The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Muslim becomes Christian and so does his wives...

Let us say that a Muslim comes to you professing faith in Christ and desires to be baptized. And with him comes his three wives and the their five children. The wives too profess faith in Christ and also desire to be baptized.

Will you baptize this man and his wives?

Now there's an interesting question.

If this is in a place where polygamy is legal, I think I would support baptizing all of them. Although the additional marriages were sinful to enter into, it would be worse for them to divorce without cause. We also have many examples in the Old Testament of saints with more than one wife, and I don't think they are ever told to divorce their other wives. However, the man would not be eligible for any church office.

I would not allow the man nor his wives to be baptized, which among other things signifies the acceptance of an individual into the Church as a true believer; a follower of Christ. Since polygamy is a sin, one living in a known sin cannot be given membership in the body of Christ. If a man was already a member and it was discovered that he was a polygamist, he would come under discipline. He and his wives, if they too were members would be told to repent of their sin else face excommunication. The "one man, one woman and the two shall become one flesh" principle; God's will for all mankind transcends cultural norms which in many cases are sinful.

Divorcing all but the first wife IS justified since polygamy of necessity involves adultery. The matter of what responsibilities the man has for the other women and any children born of them is another subject, however. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

You know this question was posted on another discussion board I flit through now and then and it broke down to basically those two view points. Although I must say Pilgrim that it was the Baptist that said no and the Presbyterian that said yes in the forum. Maybe I'm rubbing off on you <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />

My answer depends only on what marriage is, and what it is not.

I would not even consider any "marriage" after the first one to be a real marriage, i.e. in the eyes of God, in any culture no matter what the participants agreed to, just as I would not consider two men's "marriage" to be a real marriage.

Since adulterous relationships are not marriages, the breaking of the relationship is not divorce, in spite of significant emotional attachment and sharing of material and intangible goods and life by the participants.

This, of course, would be extraordinarily difficult for the former Muslims but not more difficult, I would imagine, than the situation of two men with homosexual inclinations previously married in Boston but now converted to the faith.

First of all, not being an ordained minister, I don't have the authority of the Church to do such a thing. But I will give my opinion.

NO regenerate Muslim would ask this of the Christian Church in the first place because he is trapped. Of course he still has a finacial responsibility to all of his children and wives.

IMO, the bottom line is this:


And again:


Our gracious God may well do the impossible and regenerate a Muslim but a converted Muslim will leave his unregenerate evil and blasphemous religious perversions behind.

Let's all be tolerant and deny God's words and while we're at it, lets allow "professing faith" homosexuals to get married by an "ordained" liberal/feminist woman preacher also. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bow.gif" alt="" />

Denny

Romans 3:22-24

With all due respect, someone just coming to Christ is not expected to know all the ins and outs of Christianity at regeneration. Even some mature in the faith – such as Luther – make errors on this issue (see below). Thus saying, “NO regenerate Muslim would ask this of the Christian Church in the first place …,” is simply incorrect. Because of their culture, religion, and laws they very well may ask such questions. Actually, I would be surprised if they didn’t. Asking does not necessarily invalidate their confession of salvation, but to the contrary, may very well reveal a heart that desires to be taught in a new way, so they will no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, in craftiness, after the wiles of error (Eph. 4:14). Have you asked any questions regarding the faith since you became born-again? Being regenerate, do you know the answer to every Bible issue? A question may be a step in faith and not idolatry!

Second, polygamy is outlawed both for church leaders (1 Tim. 3:1 ff; Titus 1:6 ff) and in the church (Matt 19:8-9, Mark 10:1-12). In that it is outlawed for church leaders is significant as they are suppose to be examples for the flock (1 Cor. 4:6; 1 Cor. 11:1; Phil. 3:17; 4:9; 1 Thess. 1:6-7; 2 Thess. 3:7-9; 1 Tim. 4:12; Tit. 2:7; 1 Pet. 5:3). However (in the early church), in that a specific qualification for leadership outlawed polygamy reveals that some were “in the church” and married to several partners. As Justin Martyr latter said, "Your imprudent and blind masters [i.e., Jewish teachers] even until this time permit each man to have four or five wives. And if anyone sees a beautiful woman and desires to have her, they quote the doings of Jacob."

Polygamy was introduced after the fall (Gen. 4:19-24; Exod. 21:10; Deut. 17:17, 2 Chron. 11:21, 2 Sam. 5:13, etc.), however I see a progression toward monogamy as we move toward the full restoration of God's kingdom (though always the ideal, Jesus re-introduced the Genesis narrative (Gen. 2:24) of a godly marriage in Matt. 19:1-9). While the early church struggled with this issue and many were apparently baptized, polygamy is not the ideal and this is clearly seen in that Jesus’ argument in Matthew would fail if polygamy was allowed. Thus, polygamy today should not be viewed as God’s ideal, but neither should divorce, etc.

Likewise, it was condemned by many in Church history. However, Luther in one of his not so brilliant moments,


Third, it really depends in which sect of Islam a person is in and whether they are a man or woman. In some branches of Islam when a person, whether a man or a woman, renounces Islam, his or her marriage is automatically rendered invalid, because of the apostasy involved (ahli kitab). Thus, one’s conversion to Christianity nullifies “all” previous marriages. This is the law of their land, their government, and their religion. Thus, according to the law of the Muslim land, they would be divorced, so, the question then becomes does the church recognize a marriage that has been nullified by said countries laws (societal, governmental, and religious) in which the said Muslim lives? Is that man even married to his first wife, much less the others? In other sects, the man may give an oral pronouncement of divorce which is effective after three months (iddah...3 menstrual cycles).

Thus, all would be eligible for baptism after an investigation into “the facts” that regulate the situation and if the separations are legal, et. al. It also must be stated that the Muslim mind is trained differently then the Western one. Ritual means exceptionally more to them then it does to us.

Understanding this should help the Christian better share "the faith once delivered to the saints." From a cultural perspective, if a Muslim convert asks for baptism it is very significant. While they may not understand Christianity totally, they do understand the significance of what they are asking a Christian pastor to do from their perspective -- that being a confession of faith and a total break with Islam, et. al.

We’re no better.

Of course your right here, however my point although not well spoken is that if the Muslim brings his "wives" with him for baptism the church should of necessity question the valitity of his conversion in the first place. Should she not?

I think a good example of this serious confusion would be a question and answer session that I found concerning baptism and "Christianity" on a Muslim website.

Question

"We know that the Bible has spoken about the Baptism of Jesus, peace and blessings be upon him. How should we as Muslims respond to questions from Christians about Baptism and whether we believe in that event, since, as far as I know, there is no mention of that in the Qur'an or Hadith. This question comes up because we as Muslims believe in Jesus, peace and blessings be upon him, his life, and the Gospels.

