Much of what is recorded in Acts is historical narrative, describing many (literal) events that happened during the beginning of the Church Age. It is essential that one understands the difference between prescriptive and descriptive passages of Scripture. Failure to heed this warning can lead to many misapplications of the Biblical text. The book of Acts is primarily filled with Descriptive/Narrative passages. We must keep this in mind before me make NORMATIVE certain events in Acts that where not meant to be duplicated. In short then, Acts shows us what authentic Christianity looked like in all of her blessed simplicity. This book provides us with many vivid illustrations of discipleship, evangelism, and Biblical church growth.
Acts 2:41-47 illustrates 4 noteworthy truths:
1. Genuine Salvation precedes biblical baptism (v. 41).
Approximately 3000 people “received the word” and were converted before being “baptized” in Acts 2:41. During the church age, genuine salvation always preceded baptism. Peter commands his listeners to first “repent” and then to be “baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38). This seems to be the clear cut teaching that is illustrated for us in verse 41 (among many New Testament passages). The practice of the early church and of the apostles is what many refer to today as “believer’s baptism.”
Many other New Testament texts could be cited to support this point including a number of historical accounts that are recorded in Acts (Acts 8:30-38; Acts 10:44-48; 16:29-34; 18:7-8). Again, these passages demonstrate the consistent practice of the apostles and the early church: people were saved and subsequently they were also baptized. The early church did not have a category for an un-baptized believer. In modern day vernacular, “you got saved and then you got dunked.”
As the second member of the Triune Godhead, Jesus’ word in Matthew 28:19 is sufficient warrant for the baptism of believers. Jesus commanded his followers, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” The imperative in Matthew 28 is to go and make disciples. Jesus’ clearly teaches us that baptism is only for genuine disciples (literally, baptizing “them”). Jesus and the apostles taught their followers that baptism was a matter of obedience. It is the first step of obedience after a person submits him or herself to the Lordship of Christ at salvation.
Baptism is also about identification; both identification with Christ Himself and identification with the Church (which of course is Christ’s body). Baptism pictures the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ on behalf of the believer, while demonstrating the repentance of faith, and new life the believer has in Christ. Paul asked, "Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life" (Romans 6:3-4; Col 2:12).
As we observe our next point (below) we’ll uncover a connection between baptism and one’s personal identification with the local church.
2. Formal identification with a local church appears to have been the normative pattern with the early church. (v. 41)
It appears that the early church clearly knew who belonged to their local assembly. Acts 1:15 says the church of Jerusalem began with “about a hundred and twenty people.” Specific names from this list are provided in verses 13-14.
After Peter’s powerful sermon on the Day of Pentecost many sinners respond to his exhortation. Those people repented and were baptized in the name of the Lord (vv. 41-42). Luke, the author of Acts, records that about “three-thousand” were added to the church. The Greek word for “added” is prostithemi. This word means to add something to an existing quantity. In the words of one teacher it “speaks of a deliberate, calculated act of adding a select number to a greater, existing whole.” Those who were genuinely saved proceeded to be baptized. Those that were baptized were then consequentially added to the early church.
This same verb (prostithemi) is used again (in a different tense) in Acts 2:47. Luke says that “the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved.” The Greek word used to describe this revival (sozo) is a present passive participle. Luke wants his readers to understand that this was a continuous revival. As the gospel was clearly proclaimed the Lord himself was saving sinners on a consistent basis. This, if you will, was the first revival in the history of the church!
In his historical account Luke records that the following sequential events transpired: In Acts 2:41 the Jews first received the words of Peter (conversion); they were then baptized (identification with Jesus); and as a result they were added to the existing number of those whom were already saved in Jerusalem (further identification with the local church). Following conversion formal identification with Christ and the local church in and through the waters of baptism appears to have been the practice of the local church. The three verbs Luke uses in v. 41 are in the aorist tense. These actions are simple facts. This all took place during the beginning days of the church.
