by Ben Habegger | Feb 16, 2026 | Apologetics
*Editor’s Note: The views expressed in this series are not intended as an official statement of CBTS or a uniform position of its faculty. This material is offered in the spirit of faith seeking understanding and to encourage further theological reflection. As more installments of this series are released, they will be linked here.
Introduction
When we read our English Bibles, we must remember that the word hell is one English word used to translate various Hebrew and Greek words. The next few posts will focus on the Greek words hades and gehenna, both of which have often been translated in the New Testament as hell. In the process, much of the New Testament’s teaching on the intermediate and eternal states of the wicked will come to light. The intermediate state is the condition of deceased humanity before the resurrection and final judgment, whereas the eternal state is humanity’s condition following the resurrection of the body.
The word hades is sometimes used in the New Testament of a place to which the spirits of the unregenerate descend at death. It is also used in references to Old Testament texts to translate the Hebrew word sheol into Greek; particularly in these instances, the word could conceivably refer either to death and the grave in general (prior to the resurrection of the body) or more specifically to the intermediate state of wicked spirits.
The word gehenna (transliterated into Greek from the Aramaic gehinnam) is used in the New Testament of eternal hellfire, and thus appears to refer to the second death in the lake of fire (as described in the Book of the Revelation). Jesus also identifies Gehenna with the eternal punishment and shame described in Isaiah 66.
Together, Hades and Gehenna are two places of punishment which are both commonly called Hell. In the New Testament development of the doctrine, Hades is the present Hell for the disembodied dead, and Gehenna is the eternal Hell after the resurrection to damnation.
References to Hades as Death and the Grave Rather Than Hell
In Matthew 16:18, Jesus famously declares, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell [hades] shall not prevail against it.” The phrase here which can be translated “gates of Hades” reflects a Hebrew expression for the power or hold of death. There may also be an allusion here to Satan as the evil one who brought death on the human race and who has murderous designs on God’s people (cf. Hebrews 2:14; Revelation 12:3–4, 13–17). However, death’s power is the basic connotation of the Greek phrase. We might compare this to an expression like “the jaws of death.” Phrases like the gates of death or the gates of Hades appeared in ancient Greek translations (the Septuagint) of the Old Testament. Notice the following examples.
In Job 38:17, the Lord asks a rhetorical question of Job: ““Have the gates of death been revealed to you, or have you seen the gates of deep darkness?” The Lexham English Septuagint translates the Greek, “And have the gates of death been opened to you out of fear, and the gatekeepers of Hades, seeing you, cower?” David, in fear for his life, exclaims, “Be gracious to me, O Lord! See my affliction from those who hate me, O you who lift me up from the gates of death.” (Psalm 9:13) The psalmist describes those afflicted almost unto death:
17 Some were fools through their sinful ways,
and because of their iniquities suffered affliction;
18 they loathed any kind of food,
and they drew near to the gates of death.
19 Then they cried to the Lord in their trouble,
and he delivered them from their distress.
(Psalm 107:17–19)
The exact expression, the gates of Hades, appears in King Hezekiah’s reflection upon his deliverance from death:
9 A writing of Hezekiah king of Judah, after he had been sick and had recovered from his sickness:
10 I said, In the middle of my days
I must depart;
I am consigned to the gates of Sheol [lxx: the gates of Hades]
for the rest of my years.
11 I said, I shall not see the Lord,
the Lord in the land of the living;
I shall look on man no more
among the inhabitants of the world.
17 Behold, it was for my welfare
that I had great bitterness;
but in love you have delivered my life
from the pit of destruction,
for you have cast all my sins
behind your back.
18 For Sheol does not thank you;
death does not praise you;
those who go down to the pit do not hope
for your faithfulness.
19 The living, the living, he thanks you,
as I do this day;
the father makes known to the children
your faithfulness.
(Isaiah 38:9–11, 17–19)
In an earlier post, we have already noted the use of Hades in Acts 2, where Peter quotes Psalm 16 to demonstrate the necessity of the Christ’s resurrection. Again, this is a use of Hades to translate Sheol, and the prophecy is that the messianic Son of David would not find himself abandoned to death or his body to decay in the grave.
25 For David says concerning him,
“‘I saw the Lord always before me,
for he is at my right hand that I may not be shaken;
26 therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced;
my flesh also will dwell in hope.
27 For you will not abandon my soul to Hades,
or let your Holy One see corruption.