Answer

In The Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger. Dear questioner, thank you very much for having confidence in us, and we hope our efforts, which are purely for Allah’s Sake, meet your expectations. In his response to the question in point, Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi, former president of the Islamic Society of North America, states the following: “The word 'Baptism' comes from the Greek 'Baptein' which means 'to plunge, to immerse, or to wash.' It was an ancient custom to wash or to make ablution. Islam has preserved this tradition in the form of ablution and ritual Ghusl for the purpose of purification purpose. Allah mentions in the Qur'an that He made water a source for purification. Allah Almighty says: “And He it is Who sendeth the winds, glad tidings heralding His mercy, and We send down purifying water from the sky.” (Al-Furqan: 48) Like all other Prophets of Allah, Jesus, peace and blessings be upon him, also washed himself to purify himself. During his time Yahya (John, the Baptist) used to call people to repent and purify themselves in the River Jordan. It is mentioned that Jesus also went to him and took a bath of purification (Mark 1:9-11). After that Allah appointed Jesus as His Prophet and Messenger and he began preaching Allah's Message. Jesus was a servant of Allah. He used to pray and for his prayers he must be purifying himself. Jews in his time also used to do a lot of ritual washings. The Old Testament speaks a lot about the use of water for the purpose of purification. (See Numbers 19:1-22; Leviticus 14-15-16:24-28) After Jesus left this world, Paul became a leader of some Christians. It was he who gave a new interpretation of Jesus' Baptism. He told them that when a person takes a Baptism in water, actually he immerses himself in Jesus' blood and dies with him and then he is resurrected like Jesus into a new person. (See Romans 6:3-4). Paul gave a new definition of Baptism. For him it was something to do with Original Sin and then the alleged death and resurrection of Jesus (See Colossians 2:12) For Jesus, peace and blessings be upon him, and his followers the Baptism was just a bath or ablution to purify themselves physically, ritually and spiritually, but with Pauline interpretation it became a symbol of belief in Jesus' so-called death and ressurection. We, as Muslims, accept the early tradition and that is what Islam has preserved and reaffirmed. We do not accept the later interpretation and doctrinal aberrations.” If you have any further comments, please don't hesitate to write back! May Allah guide you to the straight path, and guide you to that which pleases Him, Amen.

Allah Almighty knows best."

According to this man the Pauline epistles are not even Scripture! I do believe we should be quite careful about who we baptize and admit to membership into our churches.

Denny

Romans 3:22-24

Denny
Remember the story of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:27-40)?
Philip explained the biblical story to him and then later Philip baptizes him. In verse 36 the eunuch asked him if he could be baptized. It goes on to tell us that if the eunuch believed with his whole heart then he could be baptized.
Obviously we know that the eunuch was baptized so, we know that he was a believer, especially in light of his confession in verse 37.

In a Muslims case, I don't think it would be any different. But perhaps given that some Muslims don't believe that the Scripture understanding of Paul is Biblical. It might be best to make certain he understands that issue, clearly before being baptized.

Tom

Just because someone brings his ex-wives (according to some sects), who are ALSO confessing Christ does not automatically make one suspect of not being a Christian. Is it a sin to share one’s baptism with those that you have been so close to for years? Is it a sin for the husband to have shared Christ with his wives and children (or visa-versa)? This is a new one on me, “You are guilty of not being a Christian because you evangelized the lost.” Is it suspect when a family comes to Christ all at once? (do some studies in missionolgy before answering)

I would not begin by “questioning” (maybe you are using the term “questioning” different than I (ex-cop here) someone's conversion, but, as with any other baptismal candidate, I would inquire of their salvation experiences and see what their faith entailed. I would also ask them to explain their sect(s) to me so I would have a better understanding of where they are coming from culturally. If satisfactory, I would see what they have been taught concerning "the family," since they have made a profession of faith. After all how would you expect them to understand and follow Christian principles, if they were not taught (Eph. 4:11 ff)? We have the Scriptures on family because Paul and others, through the Holy Spirit, saw the churches lack of proper theology being demonstrated in the same (Eph. 5:22-6:4; 1 Cor. 7, 1 Pet. 3:1 ff, et. al.). If church members need to be taught concerning the family – how much more someone coming from a different faith!

Your example has nothing to do with the original scenario, but instead deals with someone who would abstain from baptism by a Christian Church as opposed to the scenario which states, “a Muslim …. desires to be baptized.”

Spoken like a true Baptist! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" /> We realize that everyone who is baptized in a Baptist church is saved, especially if they make an outward profession of faith. But in non-Credo Baptist churches, this is not assumed; with the exception of those holding to hyper-covenantalism, NPP, FV, and other non-orthodox views. We accept one's profession when it is tested by the Elders (hopefully they are also reliable in their discernment) and by the life lived. But we cannot "know" they are saved just because they have been baptized. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Call me "suspicious", aka: a genuine, bona fide Calvinist who believes whole-heartedly in the doctrine of total depravity and in the deception of the Evil One, but I would never authorize the baptism of anyone, Muslim, Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist (especially THOSE <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" />) or a person off the street professing faith in Christ without FIRST having the individual(s) submit to a serious examination of that professed faith. And, I'm not referring to someone asking the person if they read the prayer on the back of the "Four Spiritual Laws" tract which a stranger handed them in a parking lot. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" />

A man who is currently married to more than one wife, either by virtue of their culture or the laws of the land is a polygamist according to God's Word. And the Scripture is the "sole and final authority in all matters of faith and practice"... NOT culture, social law, or anything else apart from the inspired Word of God.

In His grace,

Joe,

I already admitted that my original statement about "no regenerate Muslim" was cumbersome at best.


Do we examine and counsel adults for membership and baptism in our churches because we are suspicious of their regeneration or because there are certain minimal doctrinal standards to uphold for our congregations?


Yes, I believe we are using the term differently.

I don't know about you, but an ex-Muslim who brought his "wives" with him would make me wonder what other sins and/or heresies he might also retain from his Muslim culture and religion. For instance, and most importantly, does he believe in the Muslim Jesus or the Jesus of Scripture?

The original question was; "Would you baptize him?" My answer to that question remains no, and not until he, at least, first dealt with his sinful relationships with his "wives" and his wive's sinful relationship with him. I see little difference between baptizing this man (if he retains his wives) or baptizing a practicing homosexual.

Denny

Romans 3:22-24

I don't know if I would baptise him or not. As I said earlier an inquiry needs to be made. Of course I would not baptise him if his view of Christ is faulty. Of course I would not baptise him if the wife situation is not properly -- according to law -- taken care of. These are a given. However, I also am not going to begin with a faulty presupposition that someone professing Christ "is lost" because of whom he arrived at my office with.

