and how that relates to the local congregation and you do not know mine. Those were things I addressed in the larger paper. I hope you would agree that discipleship is not entirely separable from our belief in what the Church is? How we disciple and what the content of that discipleship is seems to inevitably form the basis and structure of the local congregation’s expression to the world and other believers.
I also agree that the power lies in the Holy Spirit’s work through the message, but I think you would agree that the messenger isn’t an inconsequential part of the equation, right? If the messenger is inconsequential then the Great Commission does not matter. I certainly don’t agree with that and I suspect you don’t either. We do not have so many exhortations and commands in Scripture because everything is out of our control and in God’s hands (including our response). We have such admonishments precisely because we can respond faithfully to God’s calling. It is about the message more than the messenger, but I bet you’d have a bone or few to pick with members of your congregation if they started making Jonah their role model for evangelism.
Blake,
As you put it in this post, I think I could agree, if you allow that any “check list” (as bad as that analogy is) is left up to the local church and is an “ecclesiastical matter” not a soteriological one.
I’m not near as concerned about the messenger’s prowess (“full and robust”). The messenger is consequential, though his abilities are not. That’s how I’d view it.
The key for me is “integrity” not ability, and maybe it is with you and we are just using different words to describe the same process. I think I can see what you are getting at.
Frank L., I do not think the “checklist changes” since it is based on Scripture and Scripture does not change, but I do think it is up to the local church to determine how to apply it. I, also, am not concerned with the messenger’s prowess. “Full and robust” are supposed to describe the gospel, not the messenger. The gospel preached in our churches should be full and robust in accordance with all Scripture and not weak and cheap in accordance with what makes for an easy presentation. It is integrity I am concerned with as well and is why it is essential for the Church to pay attention to its fruits to have such integrity.
Scanned and didn’t see it, but has anyone mentioned this passage in the discussion?
yES, Someone mentioned it. It is the only such verse in the Bible and it deals with the Pharisees who “already” considered themselves right with God.
Seem pretty relevant to me…
We must be careful not to prooftext. John’s baptism is not the Christian Baptism. John’s baptism is linked to a person’s repentance. The Christian baptism is linked to a person’s rebirth. The Christian pattern for Baptism set forth in Scripture is regeneration and baptism. This cannot be debated. The baptism was done without any discipleship. If a local church wants to add a new believer’s class as a prerequisite for membership that is their prerogative. However, such a class cannot be mandated from Scripture as being necessary for baptism.
Dean,
…and yet it was a baptism resulting from the exact same message that Christ preached…”Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.”
I think I agree with Randall on this one. The message preached by Jesus and the apostles placed just as much emphasis on repentance as that preached by John the baptist. I don’t see how you can tie baptism to faith (or profession of faith) and not tie it, at the same time to repentance (or to profession of repentance).
However, I agree that baptism is not tied anywhere in the NT to Bible knowledge or doctrinal understanding. To put it more technically, I believe that the criteria for biblical baptism are of a volitional rather than a cognitive nature. Although we cannot always see what is in someone’s heart at the time of baptism (as in the case of Simon Magus), there are other times when notorious public sin calls for “fruit in keeping with repentance.”
A separate, but related matter, is the baptism of children (not infants). I don’t want to hijack the comment stream, but I believe the criteria for baptizing children is somewhat different than that for adults. I wrote a post spelling out my thinking on this here:
http://sbcimpact.org/2008/07/09/semi-infant-baptism-in-baptist-churches/
I think I’m going with David and Randall on this.
Acts 19 teaches that John’s baptism is probably not relative to this discussion unless someone is going to baptize with John’s baptism.
There was no power in John’s Baptism. But John said that one is coming after me who will Baptize with fire and the Holy Spirit.
So when we Baptize in His name, He is there. He commanded it…so He must be in it.
So, we Baptize to put God’s grace ahead of our faith. And then we teach about it, and Him, so folks will know about the promises that God has made in their Baptism. That’s in the case of little ones, or babies. With adults, we teach them a bit beforehand…and continue to teach adults and little ones for a lifetime…hopefully.
We are really talking about baptism as it is presented in the Bible, which leaves out infant baptism, Steve. Sorry.
Dave, glad to see someone with a forum to speak to as many as you do taking on this issue. It needs to be discussed, there are so many extremes among Baptists, with the “easy-believism” get-em-in-and-dunk-em-before-they-change-their-minds on one end, and the “take a class for a year or so and pass it” on the other end. The Bible must be our guide.
I would add two scriptures to your list from my list: [1] the days following Pentecost — people were being saved and added to the church daily (Acts 2:47); and [2] the Corinthians, who were baptized when they believed (Acts 18:8). Some might think the first “iffy” since baptism is not specifically mentioned. But I think the overall context will support it. They were being added daily. The second seems clear enough.
Your point that the “only biblical condition on baptism is a valid profession of faith in Christ” is important and unassailable, in my opinion. If the scriptures command believers to be baptized (and they do, Acts 2:38, 10:48, e.g.), and command the church to baptize (and it does, Matt. 28:18-20, e.g.), then the only valid reason we have for not baptizing them is that we do not think the profession of faith is credible.
This is slightly off topic, but do any of you make accommodation for baptismal preferences such as location? For example I insisted on being baptized in a river. I am going to be baptizing a couple this weekend in a creek behind their house (yes, it will be like the polar bear dip). I think many people may find more significance in their baptism being as close as possible to what was practiced in biblical times. (without casting aspersions on people baptized in other, manmade locales)
Bill M.,
I think that is a good idea, Bill. Not necessary in the least, but if the symbolism of locale helps some remember the promises of God in their Baptism, then I would be all for it.