28 You have made known to me the paths of life;
you will make me full of gladness with your presence.’
29 “Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, 31 he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.
(Acts 2:25–31)
References to Hades as Hell
We should also acknowledge the use of Hades in other New Testament texts in reference to the intermediate state of wicked spirits, which is a place and condition of confined punishment. Both Matthew and Luke record the Lord Jesus contrasting a self-righteous expectation of heaven with the actual doom of descent into Hades. Given the context (which indicates degrees of condemnation and punishment on the day of judgment), the most natural understanding of Hades in such texts seems to be that of the present Hell for departed spirits, a place of punishment awaiting the day of judgment.
23 And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24 But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you.”
(Matthew 11:23–24)
10 But whenever you enter a town and they do not receive you, go into its streets and say, 11 ‘Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet we wipe off against you. Nevertheless know this, that the kingdom of God has come near.’ 12 I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town. 13 Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. 14 But it will be more bearable in the judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. 15 And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades.
(Luke 10:10–15)
We have already encountered what Jesus said in Luke 16 about an unnamed rich man who died and found himself in fiery torment in Hades (in contrast to the righteous beggar Lazarus, who died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom).
19 “There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21 who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man’s table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried, 23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. 24 And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’ 27 And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father’s house— 28 for I have five brothers—so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ 29 But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”
(Luke 16:19–31)
Remember what we have already said regarding this text. Jesus is telling a story describing the realities of death to make a point about the unbelieving Pharisees (lovers of money according to verse 14 of Luke 16), about whether earthly comforts demonstrate God’s favor, and about the sign of his own coming resurrection; but Jesus is accommodating his description to images we can somewhat comprehend. Earthly eating and drinking, feast or famine, may be reversed in the realm of the departed. Temporal blessings in this life do not guarantee lasting blessings in the next. On earth, the rich man lived in comfort and daily feasting while Lazarus lived in hunger and pain. After death, Lazarus was ushered into lasting comfort in Abraham’s bosom (the place of honor reclining at table; cf. Matthew 8:11–12; John 13:23–25) while the rich man could not even get a drop of water in his fiery torment. That said, unless the dead are given temporary forms of some sort, the imagery of Abraham’s bosom and the rich man’s eyes and tongue and Lazarus’s finger do not seem to be literal descriptions of disembodied spirits. We can simply say that Jesus is telling a story about heaven (where Abraham the father of the faithful is) and hell (where the departed spirits of the wicked are currently tormented). Nevertheless, while being careful not to read too much into this description of heavenly bliss and hellish torment, we must not water down the realities of existence beyond the grave, realities which Jesus clearly means for us to take seriously. The solemn realities described here align well with the rest of the scriptural witness.
Within John’s symbolic visions in the Book of the Revelation, a distinction is apparently made between death and Hades (while maintaining a close connection between the two). That being the case, Hades here fits best with something beyond death or the grave itself. Such texts seem to speak of both death and hell:
17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, “Fear not, I am the first and the last, 18 and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and [of] Hades.
(Revelation 1:17–18)
7 When he opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living creature say, “Come!” 8 And I looked, and behold, a pale horse! And its rider’s name was Death, and Hades followed him. And they were given authority over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword and with famine and with pestilence and by wild beasts of the earth.
(Revelation 6:7–8)
13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. 14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.
(Revelation 20:13–14)
Such is the New Testament data regarding the term hades. While it can be as broad in its reference as the Hebrew term sheol, it also has a narrower reference at times to what we would call the present Hell. Just as New Testament revelation gives us much increased light regarding Heaven as the present abode of the blessed, so the New Testament also provides clearer revelation concerning Hell as the present abode of the damned. Next we must examine the term gehenna and its connection with the resurrection to damnation.
Ben Habegger first served in full-time pastoral ministry near Detroit, Michigan from 2013-2017 and has now been vocational pastor at Hope Reformed Baptist Church of Aloha, Oregon (formerly Glencullen Baptist Church of Portland, Oregon) since January of 2020. He has a Master of Divinity degree from Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary and a Master of Arts in Reformed Baptist Studies from Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary. Ben and his wife Theresa have four children.
by CBTS Student | Feb 4, 2026 | Eschatology
Introduction
As with many things in the West, the evangelical church has vastly changed since the mid-20th century. Political climates have shifted, technology has advanced, and old traditions have died. One such tradition is the formal practice of local church membership. For some churches, this has resulted in a significant uptick in attendance. G. Doug Davis demonstrates that loose church attendance is increasingly attractive for modern Americans.[1] A 2025 report conducted by Ligonier Ministries, in partnership with Lifeway Research, has found that 31% of professing evangelicals deny the importance of membership in a local church.[2] Why is it that nearly one-third of evangelicals now find church membership unimportant?