Hmmm, but your "faulty presupposition" that you refuse to begin with is ASSUMED to be faulty and thus it can be equally valid to say that you would begin with a faulty (assumed) presupposition that nearly anyone/everyone who came into your office was "saved". <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" />

As I stated elsewhere in this thread, I am a genuine, bona fide Calvinist, who by definition is by nature: suspicious. The N.T. is rife with examples, in fact the majority of those who professed faith in Christ whose "faith" were spurious. Given the present situation we live in today where there are few who preach the truth. And most are not even privy to what the "truth once delivered to the saints" is, never mind actually embrace it. Therefore, if a bias is to be held, it surely would have to be on the side of unbelief or at least a healthy skepticism in regard to an alleged "profession of faith".

In the hypothetical situation, it is an "ex-Muslim" who is currently married in some fashion to multiple women who are "professing Christ". Since, IMHO, missionaries are the least to be trusted as to preaching the true Gospel, and assuming that is where these (ex-)Muslims heard the "gospel", it seems only logical that he and his women should be thoroughly questioned before even considering baptism. To assume that he/their profession is genuine methinks is naive at best.

In His grace,

Pilgrim

Joe can defend himself, but where in his post did you get the idea that he would presume anything?
Funny thing is concidering how well you know Joe, I am surprised you made that statement.

Tom

Well besides the obvious that one could be neutral in this area (waiting for the results of the inquiry), my inquiry begins with the foundation that the person is telling the truth and not a lie. Sola Scriptura, – see below.

The NT is also full of examples of true professions of faith as well (i.e. Paul, Apollos, etc.)! The professions of faith were so numerous in the early church that the Scripture states, “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls” (Acts 2:41). When a person makes a profession of faith we are to believe his profession, until proved otherwise. Paul, being a “bona fide Calvinist,” said that love believeth all things (1 Cor. 13:7). Now, this does not mean that a Christian filled with love lacks the qualities of wisdom and discernment and thus becomes the gullible dupe of every falsifier. On the contrary, love is always wise and discerning (Calvin). However, as Hendriksen says, the clause signifies that a Christian has faith in God, who will work out his divine plans even when all the indicators seem to point in different directions. Filled with love for God and neighbor, a believer trusts that God indeed will make his or her paths straight (Prov. 3:5–6). Moreover, love hopeth all things; but it is pretty hard to be hopeful if you see a demon in every person coming into your office. As Hendriksen stated, hope is patient, waiting for positive results that eventually may be realized. Hope is the converse of pessimism and the essence of healthy optimism. Thus, Paul – the scriptural Calvinist – began with a presumption of innocence (of love) before he proved all things (1 Thess. 5:21). Yes, he knew of everyone's depravity (Rom 1 and 5, etc.), but he was also considerate and godly in his approach (Gal. 6:1 ff).

In addition, Simeon the sorcerer was baptized as a believer (Acts 8:9). It was later discovered that he was not saved (18-19) but he was rebuked and corrected (20-23) and then he did not follow the words of Peter to repent (24-25, we don't know if he repented or not). But note, though Simeon had a hideous recent past, Philip believed Simeon’s profession until "evidence" (not mere speculation, assumptions, etc.) to the contrary revealed itself. Of course, Phillip must be one of those bad missionaries you refer to below.

Try as you may, you can never so fully examine someone to guarantee they are not a reprobate. Judas was on the staff of staff’s and made it a long way before he was even discovered. The disciples were legitimately surprised!!! But, though Judas was a reprobate our Lord ALWAYS treated him with love, truth, and respect. This is our example and thus should be our foundation.

Talking about false presumptions!!! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" />

Well, since I am classified as a missionary I guess I know what you think of me. It is amazing how you know the heart of every missionary in the world and the Gospel everyone of them preaches. You must be very busy meeting and judging all of them.

Pilgrim said:

First of all, thank you for the compliment, since I am a Baptist.
However, your second comment is (unless my understanding of Baptist doctrine is wrong) in error.
No Baptist that I am aware of assumes that someone should be baptized without first being tested by the elders.
Although no one can know with absolute certainty that a baptismal candidate is saved even after they have been tested, hopefully elders can be trusted.
However, what I was referring to when I used that statement is obviously Philip believed the eunuch was saved.

As an aside, I realize that you being a paedo and me a credo, we are not going to agree on everything. But, I refuse to get into a debate over this matter with you.
Whether I am right or wrong about Credo-baptism, I don't think that it would be wise of me to get into it with someone who obviously knows theology a lot better than me.

Pilgrim said:

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" /> I am scratching my head, trying to think about why you think based on what I said, that I believe he shouldn't be examined. Did I not say:


Tom

Just to clarify. If by this you mean the Scripture is the sole determiner of whether polygamy is a sin or not I would agree. However, if by this you mean that the Muslim’s culture in which he lives cannot determine that the converted Muslim is legally divorced because of his conversion – then I would not “fully” agree. Culture, social law, etc. does matter here and it would need to be investigated on a case by case basis (different sect, different laws, etc.).

Sola Scriptura, is the doctrine that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule in faith and practice for the Christian. The Bible alone has ultimate and infallible authority. But that is not intended to imply that whatever other way God has made Himself known does not carry its own authority within itself. God has revealed himself in the creation and the constitution of man, as created in His image so that every person is responsible to both know God and obey His moral law. This revelation is absolutely authoritative and infallible in and of itself. What makes it fail is a problem in the person, not a problem in the revelation. It is not a “source” problem it is a “reception” problem.

As Neiswonger further states, the distinction comes in when we speak of the things necessary for salvation, or, Christian faith and practice. These things are not revealed in nature or in the constitution of man as created in the image of God. Those things necessary for salvation are revealed in ‘Scripture alone’. There may be things that can be learned from philosophy, the sciences, and human experience, what the historic Church has called “the light of nature”, but these are taken to be inferior and fallible authorities, apprehended through fallible means. Sola Scriptura takes the Scriptures as the sole infallible rule, but not the only rule. This is sometimes surprising even to the Christian thinker tutored in the thought of the historical Church because Sola Scriptura could seem to be saying that Scripture is the sole source, instead of the sole infallible source, and so the source that stands above and judges all other sources.

Thus, at times government laws need to be obeyed (Eph. 5:4-8; Rom. 13, Dan. 2:21, 4:17, Prov. 8:15, etc.) if the do not in conflict with the Scripture. When a Muslim in his own country is converted to Christianity, the laws of his country still apply to him, if they do not conflict with Scripture. In the case of a converted Muslim with multiple wives, the marriages are considered nullified upon his conversion. We do not need to Americanize (or Canadianize as the case may be) the Gospel and make the Muslim convert move to America to receive an American divorce to say he is truly divorced – do we? No, indeed, the laws of his country “may” prevail. If not, then I would have to say that there is not a single real non-Jewish divorce in the US, as “the writing of divorce” Jesus spoke about (Matt. 5:31-32; Deut. 24:1-4) is one established upon OT Judaic law – and the person demanding the divorce must write the document himself and literally hand it to the other party – no process server, no lawyer, and no court of law doing the writing (Deut. 24:1-4).