Acts 4:4 records the continued spiritual growth that took place during the churches infancy. Acts 4:4 puts it this way, “the number of men grew to about five thousand.” One author commenting on the word ‘number’ writes, “the word here is the word arithmos from which we get ‘arithmetic’-the science of the computation of numbers.”
It seems fair to deduce from passages like these ones that when people repented of their sins they immediately were baptized and thus connected themselves to a local assembly (a church). They were “added” to some type of official church roster. The New Testament epistles do not have a special category for ‘Lone-Ranger’ Christians. As a New Testament saint, you were either part of a local church or you were not. God saved people, and those same people got baptized. Water baptism identified them with both Christ and His church. This was of course a major step of faith for many Jewish Christians, especially during the days of heavy Roman persecution.
The concept of biblical church discipline (Matthew 18 & 1 Cor. 5) as well as church government (Hebrews 13:17, Acts 20:38, Eph. 4:11ff, Titus 1) seems to imply a formal relationship with the local church. As a pastor, I’m amazed at the excuses Christians make today as to why they have not been baptized. I’m also bewildered at the large percentage of baptized believers who aren’t formally identifying themselves with a local assembly (church). Christians who have not been baptized as well as those who do not belong to a local church seem to be at out odds with the New Testament model.
One of the footnote questions that arise from this conversation is as follows: Should baptism be a prerequisite for church membership? Personally, I think one can make a good case that it should be but I don’t know if one can be absolutely dogmatic about this. If you agree with the basic premises I provided above then you’d probably implement this policy into your church constitution. On the other hand, you may argue that hypothetically one could identify him/herself with a local church today, with the intention to be baptized in the immediate future, and still join the church as a “member.”
This concept (namely that baptism is a prerequisite for formal church membership) seems to be inferred in various descriptive passages in Acts but is not directly taught in any New Testament text. I believe the same thing could be said concerning the concept of formal church membership. Should a church be dogmatic about matters that are only implied and/or deduced from the pages of Scripture? What if those examples only come from the book of Acts? I would argue that it’s something that needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis. At the very least, a church should strive to be consistent in polity and practice.
With that said, I need to reiterate my first two points. 1. Genuine salvation precedes biblical baptism. 2. Formal identification with a local church appears to have been the normative pattern with the early church.
If you are a Baptist (i.e. if you believe in Believer’s baptism), i would be interested in your thoughts pertaining to the footnote question listed above. What say you? To be continued…
11 comments:
Caleb,
I have always held to baptism being a prerequiste for church membership due to the fact that it is simply being obedient to Christ. I guess the way I view it, we wouldn't allow someone to come into membership who was unwilling stop living with their boyfriend/girlfriend b/c they are living in disobedience to Christ.
I would view not having been baptized in the same light (unless there are some unusal circumstances where there is a desire but not an opportunity).
That's where I am.
Greg,
To play the devil's advocate... You wrote, "I have always held to baptism being a prerequiste for church membership due to the fact that it is simply being obedient to Christs." So are lots of things though: tithing, serving, confronting others, etc, etc. Why do you treat baptism differently than some of the other things. Why is it a nec. prerequiste?
Let me know your thoughts-
Caleb
Devils Advocate,
You wrote,
"Why do you treat baptism differently than some of the other things. Why is it a nec. prerequiste?"
I don't think that I do. The other things that you mentioned were serving, tithing and confronting others. I know that I had to sign off via covenant that I would do at least two of the three (tithe and serve) before I joined the church. I think those things should be a prereq as well (as I think they are in a lot of churches i.e. through covenant.
I think that the deal with baptism is that it is a public display of either obedience or disobedience. Either you identify yourself publically with Christ in obedience, or you neglect to do so in blatent disobedience.
I don't think that we should allow someone to attach themselves to the body if they are living in willful disobedience to Christ, i.e. the example I gave of living with a boyfriend/girlfriend. As a shepherd wouldn't that be knowingly placing leaven right on top of the lump?
Regarding confronting others, if we know that their is an unresolved conflict in the life of the prospective church member then I wonder if we should bring them into membership until that has been dealt with biblically (this resolution of conflict was clearly important to Christ in Matt. 5:23 and could be the first chance to really shepherd, even before they join). Maybe this should be a question that is asked in membership interviews.
