Baptism has become unimportant in many churches today. I am meeting more and more unbaptized believers who are members of churches. This trend is very dangerous for many reasons. We will discuss this problem here at FIDE-O and try to bring baptism back to its biblical preeminence in the life of a believer. Stay tuned and you will discover why this endeavor is vitally important when in comes to growing healthy churches!
Consider the following excerpts of J. L. Reynolds book The Kingdom of Christ which has been reprinted in Mark Dever’s outstanding book Polity: A Collection of Historic Baptist Documents.
Baptism is an Initiatory Act of Obedience
Baptism has been placed, by Christ, at the beginning of all the outward duties which he requires of his followers. It is, therefore, an initiatory service. But all agree that, as in the case of the Ethiopian Eunuch, baptism does not introduce to membership in a particular church; and it is clear that an individual must be a member of Christ’s spiritual body, before baptism, or any other duty, can be acceptably performed. “Without me ye can do nothing.” [from Chapter III . The Church of Christ, emphasis mine]
Baptism is not, like the Lord’s supper, a social rite. It signifies the fellowship of the individual believer with Christ, not the fellowship of believers with one another. The obligation to be baptized is independent of the obligation to form social relations with other disciples, and is prior. Baptism, is, therefore, a qualification for admission into a Church of external organization; but it does not confer membership. [from Chapter III . The Church of Christ, emphasis mine]
Thus the Church Must Be Only Baptized Believers
The New Testament contains traces of only two Christian ordinances. These are Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Of the two, the latter alone is strictly a Church ordinance. A Church is composed of baptized believers. Baptism is indispensable to their admission into it, but it does not make them Church members. [from Chapter XIV. Baptism, emphasis mine]
Thus Baptism is a Prerequisite for Lord’s SupperThe Lord’s Supper is a social ordinance, and is celebrated by a church in its distinctive character, as a body of baptized believers. Whatever, therefore, determines the conditions of membership, defines also the terms of communion. That baptism is prior to the supper, in the order of their observance, and, therefore, that only the baptized have a right to commune, is so unquestionably the teaching of the Word of God, and was so manifestly the practice of the primitive churches, that we are not surprised at the almost universal agreement of Christians on this point. The splendor of a great name may, for a time, give prominence to the opposite error, which inverts the order of the rites; and a spurious charity may plead for its adoption; but the subject is too plain to admit of much diversity of sentiment or practice. It has, indeed, scarcely ever been deemed worthy of a labored discussion. All the professed followers of the Redeemer, in all ages, with the exception of a very small minority, have concurred in the opinion that the Scriptures make Baptism an indispensable prerequisite to the Lord’s Supper. [1 Cor 12: 13; Eph 4: 5; 6: 18; Jno. 17: 20–26; Rom 16: 1, 2 ; 3 Jno. 8–10 ; Acts 15.] [from Chapter XV. The Lord’s Supper, emphasis mine]
[Baptist] hold that nothing but the immersion of a believer is baptism; but as they maintain, in common with other denominations, that baptism must precede communion, they cannot receive any one who has not been immersed. It is perfectly clear, therefore, that the only question at issue between them, and the others, is as to what constitutes baptism… To receive unimmersed persons to their communion, would amount not only to a virtual renunciation of their own views of baptism, but an abandonment of the fundamental law of communion, in the churches of Christ in general. [Acts 11 : 22–27; 15 : 22–27; 18: 27; Eph 6 : 21; 1 Cor 16 : 15–18.] [from Chapter XV. The Lord’s Supper]{The red section titles are mine.}
So there you have clear and concise theological thinking. Since baptism is the initiatory act of obedience for all born-again Christians, the Church must only accept baptized believers into her roles. Since the Lord’s Supper is a Church Ordinance, only baptized believers should partake of the Lord’ Supper.
Yet, such is not the case in many churches in our generation. Many Churches have a largely unbaptized membership and the Lord’s Supper is being partaken by Christians who have not even obeyed Christ according to the first act of obedience He commands of all believers.
It makes you wonder: what other acts of obedience do these churches consider optional if they are willing to allow unbaptized believers to join their church and take communion?