It is evident that a non-committal attitude has made its way into the church. The church is in desperate need of an attitude adjustment, but this cannot come by the mere words of a man. The Spirit must open ears to hear what the Word of God says about the issue of church membership. My humble aim is to show us our missteps and to direct us toward renewed faithfulness. It is my contention that church membership is a tradition appointed by God, not by man. To prove this, we must first ask, “How did we get here?” Church membership did not fall into ill repute overnight. In this paper, I will answer this question from a historical-sociological standpoint. Second, we must ask, “What has the church historically believed about membership?” Third, we must ask the all-important question, “What is the comprehensive biblical teaching on membership?” Finally, we will reflect on some practical benefits of church membership for both the individual and the corporate whole. I hope to present a case for local church membership that will revive our joyful gratitude for the blessing of Christ’s church.
The Rise of Postmodern Individualism
We must consider where the neglect of church membership began. The origins are doubtless multifaceted. We cannot assume the ability to explore every possible diagnosis. An assessment of a recent work by Jacob Phillips, however, helps us put a name to what we have seen in the Western church for the past seventy-five years. A leading culprit for church membership’s decline is the rise of postmodern individualism. In the article, Phillips presents the evaluations of two cultural commentators, Philip Reiff and Carl Trueman. Reiff’s treatment of individualism comes from a sociological perspective, whereas Trueman’s application of individualism is informed by his theological background within the evangelical church.
To show us the regressive devolution of society, Reiff traces the development of human history from the classical world to our own postmodern culture. He claims that the classical world saw a close-knit relationship between society and human self-understanding.[3] In other words, the communal whole and the individual functioned with harmony and for mutual benefit. But how was this manifested in the church of that time? Phillips demonstrates that the premodern church saw the incarnate Christ as an exemplary human being.[4] He was both an individual and communal figure. He was the foundation upon which individual identity and society were built together. Thus, the formal inclusion of individuals within local churches was a valued part of the Christian experience.
The classical world was followed by the modern period. Among other factors, a shifting understanding of individual identity brought on this new era. This marked the beginning of a division between the self and society. Personal needs began to take precedent over the needs of the collective whole. The wellness of the individual became determinative of the wellness of the social order.[5] We may discern a priority placed on the individual over (though not yet against) the society.
For Reiff, this valuation of the individual quickly devolved into what is now known as postmodernism.[6] Rieff sees the human self-understanding of the postmodern culture as a “result of Freudian psychology.”[7] Postmodernity brought with it a societal corrosion where the individual took precedence over (and now against) the community, rather than both existing harmoniously together. Here we find the soil in which individualism flourishes. Sociological figures such as Rousseau and Marx only fueled this ideological shift.[8] The individual, in their view, only reaches his full potential when he has broken off any derived meaning from a collective group. Rather than simply distinguishing between the individual and the society, postmodern thought drove a wedge between the two.
There is an important connection between individualism’s rise and the fall of local church membership in America. The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic helped reveal this connection. According to Hansen and Leeman, one-third of churchgoers stopped attending church altogether after the pandemic.[9] I refuse to believe that a virus was the primary cause for this. Proof of this lies in the fact that many churchgoers have failed to return to their churches almost six years later. The coronavirus that hit the world in 2020 simply unmasked the real, preexisting problem. It is the problem that has infected the soul of the western evangelical church since the rise of postmodern individualism. This is not hyperbole. Phillips’ treatment of Trueman supports this notion.
In tandem with Reiff’s sociological work on the issue, Phillips interacts extensively with what Trueman calls expressive individualism. Trueman defines expressive individualism as the inclination that “each of us finds our meaning by giving expression to our own feelings and desires.”[10] Based on this definition, individualism aims at the outward expression of the self’s internal desires. With this core dogma of individualism in view, it is understandable then why so many Christians today are content to keep their faith to themselves. COVID-19 simply made this covert feeling an overt behavior in the church.
