A regenerate church membership

[cornopean]

This post is directed primarily at Baptist and congregational types whom I regard as dear brothers and sisters in the Lord. My quibble is with their continual insistence that church membership be limited to regenerate persons.

I do not disagree in substance with this, but I would suggest that this is a useless assertion. The reason is this; it is impossible for church officers to know who is regenerate and who is not.

To this, my brothers usually reply that they require a credible profession of faith before anyone can join the church. Now this is something with which I can agree. This is useful because we can discern whether a person has made a confession of faith. All of us agree that some professed Christians are hypocrites and are not true Christians. Since this is not something we can discern, we must accept the weeds with the wheat and trust God to sort it out on the last day (Matt 13:41).

and yet for all this...baptists continue to insist on a regenerate church membership. When I ask how they hope to realize that objective, they say that they require a credible profession of faith, and we agree on this. So why then continue to insist on this? Wouldn't it be better to say that all those who profess faith in Christ should be admitted to the church? The idea that we could have a regenerate church membership conveys a very bad idea; i.e. that the elders of a church can discern who is and who isn't truly regenerate.

 

[The Liturgist]

This post is directed primarily at Baptist and congregational types whom I regard as dear brothers and sisters in the Lord. My quibble is with their continual insistence that church membership be limited to regenerate persons.

I do not disagree in substance with this, but I would suggest that this is a useless assertion. The reason is this; it is impossible for church officers to know who is regenerate and who is not.

To this, my brothers usually reply that they require a credible profession of faith before anyone can join the church. Now this is something with which I can agree. This is useful because we can discern whether a person has made a confession of faith. All of us agree that some professed Christians are hypocrites and are not true Christians. Since this is not something we can discern, we must accept the weeds with the wheat and trust God to sort it out on the last day (Matt 13:41).

and yet for all this...baptists continue to insist on a regenerate church membership. When I ask how they hope to realize that objective, they say that they require a credible profession of faith, and we agree on this. So why then continue to insist on this? Wouldn't it be better to say that all those who profess faith in Christ should be admitted to the church? The idea that we could have a regenerate church membership conveys a very bad idea; i.e. that the elders of a church can discern who is and who isn't truly regenerate.

Note that traditional English-American Congregationalism, as opposed to Baptism and some related churches which sometimes have congregational polities, insists on infant baptism and as such assumes the members of its congregation are regenerate.

 

[cornopean]

Note that traditional English-American Congregationalism, as opposed to Baptism and some related churches which sometimes have congregational polities, insists on infant baptism and as such assumes the members of its congregation are regenerate.

I guess my real issue here is that by saying you believe only regenerate persons are to be received into a church's membership, you imply that you have the ability to actually discern whether someone is truly regenerate or not. That's why I find the expression terribly misleading.

 

[The Liturgist]

I guess my real issue here is that by saying you believe only regenerate persons are to be received into a church's membership, you imply that you have the ability to actually discern whether someone is truly regenerate or not. That's why I find the expression terribly misleading.

Just to be clear, I am not what you might call an “orthodox Congregationalist” although one of my objectives is to restore traditional liturgical congregationalism such as is seen today at Park Street Church in Boston, and which was historically mastered at the King’s Weigh House in London, which under Rev. John Hunter, had a better liturgy and more liturgical worship than most contemporary Church of England parishes, albeit as a sort of feeder into sacramental-episcopal Christianity of the Western Rite Orthodox variety (embracing Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox theological concepts), in places out of the reach or resource capacity of existing dioceses.

Thus, from this revised perspective, I would argue the problem you describe is not specific to traditional Calvinist Congregationalism but extends to any denomination lacking a clear understanding of sacramental theology and which understands regeneration as instantaneous rather than as a process. Indeed Calvinism hypothetically sidesteps this with the idea of a predestined Elect, but I think this concept is problematic, and has the potential to lead to overconfident congregations, for example, in Puritanism, which reformed itself into Congregationalism.

 

[St_Worm2]

...baptists continue to insist on a regenerate church membership. When I ask how they hope to realize that objective, they say that they require a credible profession of faith, and we agree on this. So why then continue to insist on this? Wouldn't it be better to say that all those who profess faith in Christ should be admitted to the church? The idea that we could have a regenerate church membership conveys a very bad idea; i.e. that the elders of a church can discern who is and who isn't truly regenerate.