Tweet
Jason Robertson is a husband and a father and a pastor. He is dedicated to leading and equipping his the Church with God’s word and biblical theology for life ministry, using a combination of pastoral, church planting and evangelism experience. He holds a Master of Divinity from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He is experienced in church planting, evangelism, missions, and the training of pastors and Bible teachers.
Jason has been preaching the gospel since 1985, serving the first ten years of ministry as a Southern Baptist itinerant evangelist out of Milldale Baptist Church in Zachary, LA which ordained him in 1993. He has preached in hundreds of churches in over 30 States and 4 countries. He planted churches in Siberia, Russia in the summers of 1993 and 1994. He founded Murrieta Valley Church in California, which he planted in cooperation with the SBC NAMB in 2001. He also teaches ministry students at California Baptist University.
You can hear his sermons and read his manuscripts on sermonaudio.com. Just follow the link to "sermons" at the top of this page.
Go ahead and get out your rotten vegetables to throw in my direction, but I can’t help but to bring this up.
When your theology of the sacraments (baptism and communion) is that they are merely memorials that don’t really *do* anything, it’s easy to see why their importance might be overlooked. If I’ve already made a confession of faith, and you’re assuring me that baptism doesn’t save me, or even impact my salvation in any way, I’m going to be a whole lot less motivated.
Now, if you tell me that in baptism the God of the universe is an active participant, maybe I’ll be interested. Tell me, as the Bible does, that in my baptism God declares me to be his son, that I belong to him, and that I am sealed as a member of his family. Tell me that this mark signals a covenant that is being made between God and I, remind me that God is always faithful to his promises and his people, and warn me that my unfaithfulness to this covenant is not advisable.
Just don’t tell me that it’s merely something that I do to show everybody how much I love Jesus.
Mike, I trust that your use of the term “your” (viz. When your theology of the sacraments (baptism and communion) is that they are merely memorials that don’t really *do* anything), you aren’t referring to me.
It’s not that baptism should have the preeminence in our lives as believers, but that CHRIST is preeminent.
Christ is not preeminent if His commandments are ignored. He said, “He who keeps my commandments loves me.”
Believe it or not, this is just what I taught in our children's ministry program
Salvation –> Baptism –> Communion
We did the same with our adult teaching. It is just the natural (biblical) progression in following Jesus
Believe it or not I had a niece who was baptized by an SBC pastor here while she was still living with her boyfriend… (there married now).
How you think, does this relate?
Well, if repentance itself has certain accompanying signs be it contrition or turning away from particular sins as is indicated in John’s baptism and people ignore that, then it figures that other obediences like baptism itself becomes optional. Now, I am pretty sure there are not many SBC churches accepting members who have not been baptized (and that properly and for the Baptist Identity folks that mean by them exclusively) but if the criteria for that becomes compromised, even if the person is baptized, wouldn’t that disqualify them from the table preemtively precisely because if was an invalid baptism. The same circumstances surround the Supper which requires self-examination and forbids the compromise conscience from approaching it.
You see, when she was baptized she was made a member, and if sexual immorality was an acceptable life style tolerated for baptism, then, wouldn’t it be tolerated for the Supper, also? How does this discern the body of Christ? What does it do to the unity of the body? Isn’t it sinning against the body and blood to tolerate it?
Right on Jason…, if it does not matter in one area it seemingly would transfer to others…no? A little yeast goes a long way.
By the way are you team blog-tagging with centurion. He has a similar discussion going?
When your theology of the sacraments (baptism and communion) is that they are merely memorials that don’t really *do* anything, it’s easy to see why their importance might be overlooked. If I’ve already made a confession of faith, and you’re assuring me that baptism doesn’t save me, or even impact my salvation in any way, I’m going to be a whole lot less motivated.
Reformed Baptists have historically affirmed either a Zwinglian view or a Calvinist view with respect to baptism being a means of grace. We deny that it regenerates. We deny it justifies. However, it plays a role in our sanctification. Read Keach’s Cathechism.
Further, I would say that the problem isn’t viewing the sacraments as a “memorial” at all. Rather, its the repeated baptism of unbelievers and false professors and the failure of churches’ elders, deacons, and members to discharge their covenant responsibilities to each other. Baptists today have systematically devalued baptism through baptizing nonbelievers. Take President Johnny Hunt of the SBC. I’m glad he has finally said the IMB’s baptism policy/guideline is wrong. However, the Sunday of the SBC this year, his church was baptizing toddlers, likely filling the roll with more unregenerate people. That’s directly the opposite to Baptist tradition on this.