Culture does matter.

Sorry, I will be gone for a while. So, hopefully someone else will step in with some culture arguments and why they are legit in some instances.

Tom,

I took what J_Edwards wrote at face value, found here: His post

In his reply above, I was and am justified in what I wrote since he again responded by saying that he believes one should "in love" accept everyone's profession as being true unless shown otherwise. I on the other hand, disagree and believe that ALL who profess Christ should be examined as to the credibility of their profession before being received into fellowship and baptized.

Although there were 3000 added to the church at Pentecost, there were in excess of 5000 men, plus women and children who allegedly believed on Christ and then departed from Him because His sayings were too hard, including many of His own disciples. (cf. Jh 6) Even Jesus Himself didn't accept the "profession" of men at face value, because He "knew what was in man".

John 2:23-25 (ASV) "Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, during the feast, many believed on his name, beholding his signs which he did. But Jesus did not trust himself unto them, for that he knew all men, and because he needed not that any one should bear witness concerning man; for he himself knew what was in man."

We do not need to be deity to know what is in the heart of man by nature, for the Scripture everywhere testifies to man's depravity. So, I stand in good company when I say again, that knowing the spiritual dearth of our present age, the promulgation of myriad false gospels, Easy Believism, etc., etc., ad nauseam, one would be foolish to begin with a presumption of truth in regard to a stranger's profession of faith and request to be baptized.

Oh, and don't you worry about me and J_Edwards.... we know each other quite well and on infrequent occasions, disagree on things.

In His grace,

Oh Tom,

Don't scratch too hard or you will end up bald like me! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" /> In the first place, I couldn't resist rubbing you a bit for your "Baptist" statement that those baptized in a Baptist church "are saved"... it's that silly notion Credo's have about being able to create/maintain a "pure church". <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" />

But I was NOT taking issue with you in regard to examining ALL applicants as you stated quite clearly that such should be the case. And in this we are in full agreement. Obviously, at least one is opposed to my/our presumption that one's profession is not to be taken as true until AFTER being examined and not before.

In His grace,

Are you sure that you are representing Credo's properly, because that isn't the understanding that I have.

Perhaps another Credo might want to weigh in here and comment?

Tom

This is unfortunately .

However, one of the most vehement arguments against paedobaptism launched by Credo's is that babies cannot make a profession of faith. And, ONLY those who can make a profession of faith, indicating that they ARE saved (thus your statement that those who are baptized ARE saved) are admitted into church membership. This practice is to keep "unbelievers" out of the Church since the Church is to consist of only true believers. Contrariwise, and at the same time, one would be hard-pressed to find a Baptist who is willing to be consistent with that premise. Most would be very quick to admit that there at least could be baptized church members who are not regenerate since no man can know the heart of any man infallibly. Therefore forbidding the baptism of infants so that no unbeliever is given church membership is rather weak at best. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" />

Now...

In His grace,

This is a blatant misrepresentation of my position. I stated, that I do believe that all who profess Christ should be examined as to their credibility of their profession before being received into fellowship and baptized!!! Where did I say this:

So, the majority of your post is invalid. Where we differ is that you believe everyone professing Christ is a blatant liar until you prove them truthful and worthy of baptism. On the other hand, I believe that individuals giving a sincere profession of faith to be telling the truth until otherwise shown. This may be done in the inquiry and by viewing the fruit of their profession and of course throughout their lifetime in the church. A profession is not a onetime thing – it is continuous. Thus, it should be a joy for the new convert to share his faith again and again. Thus, I approach the inquiry biblically from a positive perspective, expecting to hear the gospel from them time after time.

Yes, in love I will continually discern the truth. Just because someone uses the term “in love” does not mean that it is an attribute of God being expressed without wisdom and discernment. On the contrary, love is always wise and discerning (Calvin). Moreover, while “Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man” (John 2:24-25), YOU are NOT Christ. YOU do NOT know what is in the man that has just entered your office. If you knew what was in man you would not need DISCERNMENT. Of course, all of us are depraved – that is a Gospel-given, but that does not mean that EVERY person entering your office is presently a liar and devoid of Christ. DISCERNMENT can work, and I believe more effectively work, from an attitude of trust and love than that of suspicion (1 Cor. 12:31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way (1 Cor. 12:10; then chapter 13)).

Now I have to get back to my 18+ hour day. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hello.gif" alt="" />

From my layman's view this argument has degenerated somewhat into a serious battle. Participants have resorted to sort of throwing theological hand grenades from camp to camp. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" />

Joe, it seems that you are implying that Pilgrim is more than willing to behead and shoot sincere believers with a crossbow and Pilgrim thinks that you would resurrect Mohammed and make him Pope of the PCA. I have come to the conclusion that you both may very well have valid points after reading this little gem from the Second Helvetic Confession chapter 17:



Does anyone get my drift? I hate these "what if" questions with a passion anyway. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/argue.gif" alt="" />

Denny

Romans 3:22-24

Your analogies behind (you don't the two of us very well), I have no problem with Second Helvetic Confession as long as it is followed in a spirit of charity.

I honestly did not intend to offend anyone. If I did please forgive me.

I've been posting on the Highway for nearly three years now and in fact I do believe I know something about the immense brotherly love and respect you and Pilgrim have for one another. My outrageous analogies were to prove a point.

According to the Second Helvetic Confession the apparently opposing positions of you and Pilgrim, on a second look, are actually compatible and complimentary, - both being charitable and not mutually exclusive. You are rightfully being charitable and protective of the tender consciece of the new believer, and Pilgrim is being charitable and protective of the church community. The dangers to our congegations of not being careful as to who we admit to church membership, especially this day and hedonistic age, are undeniable.

Actually, it is my opinion, that the the more important threat to our Reformed churches is the failure to discipline wayward and heretical people who are already members. Sadly, I was a frontline witness to the falling of a very large denomination for this very reason, as they were much more interested in increasing numbers and "church building" than the objective truth of the Scripture and Gospel.

Denny

Romans 3:22-24

Denny,

I was not offended, however the characterizations you put together, “Joe, it seems that you are implying that Pilgrim is more than willing to behead and shoot sincere believers with a crossbow and Pilgrim thinks that you would resurrect Mohammed and make him Pope of the PCA,” were not edifying – at least for me. You went too far, IMO, because you do not understand Pilgrim and I …. You think you do, but let me explain.

Pilgrim and I were not having a “serious battle,” but when we disagree (which is a rarity) we understand that iron sharpens iron (Prov. 27:17) and thus we get our swords out and get into it. The Proverb says, “Iron sharpeneth iron; So a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.” This explains that people must not shy away from interaction with their peers since it is an education in itself. The “sharpening” can occur in any area in which people are engaged, be it business, intellectual, or physical competition. For Pilgrim and me we at times learn by sword drills – but note the goal is to “sharpen the countenance of his friend.”