Hello Cornopean, first off, since I see that you are new around these parts, WELCOME TO CF

As for your OP, while I agree with you that we cannot know the heart of a person like God does (and that we can certainly be deceived at times by those who are themselves deceived and/or liars .. e.g. Matthew 7:22-23), does the notion of needing a "credible" profession of faith for church "membership" really seem all that farfetched to you?

Regular attendance and participation in various church functions, like our worship services, Sunday School, Bible studies, social events, etc., is one thing (and as you know, these things have always been open to all), but why do you believe (what are the reasons) that our denominations/congregations have always sought out (as best we can) the "regenerate"/true believers alone to be the "members" of our churches?

Thanks!

God bless you!!

--David

1 Thessalonians 5
23 May the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body
be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
24 Faithful is He who calls you, and He also will bring it to pass.
.​

 

[cornopean]

Hello Cornopean, first off, since I see that you are new around these parts, WELCOME TO CF

Thank you! glad to be here.

As for your OP, while I agree with you that we cannot know the heart of a person like God does (and that we can certainly be deceived at times by those who are themselves deceived and/or liars .. e.g. Matthew 7:22-23), does the notion of needing a "credible" profession of faith for church "membership" really seem all that farfetched to you?

First, requiring a profession of faith in Christ is quite a different thing than trying to have a 100% regenerate membership. I think nearly all protestant churches require a profession of faith for membership. A profession of faith is something we can hear and process. A person's being regenerate is hidden from us.

And what do you understand by "credible"? I would say that there must be a basic understanding of the gospel and no obvious sin in their life that would contradict their profession. If by credible you mean that a person must give their testimony and then we sit in judgment on whether they are genuinely regenerate or not, this I have a big problem with. I would say that the parable of the weeds and wheat explicitly forbids even the attempt at trying to discern someone's being regenerate or not.

 

[The Liturgist]

And what do you understand by "credible"? I would say that there must be a basic understanding of the gospel and no obvious sin in their life that would contradict their profession. If by credible you mean that a person must give their testimony and then we sit in judgment on whether they are genuinely regenerate or not, this I have a big problem with. I would say that the parable of the weeds and wheat explicitly forbids even the attempt at trying to discern someone's being regenerate or not.

I would argue that the Church has the power to call upon God in the person of the Holy Spirit via the class of prayers known as epicleses, to regenerate someone, by the dispensation of sacramental grace through Baptism and the Eucharist and the authority of the keys invested in the Apostles, and from them, to the pastors of the Church. It is then up to the person so blessed in sacramental grace to ensure their regeneration continues.

 

[cornopean]

I would argue that the Church has the power to call upon God in the person of the Holy Spirit via the class of prayers known as epicleses, to regenerate someone, by the dispensation of sacramental grace through Baptism and the Eucharist and the authority of the keys invested in the Apostles, and from them, to the pastors of the Church. It is then up to the person so blessed in sacramental grace to ensure their regeneration continues.

I would dispute the idea that regeneration is a process. What about this text?

“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life."

So this text teaches that the act of believing in Jesus immediately ushers one out of the sphere of death and into the sphere of life. no?

 

[The Liturgist]

I would dispute the idea that regeneration is a process. What about this text?

“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life."

So this text teaches that the act of believing in Jesus immediately ushers one out of the sphere of death and into the sphere of life. no?

Not quite. Our Lord directs that we be received into His Church by Baptism, and that we receive the Eucharist for the remission of sins, and He further commands that we be perfect; since perfection is not immediately attainable, and I would argue is possible only in the parousia, and indeed might, as was suggested by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, take an infinite amount of time, the process of regeneration could be something eternal. Note that I am not talking about the process of salvation or of being granted eternal life, nor of the reception of salvific faith through the grace of the Holy Spirit (because it is only by the uncreated divine grace of the Holy Spirit that we even have the capability to repent and move towards God), but rather of the final outcome of regeneration, if regeneration is understood, as I understand it, to involve theosis.

 

[cornopean]

Not quite. Our Lord directs that we be received into His Church by Baptism,

Can you provide the reference? I'm not sure to which verse you are referring.

and that we receive the Eucharist for the remission of sins,

again, the reference would be nice.

and perhaps you could define theosis for us as its not a concept with which I am entirely familiar.