We must ask ourselves, “What is the solution to all this?” Trueman argues that there is no easy escape from the clutches of expressive individualism.[11] In a way everyone is an individualist because of the anti-societal environment in which we live. Individualism is like polluted air that we cannot help but breathe. Nevertheless, we must recognize it as a sinful and unbiblical ideology. The only effective solution then is to have our minds renewed by the grace of God. We must be sanctified from our individualism by the Word and Spirit. Now, the imago Dei remains a viable Christian doctrine even in the individualistic landscape of the day. The issue is not individuality, but the idolization of self and its negative effects on Christ’s church today. We must relearn how to distinguish between the individual and the community without pitting them against one another.
There is a hope to be applied to the church. It is found in the Word of God. As we come to consider the Scriptures, we must disassemble our individualistic notions that church membership is a practice posited on the church by men wanting control. To reform our view of church membership in light of the Word, we must humbly remember that we are not the first Christians to read and interpret the Bible. We must now ask, “How has the church historically understood membership?”
The Confessional Testimony
Here we will consider the confessional tradition of the Reformed Baptists. To do this we will review the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (2LBCF). In doing this we must not be myopic. The 2LBCF is the not-so-distant relative of several other orthodox confessions and early church creeds (e.g., Savoy, Westminster, Nicene). Therefore, while the 2LBCF has a distinctly Baptist formulation of church membership, it is––nevertheless––rooted in the historic faith once for all delivered to the saints.
The principal sections of the Baptist Confession dealing with local church membership are found in chapter 26 on the doctrine of the church. James Renihan and Sam Waldron’s work on the Confession will aid us in thinking through this confessional tradition.
We begin in 26:2 of the 2LBCF where we read,
All people throughout the world who profess the faith of the gospel and obedience to God through Christ in keeping with the gospel are and may be called visible saints [1 Cor. 1:2; Acts 11:26], as long as they do not destroy their profession by any foundational errors or unholy living. All local [particular] congregations ought to be made up of these [Rom. 1:7; Eph. 1:20–22].[12]
Here we see the identification of those who may officially belong to local congregations. They are visible saints who profess faith in Christ and demonstrate obedience through Christ. All churches, according to the Baptist Confession, should be constituted of these saints.
From this point the Confession develops the concept of calling in relation to church membership. It says, “Those who are called He commands to live together in local [particular] societies, or churches, for their mutual edification and the fitting conduct of public worship that He requires of them while they are in the world.”[13] Waldron reminds us that this paragraph in the Confession reveals something foundational about the church’s origin. The local church did not originate with man. It is Christ’s idea. He wields His power as Lord of the church in His calling, institution, ordering, and governing of the church.[14]
The 2LBCF continues that members of these local churches “willingly agree to live together according to Christ’s instructions, giving themselves to the Lord and to one another by the will of God.”[15] Renihan explains that the language of the Confession teaches that church membership is a manifestation of the inward life of a believer in union with Christ.[16] The willingness of these believers to commune with one another in these churches is a result of the willingness wrought in them by the Spirit to commune with Christ.
But was church membership optional for the framers of the Confession? In 26:12 we find that it was not optional. It says, “All believers are obligated to join themselves to local [particular] churches when and where they have the opportunity.”[17] The Confession goes on to mention that membership affords a person with certain privileges. “Likewise, all who are admitted to the privileges of a church are also subject to the discipline [censures] and government of it, according to the rule of Christ [1 Thess. 5:14; 2 Thess. 3:6, 14–15].”[18] When one joins a local church, they enjoy the privileges of covenantal communion.[19] These privileges are experienced in joyful fellowship with the saints and in the accountability of discipline.
Waldron comments on 26:12,
The Bible teaches that the local church is not a loose-knit social club, nor merely a preaching center. The Bible teaches that the local church is a society dedicated to teaching men to observe all the Christ commanded. It is, therefore, a religious order characterized by mutual accountability.[20]
Members are blessed when they voluntarily submit themselves to the government of their local church. In joining themselves to the local church via membership they fight against the postmodern doctrine that separation from community leads to the liberation of the self. The submissive, loving church member finds true liberation to obey all that Christ commanded in the context of the institution He gave us. Contrary to the postmodern notions described above, church membership is God’s ordained means for fulfilling our individual purposes.
