What I’ve ran into lately has caused me great pause. I've run into three recent pastors who are SB and Calvinistic (I would argue inconsistently so). Great guys, let me say that up front. And let me say I am merely analyzing this and NOT trying to accuse anyone. It is not people but teaching I'm attempting to look at and I don't know any other way to analyze it than simply discuss it. Of these; one has refused baptism to someone coming multiple times due to the pastor's "lack of seeing fruit" and "feeling they are not saved". To this the person seeking has not left or rebelled but merely replies, "I understand". Another pastor in a general discussion was trying to figure out how to arrive at a more regenerate church, which confuses me since this is forbidden and attributing to mere men what God alone can do. And a third was lamenting with a friend of mine (not in my presence) that he had in the past actually baptized someone whose later fruit (whatever that means, it usually is left very subjective and nebulous) seem to show that he was not regenerate (as if such can be directly detected, you'd think people would remember Judas and Simon Magnus). This is a deeply disturbing trend to me. Because at my own conversion it was very sudden and admittedly 24 hours early I denied Christ, what measure of fruit did I have beyond my profession? Furthermore, sanctification had just begun.
This seems to be a dangerous albeit small trend I'm experiencing from those opening up to Calvinism but maintaining the whole regenerate church on earth thinking. It seems to lead to hyper-calvinism. When I analyze it - the "regenerate church on earth thinking" seems to at least lean and lead into a Hyper-Calvinistic direction.
My meager analysis: If some of the key components to Hyper-Calvinism are a tendency to emphasize the hidden will of God (e.g., seeking/emphasizing the baptism of the elect and regenerate only) over the revealed will of God (e.g., repent, trust and believe in Christ ALONE); eternity over time (e.g. the true body of Christ Vs. the earthly administration of the church body); and inward examination for election over external faith toward Christ - then a regenerate church on earth and connected baptism of regenerate only can only lead that way in its logical conclusion. Now, you may say but this is not what we do. But think about what the hearer hears. Because the emphasis (if not explicitly - implicitly) is always on election and regeneration in terminology such as “believers only meaning truly elect“, “really saved”, “I don’t think x-person is saved because of this or that fruit”. The language is at a minimum implicit in our way of speaking as to earthly church membership and by extension baptism.
The one pastor I’ve mentioned used "fruit" as a criteria. But this seems to be in reverse. Does one produce fruit first in order to obtain grace? Think about it, again we hardly think what we are communicating to the hearer. One tells someone that, "you cannot be baptized because you seem not to be saved (implying rebirth/regeneration) because you have no fruit that "I" see." What has one just communicated to that person? Let's give the benefit of the doubt and let us say that the person really and truly is not regenerate (though in reality we cannot nakedly detect this). What has just been communicated to them? You are a sinner, turn and look to Christ alone? No, the receiver of such would have to conclude from such language that there is something "I must DO, some work, in order to be saved (receive grace)" - the exact opposite of the Gospel. It is flip-flopping the Gospel so as to make it absolutely unrecognizable from any other religion on earth. Martin Luther, bless the Lord's powerful wielding of him, seems to be so very right about this issue.
Beyond profession are we to look for fruit for entrance into the church? I understand it in the context of the church for discipline and such, but before? We are not talking about gross rejection here and doctrine off the mark. "Knowing them by their fruit" seems to presume that they are already within the visible church for examination because why in the world would someone be looking for fruit in the external unregenerate? Seeking fruit (again beyond profession) in order to assure regeneration (by extension election) in order to baptize someone into the church seems to be the very essence of hyper-Calvinism. It seems that this has merely moved the seeking of election within the church doors - whereby we indeed 'do missions' externally but then bar the door of grace at the point of baptism. We promiscuously 'do evangelism' "not knowing the elect" but then only allow them into the faith at the point of baptism by "knowing the elect".
Would we present the Gospel the way that many seem to present baptism? Does this not present the Gospel of grace freely, then at the point of baptism we say, "hold on a minute didn't you read the fine print, you must be examined before the Sanhedrin". We are so clumsy. If one had examined me just after conversion I would have been scared to death and probably ran, not from Christ but from the church. Because at that point all I saw was my great need and my great fear of myself and a great Saviour. Being a former truly irreligious person, not growing up in the church I had no "churchy" language, knew very little of the terms I now know and my language would have been the best that an irreligious unchurched person could produce.
Again, I'm not speaking of the obvious gross evidence that one does not have minimal doctrine. But I fear that such a communication to someone seeking to join the body of Christ is nothing less than a gospel that is no gospel at all and does nothing less than obscure Christ from their sight.
Do all believers only churches do this up front? Well, not Armenian ones for certain, they usually catch you with the deadly loop of rededications, aisle walking, alter calls, pray the prayer, have you given all your heart…etc. Others, non-Armenians, do not for the most part explicitly, but the emphasis on the timing ALWAYS leads there in the conscience of the believer. Hence the fruit of re-baptisms. Anytime men attempt to purify the church on earth, even passively, it is dangerous. Not to the unregenerate, but to the regenerate, the smoking flax, the babes in Christ, the weak, the scared to death sent inward upon themselves.
That’s usually the first two questions one is asked upon changing membership: 1. Were you immersed and 2. Were you baptized as a believer?
And to reemphasize, I’m just trying to examine and understand. No one should get angry over seeking or understanding the truth.
Blessings Always,
Larry
PS: Gabriel, your attending Southern in Louisville. That's my old stomping grounds. I grew up in and around Louisville. We just recently moved toward Frankfort due to jobs. We might have to hook up some time if you want.
There is Scriptural mention of further examination with the Lord's Supper, but there is no such mention of anything beyond external covenant status through profession with baptism.