 

[tall73]

and yet for all this...baptists continue to insist on a regenerate church membership. When I ask how they hope to realize that objective, they say that they require a credible profession of faith, and we agree on this. So why then continue to insist on this? Wouldn't it be better to say that all those who profess faith in Christ should be admitted to the church? The idea that we could have a regenerate church membership conveys a very bad idea; i.e. that the elders of a church can discern who is and who isn't truly regenerate.

I think the reason that the emphasis was originally placed on the idea of a regenerate membership is tied into the broader notions of Baptist polity and history.

If you believe in the priesthood of all believers, and that God can speak to any Christian when He wants, and that all are ultimately tied into Jesus the head as the members of His body, and you make that the basis of your church governance, then it becomes important that people are actually true, regenerate believers.

In other words, the system of the whole church voting in business session with a local congregation being under God's direction depends on people responding to God individually. So in an extreme case, if you have a significant portion of your membership that are not really regenerate, then instead of Christ leading through the people seeking Him, you can have just a political vote.

The reason I think this worked so well early on in the Baptist experience is that the earliest baptists were often establishing these local independent churches as a response to state churches that were dictating conscience, and that they could not agree with. So they instead gathered as believers to worship as their conscience dictated. And at times this resulted in persecution, being jailed, or even death. That is also why emphasis on religious liberty has been important in Baptist history.

Now in a time of persecution you are more likely to only get regenerate believers, because most are not going to risk their life or reputation to join these independent groups unless they think they are truly being led to do so.

It becomes a bit more difficult to assume that when you are in Baptist church that has been in its community for over 100 years, operating in current day America, where there is no state church, and you may have some who have family or social incentive to join. As the cultural influence of Christianity declines, and persecution ramps up again, this may change.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I guess my real issue here is that by saying you believe only regenerate persons are to be received into a church's membership, you imply that you have the ability to actually discern whether someone is truly regenerate or not. That's why I find the expression terribly misleading.

Not really. Here's why I would disagree. Pastors and elders do home visits, and get to know the congregation as the individuals they are through the variety of interactions they have. In doing this, they would be able to know more about whether an individual is actually regenerate.

 

[fhansen]

This post is directed primarily at Baptist and congregational types whom I regard as dear brothers and sisters in the Lord. My quibble is with their continual insistence that church membership be limited to regenerate persons.

I do not disagree in substance with this, but I would suggest that this is a useless assertion. The reason is this; it is impossible for church officers to know who is regenerate and who is not.

To this, my brothers usually reply that they require a credible profession of faith before anyone can join the church. Now this is something with which I can agree. This is useful because we can discern whether a person has made a confession of faith. All of us agree that some professed Christians are hypocrites and are not true Christians. Since this is not something we can discern, we must accept the weeds with the wheat and trust God to sort it out on the last day (Matt 13:41).

and yet for all this...baptists continue to insist on a regenerate church membership. When I ask how they hope to realize that objective, they say that they require a credible profession of faith, and we agree on this. So why then continue to insist on this? Wouldn't it be better to say that all those who profess faith in Christ should be admitted to the church? The idea that we could have a regenerate church membership conveys a very bad idea; i.e. that the elders of a church can discern who is and who isn't truly regenerate.

That is really strange. Do they have some kind of divine litmus test for regeneration? Are the leaders really sure that they, themselves, are regenerated?

 

[St_Worm2]

Do they have some kind of divine litmus test for regeneration? Are the leaders really sure that they, themselves, are regenerated?

Hello fhansen, I hope that they are, because the Lord, through the pen of the Apostle Peter, has commanded them to be, "eager to make their calling and election sure" (along with the rest of us, of course) .. 2 Peter 1:10.

And He makes other, similar commands to us, like the one below from the Apostle Paul.

2 Corinthians 13
5 Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you—unless indeed you fail the test?
​

God bless you!

--David

 

[fhansen]

Hello fhansen, I hope that they do, because the Lord, through the pen of the Apostle Peter, has commanded them to be, "eager to make their calling and election sure" (along with the rest of us, of course) .. 2 Peter 1:10.

And He makes other, similar commands to us, like the one below from the Apostle Paul.

2 Corinthians 13
5 Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you—unless indeed you fail the test?
​

God bless you!