My Baptist forefathers opposed paedobaptism exegetically. However, they also had some pragmatic reasons for their opposition. In their day, they looked around and saw Paedobaptist churches full of unregenerate people. In that day the Paedos affirmed that “baptism does something,” so the problem isn’t the theology of what baptism “does” it’s how the churches discharge their duties to the members, whoever they may be, with respect to their professions of faith.
Today, the shoe is on the opposite foot. The PCA churches seem to me to do a better job of parsing their members for credible professions of faith than we Baptists do. Baptists today are often more like the Paedos that my Baptist forefathers saw.
This is why I repeatedly tell my Baptist brothers today that we need to be careful about what we say about baptism and the Lord’s Supper. We need to distinguish between the ideal and what is happening today. I wish that we all lived up to what I think the Bible says, but I am reticent to say that my Presbyterian brothers are in error when they take the Lord’s Supper. Which is worse: giving the elements to pews filled with false professors or giving the elements to people who may not be baptized according what I affirm about baptism (some are, some aren’t – for Presby’s do practice professor baptism too, a fact many Baptists overlook) but are giving evidence of a credible profession of faith? We need to get our house in order before we start pointing fingers at others.
Was Calvin baptized?
Anonymous,
I assume Calvin was baptized as an infant and as such would be ineligible for the Lord’s Supper in a Baptist church.
Gene, I would say that we as Baptists have the theology right on baptism, but in too many churches the practice has strayed. Our paedo brothers are wrong on both practice and theology.
Gene,
I say AMEN to all that you’ve said, but I say we get both houses in order since we are one temple of the Lord.
Grace and Peace, brother.
tower,
I read centurion’s post after you mentioned them. He seems to be dealing more with the paedo vs credo debate (good stuff from Welty and Piper). I am dealing with the issue of “baptist” who aren’t baptized.
This issue is huge in California. So much so that some churches (viz. Calvary Chapel’s) forgo membership. Thus they do not have to keep anyone accountable. Furthermore, as generations go by, now more and more Christians are partaking of the Lord’s Table without any profession of faith or any church accountability.
It’s shocking!
The Bible warns explicitly about taking the bread and the cup unworthily.
1 Corinthians 11:27 – Wherefore whosover shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
It continues with “…for this cause (taking the bread and cup unworthily) many are weak and sickly among you and many sleep.
Who would not argue that Christ’s bride, the Church, has many weak and sickly and sleepy and that it is in great need of revival? Many Christians resemble a dead shell with little or no supernatural life within.
It seems to me that Baptists have placed the emphasis on avoidance of taking baptism unworthily while the Scriptures emphasize avoidance of taking the bread and the cup unworthily.
Eligibility for the two sacraments is handled quite separately in the Bible but they are essentially the same in Baptist churches (and other churches that borrow from Baptist practices). In most churches, if a five year old makes a profession of faith and is judged credible and is baptized, then the five year old is admitted to the sacred ordinance of the bread and the cup within days or weeks afterwards. Actually, in many baptist churches that I’ve seen, the five year would not be deemed credible nor allowed to give their testimony publicly. Later, eligibility for one sacrament is deemed to be eligibility for the other.
Denying baptism to so many deemed unworthy divides families that would otherwise be unified. In ancient Israel, were not all household members, including servants, conidered to be part of the people of God?
Meanwhile, carefulness in taking the bread and the cup which Scripture enjoins is largely ignored and the solemnn warnings of Scripture on this subject are largely ignored.
In Matthew’s gospel account, Jesus warns about many who will profess but not be eternally saved. Paul teaches about those who profess to know but in works deny. The letters to the churches in Revelation 2-3, as recorded by the Apostle John, often warn about enduring to the end because many in the visible church at that time were church members (baptized) but did not have the supernatural change of heart of the new birth. The Lord knows them that are his (Peter didn’t know when he unblameably baptized Simon the magiciain whom he later recognized was still bound in his sin). Let everyone who names the name of Christ depart from iniquity. This iniquity includes taking the sacred ordinance of the bread and the cup unworthily.