Because we are such good friends though one may wound the other, we know it is meant for each other’s good. We also know the Word of God is sharper than any two-edged sword (Heb. 4:12), thus unlike a fleshy sword which stabs on the way in and dissects on the way out, our spiritual swords may go deep to remove cancers, but the sharpness of the other side is like a physician that is there to heal. See it is not really us fighting, but us trying to dig for the complete truth. We desire the truth in us – the full truth, not just part of it – all of it and thus we do our dance. In “some” ways it is like fencing. In this sport (not battle) there are two fencers and a director (referee, ours being our LORD). Normally as in fencing we salute each other (we truly admire one another’s resolve). Then the issue comes to light and as in fencing we say "En-garde,” "Ready," and then "Play" (or “Fence”), and the bout will start. In fencing there is blade work (we go to the Bible), footwork drills (we practice balance), shadow fencing (what if drills), and control drills (you get close, but not too close), etc. Basically, we learn from one another. (PS: these are Bible fencing drill definitions which may differ somewhat from normal fencing terms definitions).

I believe I was in accord with the Second Helvetic Confession in my posts. I do not see where I was not being “protective of the church community” especially when I re-emphasized this very point here. Additionally, I do not see where we can say we are practicing charity when we do not begin be trusting the person we are speaking too (1 Cor. 13:7). So, though I do agree with SHC I still observe some unresolved issues.

I agree with you that it is important (but not more important) “to discipline wayward and heretical people who are already members.” The PCA takes entirely too long to make decisions on what is and is not heresy, etc. I like the swiftness of Philip when he disciplined Simon in Acts 8, but understand that some issues are not quit as easy to unravel. When it comes to “denominations” at times I desire to just say “Come, Lord Jesus, Come” as there is just so much corruption, mis-direction, false worship, and other sin, et. al. that one really just gets tried of dealing with it all. As Paul said, “But I am in a strait betwixt the two, having the desire to depart and be with Christ; for it is very far better: yet to abide in the flesh is more needful for your sake“ (Phil. 1:23-24).

I honestly thought you and Pilgrim would laugh at my "tongue in cheek" analogies. I'm very sorry for being so assuming and sometimes the attempt at humor is not appropriate.

I apologize.
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/broke.gif" alt="" />

Denny

Romans 3:22-24

Denny,

For me, there was no offense in your ridiculous analogies since they were obviously highly exaggerated, much akin to the political satire and cartoons seen in some newspapers.

I particularly liked your use of "beheading".

Yes, there are differences in Joe's and my approaches. Again, just so there is no misunderstanding, I always begin with the presupposition that one's profession of faith is potentially spurious, especially given the many false gospels which are in the world today. I have always show charity and always will to one who professes Christ.. TO HIS/HER FACE, but retain a healthy skepticism on the inside UNTIL the person can be "examined", either formally or socially. I think one would be very foolish to do otherwise. Let's take Billy Graham's own estimation of the "success" of his Crusades. He estimates that perhaps 5% of all those who "come forward" are actually saved. That leaves 95% of those who "asked Jesus into their hearts" who are unsaved yet profess Christ. Personally, I think Graham is guilty of hyperbole; i.e., far less than 5% are actually saved since the true Gospel isn't preached nor taught by him nor those in his organization. (Disclaimer: yes, it is possible that there are exceptions, albeit I think improbable.)

Joe also used the same exaggerated methodology when he wrote I deemed all who professed Christ as "liars". <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/nope.gif" alt="" /> I simply believe that the vast majority of those in our day who profess to be Christians are deceived and are yet dead in their sins despite what they profess, which in most cases is faulty to begin with. Contrary to U.S. jurisprudence which considers all men innocent until proven guilty, I prefer to take the biblical perspective which sees all men as guilty before God by nature. And again, with all the false religions which proliferate our world today with their respective false gospels, especially within the broad spectrum of so-called Christendom, I simply believe that prudence dictates one be skeptical, cautious and discerning before extending the right hand of fellowship to anyone who professes to be united to Christ by faith.

In His grace,

This is semantics. Skepticism is an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity (disbelief or mental rejection) either in general or toward a particular object. Thus, when one doubts another’s profession they believe the professor is lying – whether the lie is intentional or because of a misunderstanding has no bearing on it – either way the person is not being trusted. Thus, the interviewer’s attitude of skepticism, doubt, disbelief, or mental rejection towards the particular object cannot by biblical definition be one of love. Our attitude changes the whole approach and heart in the matter. People can pick up on whether you trust them or not. We have the Christian attitude in 1 Corinthians 13:7, where love believeth all things and hopeth all things. Thus, I have a very difficult time paralleling the skeptic’s methodology with Scripture.

We are just running in circles now, so I guess it is time to put down the foils. Or, as they say, “Halt.” <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hello.gif" alt="" />

Dear Joe,

It's great to see you posting again, even if for only a little while.

I must say that you seem to be advocating what I have long understood to be church order in baptism and discipleship rooted in eg Mt 28:19-20 and subsequent NT practice. It is what I have seen my elders practice as well. If a person comes confessing Christ and requesting baptism they will be charitably received and taken through a short series--I forget, maybe 4 to 6--of sessions on the gospel essentials. Those who find during this phase that their confession differs from the true faith are then answerable to the Lord if they hypocritcally proceed with baptism, and some remove themselves with that understanding, while some undoubtedly slip in falsely. But I cannot see that we have warrant to treat all seedlings in the house of the Lord as potential tares; the epistles just don't read that way.

That then leaves the life alteration questions--eg polygamous relationships--to be worked out as they surface--and clearly the big ones like this must be worked out immediately as part of "renouncing the works of the devil"--in the context of the life of discipleship under the care of the church. While the "good confession" will entail a sincere desire to put all things right, who can have put all things right before baptism? I wonder what form of restitution was Saul required to provide for his very recent evil behavior before Ananias welcomed him into the church?

Paul,

Obviously, I am going to have to disagree with how read the Epistles in regard to how a stranger professing to be a Christian is to be deemed prior to examination. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> But I am especially disturbed by the highlighted section so I need to ask for further clarification to be sure I am understanding the practice in your church. The way it appears to read is that if someone during the course of the "sessions on the gospel essentials" is found to be a variance with those essentials, they are still permitted to be baptized and the onus is upon the individual for submitting to it. Is that a correct understanding of how things are done in your church?

Again, on this issue of a polygamist applying for church membership and baptism, I am just a wee bit unsure of what you are advocating? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" /> Are you equating the apostle Paul's former acts against the Church with a polygamist relationship? Is not all outward sin to be forsaken before one can be received into fellowship? Would you take the same position if a practicing homosexual applied for membership and baptism? i.e., he should be allowed to be baptized and received into full communion in the body of Christ? Surely, if Paul had continued to persecute the Church, he would not have been received into fellowship by the other disciples, no? But he did clearly repent of his former acts and consequently was received . . . but not before.

