Recently, there has been a debate circulating through the blogosphere in regards to baptism, communion, and church membership. Justin Taylor has provided a nice summation of the debate on his blog if you want to catch up. Ultimately, the debate boils down to this: Baptism is required for church membership. Baptists believe that biblical baptism consists of immersion after a mature profession of faith. Some baptists believe that those who have only been sprinkled as a baby have not received true baptism and shouldn’t be allowed to join a baptist church or partake in the Lord’s Supper (church membership being a prerequisite). Other baptists believe that while baptism is necessary for membership and communion, how or when a person is baptised isn’t as important as recognizing that person as a fellow believer. Therefore, they should be able to partake of the Lord’s Supper (at the least) and possibly join a baptist church without having to be rebaptized.
There are certainly many nuances within this debate, and I don’t care to rehash all of them here – the link above is sufficient for that. What I would like to focus on here is why there is really only one logical position in this debate – that paedobaptists (those who have been baptized as infants) should be barred from joining a baptist church and from partaking of the Lord’s Supper in that church.
My initial postition in this debate was to side with those who would allow all Christians – regardless of baptism mode – to join and commune. It is clear in the scriptures that the Lord’s Supper is to be observed by the church – the baptized body of Christ. It is clear that the church consists of both paedobaptists and credobaptists (those who are baptized after a mature profession of faith). That seems to be pretty easy, huh? But let’s take a closer look.
What constitutes a Christian in the bible? Well, there are a number of things that a Christian is recognized by: his walk, his participation in the body of Christ, his obedience to Christ, his profession of faith, etc… but ultimately, the bible looks to a person’s baptism into Christ as their Christian identity. While repentance and baptism go hand in hand, baptism is the objective, physical marker of becoming a Christian, and this is what the apostles pointed to when they addressed the church. That being said, then, it is clear that baptism is a necessary requirement for being a member of the church and partaking of the Lord’s Supper. Now let’s take a look at the baptist view of baptism.
This is what the Baptist Faith and Message says about baptism -
Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer’s faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer’s death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper.
In a nutshell, if you want to join a baptist church and take communion, you must be baptized as a believer by immersion. Simple as that. In fact, if you notice, I highlighted the point about it being an act of obedience. This is the case that is made in the current debate: paedobaptists cannot join a baptist church because they have not been properly baptized, and they cannot partake of the Lord’s Supper because they are in direct disobedience to the command of our Lord.
So, you see the dilemma here, right? The bible clearly calls for Christians to feast together at the Lord’s Supper, but because of disobedience, some Christians can’t feast with other Christians at the Lord’s Supper. There is a lot to think about here. Everybody sins, so is this “sin” grievous enough to prevent table fellowship? If Christians are to partake of the Lord’s Supper, are those who are barred from the Lord’s Supper not Christians? Assuming you do allow paedobaptists to join and feast, how do you get around the clear baptist doctrine of baptism? Are you then sinning (as a pastor) by allowing others to sin?
We could go on. And other’s have. This is why many of our baptist churches practice closed communion – there’s just so many “what ifs” it’s easier to just keep it simple – if you’re a member of the local church, you can partake, if not, fuhget about it. So, as much as I commend those who support membership and communion regardless of baptism mode because of what they believe the bible says about the church, there really is no other way around it – something has to give. The other side is right. If you want to be a part of the baptist church, you must adhere strictly to their understanding of baptism and membership. If you don’t meet these prerequisites, then you shouldn’t be able to be a member. End of story.

Baptist – It’s the new Roman Catholicism.