We now ask, “Is church membership biblical?” Did the framers of the 2LBCF have good, biblical reason to make the above claims? Careful thought is required here. In considering the biblical foundation of church membership, we will deal with three of the prooftexts from the Confession (i.e., 1 Cor. 12:12–27; Matt. 18:15–20; Acts 2:41–47). The 1 Corinthians 12 passage is not a prooftext for chapter 26 of the 2LBCF. It is, however, a prooftext for 27:2 on the communion of the saints. Since saintly communion is manifested in local churches, 1 Corinthians 12 remains a relevant text for the issue of church membership.
The Biblical Foundation
To show the Bible’s clear teaching on church membership, we will consider three Scripture passages. We must not, however, assume this is all the Bible says about the topic. Beeke and Smalley help pave the way by distinguishing between the direct and indirect references to membership in the New Testament.[21] Below, I will provide a short exposition of one such direct reference in 1 Corinthians 12:12–27. I will then briefly review two indirect references to church membership in Matthew 18 and Acts 2 to further prove the doctrine.
1 Corinthians 12:12–27
The church at Corinth was beloved in the eyes of God (1 Cor. 1:1–9). Yet, there remained some defects within the body. Disunity and pride were chief among these defects (1 Cor. 1:10–17; 11:18). A divisive spirit manifested itself at the church Corinth in the way some of its members viewed themselves in relation to others. In 1 Corinthians 12:1–11 Paul addressed some misconceptions about spiritual gifts and their relative importance. Evidently, the saints there were under the false impression that some of them were more important to the church based on their gifting. This context helps frame Paul’s teaching on membership in 1 Corinthians 12:12–27.
Consider Paul’s metaphor in verse 12. “For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ” (12:12). For Paul, the human body is analogous to Christ’s spiritual body. Just as the human body is singular and has many parts which compose it, so it is with the church. Christ’s body—expressly manifested in the local church—is singular but composed of many individual members. This body-members metaphor is crucial to establishing church membership as a biblical practice once again. How did Paul expand the implications of this body-members metaphor? The following succeeding verses answer this question.
In verses 13–27 we observe four key implications biblical church membership. First, consider the basis of unity among church members. Unity is spoken of here with reference to the one body. Paul said, “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit” (12:13). Paul was communicating to the local church that their unity is founded on their common salvation.
Second, consider the reality of diversity among church members. The beauty of the local church is that corporate unity does not erase individuality. Indeed, individual diversity ensures unity over uniformity. There is a oneness to the members of a church, but this does not imply sameness among them. “For the body does not consist of one member but of many” (12:14). An individual is to the local church what an organ is to the human body. To be healthy, each individual member needs all the other members to work together in the local church.
Third, consider how unity and diversity amongst church members militates against self-deprecation. Imagine your ears saying to your eyes, “Because I don’t have the gift of seeing, I don’t belong to this body.” This would be absurd (see 12:15–17). God has arranged the members of the body of Christ with purpose and wisdom (12:18–20). The corporate membership of a local church is God’s idea. Contextually, this is seen in the various giftings and offices of the church (1 Cor. 12:28; see Eph. 4:11).
Lastly, consider how unity and diversity among church members militate against self-importance. Because of the remaining sin of pride, some members within local churches over-value their place in the body. But no individual body part can say to another body part, “I have no need of you” (12:21). No individual member ought to have such an attitude toward other members in the local body of Christ. Biceps are useless without tendons. Some members have roles within the church that are more externally visible than others (12:22–24). This fact, however, in no way negates the importance of the less visible members.
These four implications help us see church membership from the mind of an apostle. Local church membership involves the enjoyment of unity amidst diversity under the lordship of Jesus Christ. In other words, local church membership is the manifestation of a healthy spiritual body.
An objection may arise at this point. “Paul’s body-members metaphor was only a general reference to the universal church.” We must be careful not to neglect what the text says here. It says, “Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it” (12:27; emphasis added). Remember, Paul was writing to a local church in the city of Corinth. He said, “you are the body of Christ.” Therefore, “[you are] individually members of it.” If a local church is the body of Christ, then we should expect it to be made up of members. We may deduce that the local church is the necessary substantiation of the universal church. Dever asserts that local church membership reflects universal church membership.[22] He adds that church membership—in its biblical context—shows the active nature of a commitment between fellow believers.[23] It is a living agreement amongst a church’s members which stirs them up to love and good works.