In His grace,

Joe

Thank you for responding. I was going to respond to Pilgrim, because I believed that he misrepresented what you said. However, since I didn't know for sure until now I thought it would be better to let well enough alone.
Just so you know, I don't actually think Pilgrim intentionally misrepresented you. I think he would have been better off asking you to clarify yourself, before he made those statements.

Tom

Jeff,

The thread began with an issue of case law but has focussed on one aspect of its application, viz. the examiners' presumption of the presence or absence of saving faith in the baptismal candidate. While not explicitly stated, my response to Joe began in reference to that aspect; I maintain, as he apparently does, that the presumption of the presence of saving faith is biblically properly held until such time as either:

1) the examiner determines that the candidate's confession is not genuine and removes him from consideration, or

2) the candidate realizes that his confession is not genuine and removes himself from consideration, or

3) the candidate hypocritally defends his non-genuine confession on terms sufficient to persuade the examiner, and is admitted to baptism.

If you read what I stated:
there is not a single reference to any action of the examiner; I was referring solely to possibilities #2 and #3 above (#1 seemed so obvious as to need no inclusion). But in your request for clarification
you are referring to the decision of the examiner, my #1 in the above list, and not the candidate's own self-examination which I was referring to, thus conflating the issue.

Saddened that this question apparently needs to be asked by one holding to the principle of presumption of unbelief apart from established credibility: no.

Hehe... sorry you are saddened. And how my presumption, apparently an objectionable one to you, has any bearing upon me asking the question, I am at a loss to know why. Nevertheless, I do thank you for clarifying your statement and it now appears clear to me that what you intended to relate is that the one being examined, even though knowing his profession of faith is at variance with the doctrines of the church, through deception, convinces the examiner(s) otherwise, i.e., he is in agreement with the doctrines and requirements of the church in regard to membership and baptism he is thus accepted. What threw me was "is found to be", which to me connotes the being "found" refers to the examiner and not to the one being examined.

Case closed. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

Paul S,

Thanks for the ever so kind words.

As I understand your church’s methodology is sounds fine. I enjoy this methodology: use 12 lessons (1.5 hours each) on the Gospel essentials (God, Christ, Holy Spirit, the 5 points, Scripture, Prayer, Church/Discipline, and Sanctification). The baptizing elder (normally not the pastor) will interview the candidates both before and after they attend the lessons (there would be more in the case of this Muslim and his wives to biblically assist in cleaning up the polygamy mess, etc.). There are 3 elder and 3 deacon families assigned to the class. Each husband/wife team gives their salvation testimony during the first 6 lessons. Moreover, each candidate – from lesson 7 forward, will also give their salvation testimony once during this time. Candidates hear the Gospel repeatedly (as with Simon who repeated heard the teaching not only Philip, but of John and Peter also – Acts 8, note that out of all that were baptized Peter, not Philip, discerned the faulty profession of one, Simon, who was already baptized. Thus, our use of multiple elders, etc.). Elder and deacon couples are also assigned no more than 2 new converts (the class has no more than 12 new converts in it, normally less). They do social functions together, eat out, visit at each other’s homes, etc. (note: they are assigned just prior to their baptism to spiritual mentors, which continue to assist them with their growth in Christ after baptism). During the course of the entire 12 weeks if a person’s profession is found to be defective – either in word or by deed – their baptism is not considered until the matter(s) are resolved – So, it works as far as it goes. But, nothing here is perfect.

However, we can never, no matter how much examination we do, guarantee that some Simon (Acts 8) won’t slip through. Even if we could, the matter that paedos baptize infants and they are part of the covenant community prior to any profession does not allow us to "fully" guard the community. Indeed, a non-professing baptized child, though part of the covenant community, should be treated differently than a new convert who is professing Christ as his LORD and Savior.

As I stated previousily I was NOT offended and thus there is NOTHING to forgive.

Where is the example of "examination' found in the writ? The colonial puritans errored greatly with this. The examinations were brutal and long. People began to find out the 'rigght' answers and just say them.

JoeK,

When the church first began, the Holy Spirit was moving in a marvelous and yet very specific way. “Basically” they baptized many and very fast. However, in God’s providence such an event has never taken place since – and neither can it because the church is no longer in its infancy. As time progressed, the church became wiser to the fact that people could just “say the truth” and not really know it. They saw that heretics were coming into their ranks and corrupting “God’s church.” As the church grew so did its wisdom. Thus, as in Paul’s later writings we see such things as “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21) and for the office of a deacon, “… And let these also first be proved …” (1 Tim. 3:10). However, as early as in Galatians we see Paul’s words, “Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things” (Gal. 6:6) indicating a formal preparation for entrance into the Church.

In other words, the teacher relieves the ignorance of the pupil catechumen; the pupil should relieve the teacher of concern for his subsistence. How was this done? The Greek word used to describe the shared life of the people of God was koinonia. Our best word for it in English is “fellowship,” but this is far too limited to encompass the meaning of the Greek. Koinonia means sharing, all kinds of sharing: sharing in friendship (Acts 2:42), being partners in the gospel (Phil. 1:5), sharing material possessions (2 Cor. 8:4), having fellowship in Christ (1 Cor. 1:9), and sharing life together in the Spirit (2 Cor. 13:14). Above all, koinonia is fellowship with God. “That which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you may have fellowship” (koinonia, 1 John 1:3) — that life we share with the Father and his Son Jesus Christ.

Justin Martyr (app. 165) in his first Apology described the catechumenate and Tertulian (app. 220) coined the title “catechumen.” The catechumenate involved several stages, each with a catechetical, ascetical and liturgical facet, and usually lasted three years.

But, please understand that we do not need a direct Scripture that says, “examine all converts before baptism,” but doctrine may be established by the good and necessary consequence of all scripture. The church is not to baptize as ostriches, that is with their head in the sand, but upright, knowing as well as they may what and who they are baptizing. And yes, while one may memorize answers, the interviewer is looking for more than just mere words, but also the person’s way of life – through (koinonia). This is the reason why there should be relaxed social gatherings and such with new converts. As Poythress states, “Indifferentism presumes that church members are secure and so neglects exhorting them to grow and rebuking them for sin. Rigorism makes the standards of admission to the church so high that only the spiritually mature can meet them. Both indifferentism and rigorism are contrary to the biblical picture of gradual growth in maturity through active participation in the life of the body (Eph 4:11-16).”

Joe:

I agree the other extreme must not be taken. But as I stated their is ample evidence of puritan abuse, ie Edwards and company destroying the simple and making it a litmus test of grueling tedious unscriptural examinations. All i see in the writ is people who recognize jesus as THE Christ, were added. You were either a believer in the One True God or not. For instance, if a person was asked to profess, and he said "I am not sure about this or that, but I do know that I once was blind and now I see" I would welcome him with open arms.