--David

As I see it he’s saying we should be eager to make our calling and election sure, and we should test ourselves, all our lives, in recognition of the possibility that we’re not among the saved. God doesn’t want us to be rash or overconfident but to be humble, reserving some level of self doubt in light of our weaknesses, limitations, and tendency to sin while never doubting Him or His intentions and good will for us.

From my perspective the very best measure for weighing or assessing whether or not we’re one of His is by our fruit: how successful are we at loving Him with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength and our neighbor as ourselves? If His love isn’t producing that love in us, everything else is pretty much talk. And to maintain with 100% certainty that we’re saved while questioning the status of others is the height of arrogance IMO.

 

[The Liturgist]

As I see it he’s saying we should be eager to make our calling and election sure, and we should test ourselves, all our lives, in recognition of the possibility that we’re not among the saved. God doesn’t want us to be rash or overconfident but to be humble, reserving some level of self doubt in light of our weaknesses, limitations, and tendency to sin while never doubting Him or His intentions and good will for us.

From my perspective the very best means of weighing or assessing whether or not we’re one of His is by our fruit: how successful are we at loving Him with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength and our neighbor as ourselves? If His love isn’t producing that love in us, everything else is pretty much talk. And to maintain with 100% certainty that we’re saved while questioning the status of others is the height of arrogance IMO.

Indeed I think this state, which is referred to in the great Russian Orthodox Christian tradition as prelest, or spiritual delusion, contributed to the disaster that blighted Puritanism of New England, specifically, the delusional overconfidence associated with the Salem Witch Trials which would subsequently wreck the reputation of such illustrious Puritans as Increase Mather and led to the transformation of Puritanism into the more modest and penitent Congregationalist Church (which then experienced the disaster of the Unitarian schism, which as a Congregationalist I remain very much troubled by; Unitarianism is not a fleeting mistake peculiar to the 1780s and Boston but an active and ongoing cult which threatens the Christian religion to this day in a number of sinister directions).

 

[cornopean]

Not really. Here's why I would disagree. Pastors and elders do home visits, and get to know the congregation as the individuals they are through the variety of interactions they have. In doing this, they would be able to know more about whether an individual is actually regenerate.

But Jesus, in the parable of the weeds and the wheat explicitly forbids the church from even making the attempt to discern whether someone is regenerate or not. The elders of the church must accept a person's profession of faith in Christ at face value. Jesus does not allow them to pry further into their profession to try and discern whether they really have a regenerate heart or not. This is where some baptists err IMO. They try to get beyond a profession of faith and they try to separate weeds from wheat which our Lord forbids us to do.

 

[cornopean]

That is really strange. Do they have some kind of divine litmus test for regeneration? Are the leaders really sure that they, themselves, are regenerated?

Well I think a person can know their own regeneration. We, after all, can know what lives in our own heart. I am arguing that the elders of a church cannot know and therefore shouldn't even attempt to try and know whether a person is truly regenerate or not.

 

[cornopean]

From my perspective the very best measure for weighing or assessing whether or not we’re one of His is by our fruit: how successful are we at loving Him with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength and our neighbor as ourselves? If His love isn’t producing that love in us, everything else is pretty much talk. And to maintain with 100% certainty that we’re saved while questioning the status of others is the height of arrogance IMO.

Well this is one method but by no means the most direct method. The best and most direct method for knowing that we are saved is to take refuge in Jesus Christ. To reject establishing our own righteousness (Rom 9:30-33) and to receive His perfect righteousness as a free gift and to rest satisfied knowing that God is pleased with this (Phil 3:9).

 

[fhansen]

Well this is one method but by no means the most direct method. The best and most direct method for knowing that we are saved is to take refuge in Jesus Christ. To reject establishing our own righteousness (Rom 9:30-33) and to receive His perfect righteousness as a free gift and to rest satisfied knowing that God is pleased with this (Phil 3:9).

I see that more as the foundation, the beginning: believing, hoping, trusting. But the change that marks a believer is love. Without that we're nothing as Paul says in 1 Cor 13. And God's Word and His life in us hasn't really taken firm root. That love is the primary definition of the righteousness spoken of in Phil 3:9: "...not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith."

The same righteousness as defined by the greatest commandments, the "righteousness of God" that has been made known apart from the law, "to which the Law and the Prophets testify" (Rom 3:21), the righteousness that "fulfills the law" (Rom 13:10). Without that, I'd never be convinced. But, as you say, we cannot know the heart of others. That's between themselves and God.