Matthew 18:15–20
In Matthew 18 Jesus provided a formula for dealing with conflict between Christians. Embedded in this passage is an implicit reference to church membership. Jesus instructed that once the offended party has gone to the offender privately, and then a second time with witnesses, the offense is to be brought before the whole church. Jesus continued, “And if [the offender] refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” (Matt. 18:17). Jesus’ command to “let [the offender] be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” referred to the removal of membership. Removal is caused by an offender’s impenitence, and it comes by way of the majority vote of the church (see 2 Cor. 2:6). We may conclude that if Jesus commanded churches to formally remove an impenitent person from their midst, then biblically qualified individuals may be formally added by membership. Perhaps this is still unconvincing for some.
Let us return to 1 Corinthians for a moment. In 1 Corinthians we see Matthew 18:17 applied to the unrepentant man fornicating with his stepmother. Paul instructed, “Purge the evil person from among you” (1 Cor. 5:13). This unrepentant man in Corinth was not an outsider of the church. He was among them as a member of the body. This instruction in 1 Corinthians 5:13 is a quotation from the old covenant law concerning those in Israel who violated God’s covenant (Dt. 13:5; 17:7, 12; 21:21; 22:21–22, 24; see Judg. 20:13). Though there was a covenantal change from the old to the new, formal inclusion and exclusion remains a part of the covenant community. The formal inclusion into Israel was by way of circumcision. A covenant-breaker was to be cut off from the people of God. They would be removed from all community privileges and treated as an outsider. The formal inclusion under the new covenant is now via regeneration and baptism into the local church. Thus, a person who shows themselves unregenerate through continued impenitence is to be formally removed as a member.
Acts 2:41–47
In Acts 2 we find the genesis of New Testament church gatherings. After Peter’s Pentecost sermon we read, “So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls” (Acts 2:41; emphasis added). Notice first that those who were added to the church in Jerusalem were “those who received [Peter’s] word.” These believers were baptized. They were baptized yet not into a generic, undefined group. They were baptized into the church at Jerusalem. After Luke described the activity of the first church gatherings we read, “And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved” (Acts 2:47b). This same kind of record is presented elsewhere in the book of Acts (5:14; 9:26; 11:24). The above objection could be made at this point as well. Could these numbers just be in reference to those who were added to the universal church? We must remember the whole New Testament witness. The believers were added to Christ (i.e., His body). This body, as a universal reality, has a particular expression in local churches. Much more may be said about the biblical foundation for local church membership, but a brief word on the practical benefits of membership is now in order.
The Practical Benefits
God’s design for His church tends toward the good of His people. The pendulum swing away from expressive individualism often ignores Christian individuality altogether. We must avoid this pitfall by considering the benefits of local church membership for the individual and the corporate body.
The individual finds many blessings in local church membership. We will consider two of the most obvious benefits here. First, the individual church member enjoys the God ordained opportunity to demonstrate their faith in the local church. The Lord has called us to love God and neighbor. If membership in the universal church is a result of faith in Christ, then local membership as a demonstration of that faith. Local church membership is a means by which a believer’s faith works through love (Gal. 5:6). The loose churchgoer who prefers the church without commitment must be reminded that “faith without works is dead” (Js. 2:26).
Second, the individual church member enjoys union with a tangible community. The church corporately belongs to the Lord Jesus. Hansen and Leeman show that by virtue of their belonging to Christ, they also belong to one another.[24] This relationship gives sustenance for the individual Christian who, otherwise, is given over to find community online or elsewhere. Contrary to postmodern thought, individual Christians come to a better knowledge of God and themselves when they are found attached to a vibrant local body. An eye without an optic nerve is not useful. The same is true for the Christian without attachment to the local church.
Let us lastly consider the corporate benefits of local church membership. First, local church membership benefits the corporate body by bolstering her gospel witness. Think of what is biblically required for a person to join a local church. Emerson and Stamps remind us that orderly church governance depends on regenerate church membership.[25] This is a pivotal part of ensuring a local church is truly under the lordship of Christ. When a church and its officers are faithful to uphold this principle, it adorns the gospel. It may be argued that formal church membership serves a local church’s evangelistic witness rather than dampens it as is commonly misconceived. While blemishes may remain in a local church, their mutual love for one another covers a multitude of these blemishes. Jesus himself said, “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (Jn. 13:35). A biblical church must be known by the love made manifest among the brethren.