Skepticism towards a profession, of which Pilgrim appears to espouse, leads to fruit inspectors. I have no toleration for that approach. But this is in line with the puritans.

Methinks this is naiveté at best. The profession of some we read of in Scripture should not be taken as a complete record of what transpired. Remember, many (most?) of what we read in the Gospels is a summarization of events. Most who professed Christ had listened to Christ on at least one occasion if not many times before. And Jesus' lectures/sermons were not 15 minute sound bytes which is common today. Further, after Pentecost the disciples taught everywhere; sometimes for days or weeks or even months at a time. The point being, most of those who we read professed to believe in Christ had been taught more than the "Four Spiritual Laws".

Secondly, Joe is correct in that a proper examination will consist of much more than a few questions about doctrine. One should be asked experimental questions as well in order to try and discern the heart and life of the individual and not just what they may have in the way of head knowledge. As you noted, and to which I heartily agree, it is easy for someone to simply parrot learned answers, which most every young person or adult can do and are required to do after going through a Catechism class.

Thirdly, methinks you have embraced a caricature image of how Jonathan Edwards and most of the Puritans conducted themselves in this area. I think you would find that the Puritans had "wide hearts" and their concern for a person's soul was more than genuine. I don't know where you got this idea that the Puritans put every person who desired to become a member of the church through some kind of Gestapo-inspired ordeal. But I have not yet read of anything like that.

And I say, anyone who thinks the majority of people who have "asked Jesus into their heart" is regenerate is a bit foolish. Scripture specifically enjoins us to be "fruit inspectors" as you phrased it:

Matthew 7:15-16 (ASV) "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves. By their fruits ye shall know them. Do [men] gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" . . . 18-20 "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Therefore by their fruits ye shall know them." (cf. Jude 1:10-19)

In His grace,

Pilgrim:

Scripture does not allow for the abuse in this area. COnversion naratives as espoused in the puritan experiment are not scriptural. There is much said on the topic. You ended up with some ridiculous "Half-Way COvenant" at best. Men are added first by the power of the Holy Spirit, then taught through their conversion. If I am understanding you correctly, you have it the other way around.


There is absolutely no evidence in the writ of having to give a conversion experience in length or depth as was required and still is by some..

"The practice was for men orally [women in writing] to make confession of faith and a declaration of their experiences of a worke of grace in the presence of the whole congregation, having bin examined and heard before by the elders in private and then stood propounded in publick for two or three weeks ordinarily," John Cotton [the younger], 1679.

Again, the above is not scriptural.

Perhaps you are not far from allowing 'spectral evidence' given against a professing applicant..

Joe,

Just as a reminder, this "half-way covenant" was duly opposed by Edwards. That was the main reason behind his breaking away from his grandfather Stoddard. This "half-way covenant" is not dissimilar to that which is practiced in most Continental Reformed churches and in some Presbyterian churches today. Read Kuyper, Schilder, &co., and you will see there are many similarities. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Abuses do not annul that which is required. The vast majority of churches today have little to do with private examination of applicants and consequently, entire congregations of unbelievers are "blessed" of the man behind a pulpit and assured that they are all destined for glory. What you are referring to, the extreme practices by a few, should not and cannot do away with what should be done. If I am to err I would much rather it be on being too "strict" as opposed to opening a "wide gate" and in do doing bring a false assurance to those who need Christ.

If Scripture commands that a person examine himself over the course of their lifetime, a short session before the Elders asking as to what is believed and what is in one's heart before one is admitted into the assembly is hardly something to oppose. Remember, to the church is given the "keys of the kingdom" with which the door is either locked or opened. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

Pilgrim I applaud some sort of litmus test with a hearty Amen. What I dont applaud is when one takes self examination to mean a morbid introspection, and examination of others to look at their lifes by the fruit only. They should be added on confession of belief, recognition of sin, and repentance. There MUST not be a long lag between that and full membership in the body.

Joe,

We can agree about the "morbid introspection" and most of the Puritans would also heartily agree. There a few denominations which still practice/encourage what we would call "morbid introspection", e.g., the NRC. And it seems we can agree that an examination by the Elders of prospective members is necessary. That examination should address the areas of doctrine, experimental and life. However, I am unsure about what you mean by a "long lag between that and full membership"? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" /> A person may be genuinely converted yet not seek membership in a local assembly for various reasons, e.g., the difficulty in finding one that is a true church, location of the individual and a good church, reluctance on the part of an individual to join any church due to lack of understanding, etc. And, if you mean by that some long examination process on the part of the church, e.g., weeks of grueling interrogation, then that would be unacceptable.

If one is examined rightly by the Elders and found to have a valid profession of faith in the above three areas I mentioned, then there is no reason to delay full communion. Further training/education should be recommended to all new members, however. And a true convert shouldn't have any objections to that recommendation at all. In fact, one who has come to Christ should/will most naturally want to seek such things, IMHO. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

The inspired Apostle wrote, “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?” (2 Cor. 13:5). How does a new convert examine himself truthfully having not been taught in the word and doctrine (Eph. 4:11-15; Rom. 16:17; 1 Tim. 4:1, 16, etc.)? As previously stated, the answer is the catechumen as seen in the Book of Galatians (6:1-6). In Scripture this interviewing is done. John did his interviewing – out loud at times. How did he know who to baptize and whom not to baptize? How did he know whom to call a viper and whom not to call a viper?

John apparently looked for a changed heart and evidence of the fruit. In John's exhortation to his hearers he articulates rather specific examples of repentance consistent with the sins of the categories of groups in question. Repentance should be discernible or evidenced in some way. Of course, in the Ethiopian eunuch’s case “the angel of the Lord” told Philip his mission (Acts 8:26) and the Spirit said to join himself to the Ethiopian’s chariot (29). Thus, no wonder this is a slam sprinkle baptism confirmed by the fact – “the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip” (39) thereafter. Of course, we have Paul (Acts 19:1-5) asking the folks in Ephesus "what baptism did you receive." Of course, here we have Paul who wrote the book on discerning of spirits and Philip who had direct revelation from the “angel of the Lord” [i.e. a theophany of Christ] and the direct leading of the Holy Spirit. Now, JoeK I do not think either of us measures up to the likes of a Paul or Philip, do you? While we may having the gift of “the discerning of spirits” at times I see God utilizing secondary causes [examinations] to allow us to properly discern as well.

On a side note, Packer in Puritan Evangelism makes some interesting positive comments regarding Puritan “preparation”practices saying,

I agree Joe. But it does not say let someone else examine you...

