In the inimitable words of Messala in Ben Hur, “It goes on. It goes on, Judah.” Well, maybe not, but here are three more reasons why baptism must be into the membership of the local church. And there are four more yet to come!
4. Because baptism confers the privilege of the Lord’s Table, a church ordinance under the discipline of the church.
One of the pressing concerns of those who argue for the bestowal of baptism without undue delay on disciples is that such disciples might have the privilege of partaking of the Lord’s Supper. Thus, those who argue in this fashion assume that the Lord’s Table requires the visible sign of baptism. The reason, however, that the visible sign of baptism is required is just because the Lord’s Supper is the visible manifestation not only of our union with Christ, but of our union with His body, the church (1 Cor. 10:16-17). Thus, to require baptism for partaking of the Lord’s Table is tacitly to admit that it is an ordinance of the visible church. The local church is, however, the only appointed local expression of the visible church. The key passage inseparably connects the Lord’s Table with the local church. It is the church that gathers to celebrate the Lord’s Supper and the church that is despised by a wrong partaking (1 Cor. 11:17-22). Those who are impenitent in sin should not be allowed to eat with the church (1 Cor. 5:11). Thus, the Lord’s Supper is under the authority and discipline of the local church. To allow that baptized non-members have a right to the Lord’s Table is, however, to adopt another theory of the Lord’s Table. This theory must be that all baptized Christians (but not necessarily yet members of the church) are allowed to partake of the Lord’s Table on their own authority. Either the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance and for church members. Or the Lord’s Supper is given to non-church members and not a church ordinance. These are the alternatives. If the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance (as the Bible clearly teaches) and yet presumes baptism (as I and those with whom I arguing assume), then it must be that baptism and church membership are inseparably connected.
5. Because the New Testament assumes both that all Christians are baptized and that they are church members. That is to say, the New Testament recognizes no class of Christians consisting of baptized non-church members.It is a simple and obvious fact that in passages like Romans 6:1-4 Paul assumes that all the Christians at Rome were baptized. It is just as simple and clear that passages like Matthew 18:15-17; Hebrews 13:17; 1 Corinthians 1:2; and Phillipians 1:1 assume that all Christians are church members. To disconnect baptism from church membership is to create a class of Christians who are baptized but not church members. Quite simply, the New Testament knows of no such class of Christians. In assuming that all Christians are both baptized and members of local churches, it teaches as clearly as one could wish that baptism and church membership are coincident. It is, of course, true that exceptional circumstances exist. In the New Testament and today there were those who as to their faith were genuine Christians who for a short period of time had not yet professed and made visible that faith by being baptized. As a result of sin and all the irregularities that have developed because of it, there are Christians today who have been baptized and who are not at the moment members of churches. This must not obscure for us the normative teaching of the New Testament that a professing Christian both is and ought to be both baptized and a church member.
6. Because this is what the order of Acts 2 requires.
The order of Acts 2:41-42 is very clear and in the absence of any clear teaching to the contrary sets a precedent for us. The order is welcoming the Word, baptism, and addition to the church. Granted the words, to the church, are not verbally present, but they are necessarily implied. This is so, first of all, because verse 42 speaks of the public life of the church with the ordinances of teaching, the Lord’s Table, prayer meetings, and giving. This is so also because in Acts 5:14 the language of being added is again used, but in that context (Acts 5:10-14) it is clear that it speaks of being joined to the church. This is so also because the language of Acts 2:41 and 47 speaks of addition to an existing society. That addition was clearly to the 120 disciples spoken of in Acts 1. This 120 was clearly the original church.
No comments:
Post a Comment