What say you?
Greg,
I guess i am entertaining the idea of someone professing faith in Christ, then being taught about the importance of the local church (membership) and of believer's baptism. At that point, would it be ok to allow someone to become a member of a local church with the intent to be baptized in the immediate future? I am leaning towards, yes.
I agree with your thoughts though. Would you let someone who is acting disobedient to join your membership ranks w/o making the situation right? You would hope not.
More to come,
Caleb
Greg,
As i've studied this more i made some edits to this article.
What say you?
Caleb
CK,
Very nice update, your in depth study is quite evident. Very nice post.
You wrote:
"On the other hand, you may argue that hypothetically one could identify him/herself with a local church today, with the intention to be baptized in the immediate future, and still join the church as a “member.”"
I guess that I still struggle with this beacuse baptism is an issue of obedience, therefore conversely choosing not to be baptized means that the person is living in disobedience. (I think that there would be an exception to this rule if they had not been given an opportunity, i.e. the church only has one baptism service a month, or the pastor is on sabbatical, etc.)
That being said (and taking into account the above exception) it seems to me like allowing someone to join who "has the intention of being baptized in the immediate future" is like allowing someone to join who has the intention to stop smoking weed, or fornicating in the immediate future. What is stopping them from doing it now? What has held them back up to this point. Can we be sure that they will follow through on their "intention"? Is there potential for leaven to enter the lump and for the church to infer that baptism isn't all that important.
I will acknowledge the fact that I am of a simple mind, and I might just be missing this. I agree with everything that you said about dogmatism born out of narratives that gives us examples of what happened in the early church and aren't commands. I guess this seems black and white to me beacuase in my mind it is an issue of obedience or disobedience.
What say you?
I deleted this comment
Unless I am missing some major exegetical arguments I don’t think the Scriptures demand baptism be a necessary prerequisite for church membership. Church tradition may in some cases demand this but I do not know if God’s Word does. With that said, I don’t have any major reservations with churches that do make this a prerequisite for reasons I already listed above.
Greg,
I think you have to be careful about how far you go with this. Someone can't be holding onto any sin(s)...agreed. But at what level do you expect obedience to all of God's Word?
We are really close on this since we both see baptism as the first step of obedience after one's conversion.
In normal circumstances, we might argue, baptism should preceed membership.
I am mulling over these things in my mind. Thanks for helping me think through these important matters.
How do you think the church should deal with Christians who have been baptized but don't belong to any church? There are tons of people in this category (for various reasons)....
C
Caleb,
"In normal circumstances, we might argue, baptism should preceed membership."
Agreed.
"How do you think the church should deal with Christians who have been baptized but don't belong to any church?"
I haven't intended to ignore you on this, I've just been thinking about it and I hoping I'd come up with a good answer.
Logistically, I'm just not sure. If they show up in our churches we can encourage them and admonish them towards membership. If they don't show up in our church or leave, I suppose we should pray that the church down the street will do the same.
Since we don't find chapter and verse teaching on church membership being a requirement would it ever be appropriate to pursue discipline on a regular attender who wouldn't join? It certainly wouldn't be practical b/c they wouldn't have signed the documentation absolving you from legal liability.
That's a sticky question that I don't have a good answer for.
Matthew 18 church discipline and passages like Hebrews 13:17 seem to demand some type of formal identification with the local church...
I think Pastors need to be more intentional in calling out non-member regular attendees. Esp. those who have been instructed but still choose to stay on the outside looking in.
Blessings,
Caleb
The article' simple assertion that salvation precedes baptism does not flow from the text in Acts 2 and may well contradict it. Peter says repentance and baptism are "unto" ('eis') the forgiveness of sin and presented as preceding reception of the gift of the Spirit. Of course these are controversial and Christianity's various camps have long-entrenched views. But we should not merely retro-fit those views into exegetical endeavors----they are best left aside when dealing with a passage. This particular passage supports a "sacramental view" of baptism. Special pleading is required by those who differ.
Post a Comment