Paul addresses the people in Galatians as brethren. They were already added to the church at the time of his leter to them.Professed believers. Hence he speaks about restoration. He was not writing to teachers in regards to the unregenerate or uncoverted, even babes in Christ are added to the church. There was no interviewing done Joe. How can you conclude that? Those who came to the Jordan with a sincere heart of repentance were dipped. That is it. There was no question and answer time on the shore.


Exhortations are needed. Instruction in the Lord are needed. My point being is a long grueling examination is not. Like I said, a professon that Jesus is the Christ, and one believes in him should be all that is needed. I take people at their word... Then the body is to continue to care and teach this person.

Look at the example in Acts.. And please do not say this is some exception to the rule.

Peter proclaimed the message of the Gospel to the people. Then :: 40With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation." 41Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

IT is plain and simple. That DAY they were added to full fellowship.. There was no probationary period of extensive examination. They showed repentance, we baptised and added..

42They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. 44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. 46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

After being added, the results are obvious.

1) Unity in Doctrine
2)Celebrating the Supper
3)Prayed together
4)Sharing all they had
5)Joy
6)Praise to God

And the Lord added to the church DAILY


AS an aside for me, look at the example of Paul. Where was his examination by the other Apostles? There was none..

26And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple.

27But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus.

28And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem.


It kinda reminds me of the movie Goodfellas. Barnabas only had to say, He (paul) is a good fella...And the rest accepted Paul on the word of barnabas. If ANYONE was in need of an examination it should have been Paul. Yet there is no mention of one.

I agree with this Pilgrim. Perhaps we were talking past each other and I apologise for misreading you. I know that when the Lord adds people to the Church it is infallible and as sinful men we always have the risk of admitting a tare to grow amongst the wheat.

I read something that Roland Hill once said: AS I was walking down the street, a man stumbled out of a saloon to greet me. Raising his hand he said,"Hello minister Hill, I am one of your converts, and I replied, yes you are one of mine, for if you were one of the Lords you would not be drunk>>

Oh contrare mon frere!

Galatians 2:1-10 (ASV) Then after the space of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me. And I went up by revelation; and I laid before them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles but privately before them who were of repute, lest by any means I should be running, or had run, in vain. But not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: and that because of the false brethren privily brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: to whom we gave place in the way of subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. But from those who were reputed to be somewhat (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth not man's person)-- they, I say, who were of repute imparted nothing to me: but contrariwise, when they saw that I had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with [the gospel] of the circumcision (for he that wrought for Peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision wrought for me also unto the Gentiles); and when they perceived the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision; only [they would] that we should remember the poor; which very thing I was also zealous to do."

Methinks there was MUCH examination of Paul by the Apostles before he was given the "right hand of fellowship".

Pilgrim, I know it is a rare occurance with you since you are part of the new ecclesiastical enlightenment of internet theologians, you do err on this subject. This account happenned after Acts 9 narrative given by Barnabas. And had nothing to do with Pauls addition to the Body, but infact was in regards to approving his message of Grace. In fact this is the account of his rebuke of Peter.

Let me even go back further to the account of Paul's conversion in Damascus. Ananias who once called him "that man" greets him with brother Saul. Which would mean he is included in the Body. NO examination. No asking for a conversion narrative. Just brother saul..


In fact, lets use Gal 1 also.

15But when God, who set me apart from birth[a] and called me by his grace, was pleased 16to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, 17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.


This states clearly he did not go to the others to be examined...He was added to the church and did not see the other leaders for 3 years Pilgrim!!! 18Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter[b] and stayed with him fifteen days. 19I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother

The account in Galatians 2 happened 15 years later. Are you telling me it was 15 years of Peter and james and john et al inspecting pauls fruit? Not a chance Pilgrim...

So, you think NEW converts are MATURE enough to examine themselves FULLY and they do NOT need the rest of the body of Christ. Where did these NEW converts get all this knowledge and maturity from? How did they instantly discover how to interpret Scripture?

New professors are not instantly mature (Eph. 4:11-15; Rom. 16:17; 1 Tim. 4:1, 16, etc.). Note the text does NOT say you are to examine yourself ALONE? The tools for correctly examining oneself come from a proper application of the Word of God, prayer, etc. which a new convert has not been taught. Thus, we are to examine ourselves within the context of learning from community – Galatians 6:1-6; 2 Timothy 2:24-26, etc. Any new convert – who is truly converted – would invite such an opportunity to insure their faith was right with God. Examining yourself in accordance with Scripture only means that you yourself are responsible for your decision(s) and are responsible for taking actions, etc., but it no way means you are suppose to be the lone ranger and not seek godly counsel, instruction, and “obey” them that have the rule over you, etc. (Gal. 6:1-6, Heb. 13:17, etc.).

JoeK, not everyone that attends a church is a member of the church – even then. Brethren was a common title to those inside/outside of the church and does not necessarily mean someone is saved or a member of the visible church. However, what your explanation really brings out is that you must support baptismal regeneration, for you are assuming that the un-baptized new converts are not brethren and yet you desire to baptize them? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" />

I agree with you that Galatians 6 is relevant to restoration. But isn't a new convert being restored? (i.e. the Muslim must deal with all those wives....) For instance, Galatians 6 says we are to carry one another’s burdens. Is this ONLY during a restoration period of a mature Christian’s life, or do you think that it may be a life principle that may be applied anywhere along the growth of a person professing Christ, (Luke 4:18 ff, etc.). The same could be said for verse 6, “Anyone who receives instruction [catechumen] in the word” .. may also refer to new converts as a general rule. Do new converts need help with burdens and instruction when first saved? Hmmm

JoeK, I believe the only person using the term “grueling” is YOU. I believe I argued that the whole process should be done from an attitude of love, acceptance, and fellowship.

Yes, Peter did a great job that day didn’t he. Please do note that it was a “day” that began early in the morning. However, if you would back up a few verses to Acts 2:14 you would see that the Eleven were with him. Peter was not alone. As matter a fact, if we take Acts 2:1 and 1:15 into consideration the 120 were there. Now you may like to believe that the Eleven and the 120 were just twiddling their thumbs but I believe they were circulating and mingling doing the Lord’s work [see below]. And though you quoted vs 40, did you get the jest of it?

In other words, the sermon (or at least parts of it) was preached over and over. It was an all day affair, which began prior to the third hour of the day (2:15). And while Peter was preaching 131 people were working the crowd (3000/131 = app. 23 people per person). Now how do you think they came to know who was a believer? How did these on this special day of Pentecost know who had received the word and who had not? Do you think questions were asked? Moreover, who answered all the questions? – just Peter? (Acts 2:37 ”Brethren, [plural] what shall we do?”). There was plenty of time and people for some examination.

However, the Day of Pentecost was a very special day and a very special gift was being given out – the gift (sg., not gifts) of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4, 38). True believers would have easily been able to be picked out! [see Calvin]. So, yes instant baptism would have been the call of that day.