Second, local church membership demonstrates the love that God has for His covenant people. Benjamin Keach believed that membership is one of the glories of a true church.[26] Local church membership glorifies and displays the magnificence of God’s love for sinners. According to Keach, a glory of a true church is found in the believers’ union with Christ and one another.[27] Quoting Psalm 87:2, he wrote, “Know, my brethren, that God ‘loveth the gates of Zion more than all the dwelling places of Jacob.’ Therefore, the public worship of God ought to be preferred before private.”[28] Corporate worship is the pinnacle of the Christian experience because it alerts the human senses to our covenantal communion with God and one another.
Conclusion
It has been the aim of this paper to present a case for local church membership. The formal membership of a local body of believers was a tradition set forth by God, not by man. Though men have tainted the practice with the clutter of their own thinking, we must recover the biblical doctrine to fight against the pressures of the culture. Our sociological evaluation has uncovered the effect of postmodern individualism in the modern understanding of church membership. Our brief historical survey has revealed to us the confessional testimony. The biblical foundation for church membership was laid before us and supported the legitimacy of the practice as a Christ-ordained part of the Christian experience. The practical benefits exhibit that God’s desire is for the good of His people. This comes via covenantal communion with Himself and with one another. Let us obey the Word of God with joy in humbly submitting ourselves to the government of a faithful local church. In this way Christ’s kingdom will reign, disciples will be made, and the gospel of the Lord Jesus will go to all nations. In all these things, to the glory of God alone.
About the Author
Jared Saleeby is an MDiv student at CBTS. He is the happy husband of Ruth Saleeby. The Lord has blessed them with three awesome kids. He serves as one of the pastors at New Covenant Church in Myrtle Beach, SC.
[1] G. Doug Davis, “Farewell to Faith: Democracy, the Decline in American Public Religion, and the Rise of the Non-Religious,” Religions 16: 751, (2025): 2, https://doi.org/10.3390/rel16060751.
[2] “The State of Theology,” Ligonier Ministries, 2025, accessed January 12, 2026, https://thestateoftheology.com.
[3] Jacob Phillips, “The Divine Idea of the Self and Contemporary Culture,” Religions 16: 619, (2025): 2, https://doi.org/10.3390/rel16050619.
[4] Ibid., 5.
[5] Ibid., 3.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid., 2.
[8] Ibid., 4.
[9] Collin Hansen and Jonathan Leeman, Rediscover Church: Why the Body of Christ is Essential, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2021), 11.
[10] Ibid., 6.
[11] Ibid., 7.
[12] The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith in Modern English, ed. Stan Reeves (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2017), 49. All other references to the 2LBCF will be provided in an abbreviated footnote citation.
[13] 2LBCF, 26:5.
[14] Samuel E. Waldron, A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, 5th ed. (Darlington, UK: Evangelical Press, 2016), 371.
[15] 2LBCF, 26:6.
[16] James Renihan, Baptist Symbolics, vol. 2, To the Judicious and Impartial Reader: A Contextual-Historical Exposition of the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2022), 493.
[17] 2LBCF, 26:12.
[18] 2LBCF, 26:12.
[19] Renihan, Baptist Symbolics, 508.
[20] Waldron, A Modern Exposition, 383.
[21] Joel Beeke and Paul Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology, vol. 4, Church and Last Things (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2024), 190–93.
[22] Mark Dever, Nine Marks of a Healthy Church, 4th ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2021), 130–31.
[23] Ibid., 143.
[24] Hansen and Leeman, Rediscover Church, 18.
[25] Matthew Y. Emerson and R. Lucas Stamps, The Baptist Vision: Faith and Practice for a Believers’ Church (Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2025), 88.
[26] Keach, Benjamin, The Glory of a True Church, ed. Quinn R. Mosier, The Particular Classics Series (1697; repr., Kansas City, MO: Baptist Heritage Press, 2022), 38.
[27] Ibid., 39.
[28] Ibid., 43.
This blog post is authored by a student of Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary.
by Jon English Lee | Feb 3, 2026 | Historical Theology, New Testament, Systematic Theology
The online evangelical world has been abuzz of late with trinitarian discussion. I won’t review all the literature (e.g., see here for a synopsis of the debate), but I would like to highlight a few things that Particular Baptists have written on the subject in the past. More specifically, I’d like to continue the discussion around eternal generation as the means of differentiating the divine persons. Or, more simply, if a single divine nature is shared among the three persons of the Trinity, what differentiates the Father from the Son, or the Son from the Spirit? Particular Baptists have agreed with the classical understanding that it is the personal relations that serve as the means of distinction between the divine persons.