Bill Mac,
I’ll baptize anywhere, it doesn’t matter to me. I remember baptising in the Cumberland river. The river was swift, muddy, and bone chilling cold.
The water was so swift that sand and gravel was washing from under my feet,and I was sinking. I baptized the husband first, when he came up out of the water he said “ouuuuuuuu” instead of praise the Lord. When the wife came up out of the water she said, “BURRRRRRRRR.” I thought baptism is not what it used to be.
So…when will My Favorite Iowan be having his spontaneous baptismal service?
This seems to be the current hot item on the subject…firetrucks with bells dinging are so 1990s.
Here is my story. I was baptized as a child. I know I was sincere, but I came to know that I wasn’t saved. Parents divorced when I was 8. Grandparents did their best to keep me in church. Ended by age 11. Life took a downward turn. I still believed in Jesus, but knew I wasn’t saved. Occasional visits to church through the years. Lots of baggage. Intellectual questioning. Was told I shouldn’t question!! I had to!! I knew I wasn’t saved, but saw people in church who were obviously glued to the minister’s words. I saw the hypocrits too. I wondered how I could find out what it was about them that made them saved. How could I be saved and know it? Lagged on for years, in and out of questioning.
For me it ended in brokenness or began?? Most of my life had passed me by. The best years when I could have had something to offer the Lord. I crumpled to the floor sobbing. 2008. Looking up at the ceiling in my darkened room. Hands outstretched in surrender. “I can’t do it any more. I need you. I can’t go on like this any more. Please help me, God. Forgive me. Forgive me. Help me.” Peace. Warmth. From my head, through my shoulders, down my arms, like an embrace. The sobbing stopped. I rested in the most blessed calm. Then I remembered sins and confessed them asking forgiveness as they came to my mind one after another, feeling lighter with each confession, and thanking God for his forgiveness. My mind seemed to waken to this new peace and I became aware of the room and this desire to find a Bible. I had a number of them. I’d never understood the Bible when reading it and I didn’t understand all I read that night, but I did understand enough that I kept repeating to myself, “Oh, this is good stuff.” I was 58, filled with regrets and wondering how God could love me and forgive me after all I had done and yet I knew he had. Like they say, “I knew that I knew that I knew”. After all those years, I finally understood why those folks in church were so rapt at the words coming from the pulpit. They weren’t just words. They were life.
I wouldn’t tell anyone at first. I was so afraid that it would be taken away from me that I would wake up and be lost again. After two months I shared my gift with another Christian who invited me to her church. I attended for two years without joining. I loved the people and my Sunday school class, but I felt I was missing something. I was also concerned about joining based on emotions. I was and am an emotional person and it was an emotional church in many ways. For me it had to be intellect. I attended an information class and received a booklet detailing the beliefs of the church and we were asked to read it and consider it carefully to make sure we were willing to commit to the church beliefs, otherwise not to join. There was one point that I knew I couldn’t say yes to truthfully.
I went to another church and from the first sermon, I knew I was home. I had some issues with the personal expressions, but none with the doctrine. I attended for one year, settling those concerns in my heart by talking to other wiser, more mature Christians and friends. Flash forward 2010. I joined the church and asked for baptism on the right side of salvation. Now it’s 2012. I’ve learned a lot and read a lot, but I have been alone for months. The Holy Spirit is withholding himself from me. Why? I think I know. I am having difficulty staying in the Word, difficulty understanding the Word, and feeling abandoned. Busy-ness has overtaken me. I need discipleship. All new Christians do and someone to ask questions of along the way after that.
My thoughts: Yes, preach the Gospel message. Explain it is the narrow road and what that means. Let people know that they should not take the Gospel lightly and join out of a sense of duty or social pressure. Offer appointments and a class for those that want to join but have questions. There’s nothing wrong with that. I didn’t want to walk down the aisle until I knew I was doing it for the right reasons.
The people of the Bible were taught, before and after. Let people know that they CAN know with certainty that they are saved. Let them know that it’s OK to have questions before and after and that it’s important to have a brother or sister in Christ to help answer those questions. I was 58 when I was saved and 62 now. I still want that discipleship class. I have questions and more come up at intervals in my study. We all bring baggage with us that affects our growth, I think , until we can actually experience God’s presence and his communication with us in prayer. I highly recommend Anne Graham Lotz, Bible Study, “The Vision of His Glory”. I’m in it now and it is teaching me how to read the Bible and study in such a way that God will begin to speak to me in his Word. I attended “Just Give Me Jesus” where this method was touched on.
Well, that’s my story and I’m definitely sticking with it. It will help me when I am blessed to help lead others to Christ.
One more quick note regarding my great sorrow over wasting my life and not being able to work for the Lord all those years. A dear Christian friend told me about a card that she received once. It said,
“A Moth has moments, not months, but it is time enough”.
God has given me the same salvation that others have experienced at much much younger ages. How tremendously grateful I am that HE let me slip in under the wire. I want God to use me to write His story until there is nothing left but the eraser.
Dave,
Thanks for the article. Have been dealing with this from time to time in the Church I pastor. I enjoyed and got a lot out of this that will be useful for us.
Alan Davis
Dave, you and I are in full agreement on this. Good stuff!
Donald