The First London Baptist Confession states succinctly:
“In this divine and infinite Being there is the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; each having the whole divine Essence, yet the Essence undivided; all infinite without any beginning, therefore but one God; who is not to be divided in nature, and being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties” (2; emphasis added).
The Father is the Father because He is unbegotten; the Son is the Son because He is eternally begotten; and the Spirit is the Spirit because he is eternally breathed out by the Father and Son. This is classical trinitarian formulation that most Baptists have held. For example, Gill writes in his Body of Divinity:
It is the personal relations, or distinctive relative properties, which belong to each Person, which distinguish them one from another; as paternity in the first Person, filiation in the second, and spiration in the third; or, more plainly, it is “begetting”, (Ps. 2:7) which peculiarly belongs to the first, and is never ascribed to the second and third; which distinguishes him from them both; and gives him, with great propriety, the name of Father; and it is being “begotten”, that is the personal relation, or relative property of the second Person; hence called, “the only begotten of the Father”, (John 1:14) which distinguishes him from the first and third, and gives him the name of the Son; and the relative property, or personal relation of the third Person is, that he is breathed by the first and second Persons; hence called, the breath of the Almighty, the breath of the mouth of Jehovah the Father, and the breath of the mouth of Christ the Lord, and which is never said of the other two persons; and so distinguishes him from them, and very pertinently gives him the name of the Spirit, or breath (Job 33:4; Ps. 33:6; 2 Thess. 2:8).
Gill also wrote, in a letter to John Davis, a pastor in Pennsylvania:
“Jesus Christ is the Son of God by nature and not office, … he is the eternal Son of God by ineffable filiation and not by constitution or as mediator in which respect he is a servant, and not a Son. And of this mind are all our churches of the particular Baptist persuasion nor will they admit to communion, nor continue in communion [with] such as are of a different judgment. … I have some years ago published a treatise upon the doctrine of the Trinity, in which I have particularly handled the point of Christ’s sonship, have established the orthodox sense of it, and refuted the other notion, which tho’ it may be held by some, as not downright Sabeleanism [sic], yet it tends to it.”
Likewise, the Second London Baptist Confession affirms:
“Three divine Persons constitute the Godhead-the Father, the Son (or the Word), and the Holy Spirit. They are one in substance, in power, and in eternity. Each is fully God, and yet the Godhead is one and indivisible. The Father owes His being to none. He is Father to the Son who is eternally begotten of Him. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. These Persons, one infinite and eternal God not to be divided in being, are distinguished in Scripture by their personal nature or in relations within the Godhead, and by the variety of works which they undertake. Their tri-unity (that is, the doctrine of the Trinity) is the essential basis of all our fellowship with God, and of the comfort we derive from our dependence upon Him” (2.3).
Andrew Fuller battled against the Socinians of his day. He was an ardent defender of the Eternal Generation of the Son as well.
Here is one instance:
“The incarnation, resurrection, and exaltation, of Christ declared, but did not constitute him the Son of God; nor did any of his offices to all which his Sonship was antecedent. God sent his son into the world. This implies that he was the
Son antecedently to his being sent, as much as Christ’s sending his disciples implies that they were his disciples before he sent them… I have heard it asserted that ‘Eternal generation is eternal nonsense.’ But whence does this appear? Does it follow, that because a Son among men is inferior and posterior to his father, that it must be so with the Son of God?…Of the only-
begotten Son it is not said he was, or will be, but he is in the bosom of the Father; denoting the eternity and immutability of his character. There was never a point in duration in which God was without his Son.” (see also here and here on Fuller’s trinitarianism).
These are just a few examples of Particular Baptists that affirmed the differentiation of the godhead based on personal relations of origin. Eternal generation is an important part of classical trinitarianism and needs to be clearly articulated and defended, lest we see another rise of trinitarian heresies that don’t seem content to remain in the past.
Jon English serves as Academic Dean and Professor of Systematic and Historical Theology at Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary. Previously he served as Pastor of Discipleship for Morningview Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama. He has earned a Bachelor’s degree from Auburn University Montgomery, a Masters of Divinity from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and a PhD in Systematic and Historical Theology from SBTS. Jon English is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and an Ecclesial fellow for the Center for Pastor Theologians.
Course taught at CBTS: The Decalogue & the Sabbath in Redemptive History
