What Is Baptism, and How Important Is It?

Colossians 2:8-15

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

John Piper@ http://www.desiringgod.org is on part 2 of a 3-part series on baptism and church membership and this Week he deals with "What Is Baptism, and How Important Is It?"

Baptism is:

1. a command of Jesus,
2. that expresses union with him,
3. by immersion in water,
4. in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit,
5. for believers only.
   

He notes:

A sense of the continuity of the old and new covenants leads some people to baptize infants. But the argument for infant baptism doesn't work textually or covenantally.

Textually, the apostle Paul makes plain that baptism is for those who have been raised with Jesus through faith (Col. 2:12) and are sons of God through faith (Gal. 3:26–27). Baptism is not for those who don't have faith in Jesus—whether adult unbelievers or infants.

Covenantally, while the old-covenant sign of circumcision was administered to males after their physical birth into the national people of God, the new-covenant sign of baptism is to be administered to both males and females after their spiritual birth into the international people of God. New birth by the gospel now provides entrance into the people of God, not physical birth, and is marked by believer baptism, not circumcision.

for the full version see http://www.desiringgod.org

Baptism & Obedience

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 Supper

The 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]

Baptism Proclaims the Gospel

Justin Taylor has posted a helpful interview with Steve Wellum, professor at Southern Seminary, on baptism and the covenants. Two highlights from Wellum’s responses:

The new covenant is the covenant which our Lord Jesus Christ has inaugurated by his life, death, resurrection, and glorious exaltation to the right hand of God. It must be viewed as the culminating covenant in the sense that all of the previous covenants have been leading to it and anticipating it, in a variety of ways. Like the other covenants, it is part of the one plan of the Triune God to save a people for himself, but viewed vis-à-vis the previous covenants, it is the covenant which has now brought to fulfillment all that God promised and all that the OT anticipated and longed for, all the way back to the initial promise of Genesis 3:15.

And:

Baptism signifies a believer’s union with Christ, by grace through faith, and all the benefits that result from that union. It testifies and announces that one has entered into the realities of the new covenant and as such, has experienced regeneration, the gift and down-payment of the Spirit, and the forgiveness of sin. It graphically signifies that a believer is now a member of the body of Christ (Eph. 4:22-25). It is our defining mark of belonging as well as a demarcation from the world. It signifies entry into the eschatological order of the new creation—that which our Lord Jesus Christ has ushered in. In all of these ways, baptism is a beautiful God-given rite which displays, proclaims, and testifies to the reality of the gospel.

Also see the recent book to which Wellum contributed—Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ, ed. Thomas Schreiner and Shawn Wright. His chapter is available online for free.

Credo's and Paedo's Find Common Ground

Posted by Jason E. Robertson @ http://fide-o.blogspot.com

We all know how divisive the "baptism issue" is between credo-baptist and paedo-baptist. So in the spirit of Christian unity I want to propose the following thoughts and see if we can find common ground.

Both paedo's and credo's agree that some New Covenant practices are commanded and some are inferred. We disagree on what is commanded and what is inferred. But my desire is focus on what do we both agree is commanded and what do we both agree is inferred. Lets find that common ground.

First lets find common negative ground:

1. Both paedo's and credo's agree that there is no command in the Scriptures to baptize infants.
2. Both paedo's and credo's agree that there is no command in the Scriptures that female should partake of the Lord's Supper.

Second lets find common positive ground:

1. Both paedo's and credo's agree that there are commands in the Scriptures for professing believers to be baptized.
2. Both peado's and credo's agree that there is a clear inference in Scripture that female disciples should partake of the Lord's Supper.

So here we have clear Biblical common ground on which both paedo's and credo's agree:

1. Professing believers are to be baptized.
2. All disciples should partake of the Lord's Supper, both male and female.

If my proposal is true... then so far we are all credo-baptist.
So, why don' you paedo's just quit being so divisive and join us Baptist? :)

[Remember this is not a debate about commands vs inferences. This is an attempt to find what is the common ground inspite of the unending debates.]

Believer's Baptism

By Justin Taylor @ http://theologica.blogspot.com

In his chapter on what the NT epistles teach about baptism, in the book Believer's Baptism, Tom Schreiner writes:

When a matter like baptism has been debated for so long without consensus among Christians, it is tempting to conclude that further discussion is fruitless. How can we advance the discussion when believers have been polarized for so many years? I do not believer, of course, that my essay will break up the logjam and produce consensus, and yet further study on baptism is still mandatory and helpful. If we are open to change, the Scriptures can correct, refine, or even confirm our previous understanding of a doctrine. And we should not avoid making judgments on controversial matters, for if we limited our doctrinal convictions to issues on which all Christians everywhere agreed, we would leave out many areas of teaching to which the Scriptures speak. Further, we are all responsible before God to understand the Scriptures to the best of our ability and to live in harmony with them. Indeed, in our churches we must decide how to order our life together as Christians. One way or the other we make a decision in our churches about how baptism should be practiced, and so every church implements some kind of theology of baptism. Surely all Christians would agree that we should strive to be as biblically faithful as we can in understanding and applying the scriptural teaching on baptism in our churches.

In my view, all readers should seriously consider purchasing this book. As Bruce Ware has said, this book "is now unquestionably the best volume on a theology of baptism and the best defense of believer's baptism available."

So if you're a baptist, this book will solidify and strengthen and inform your understanding; if you're a paedobaptist, it will help you understand better what the "other side" believes and why.

B&H Academic has kindly granted me permission to post one of the chapters from the book: Steve Wellum's excellent study of Baptism and the Relationship between the Covenants (PDF). Wellum writes:

At the heart of the advocacy and defense of the doctrine of infant baptism is the argument that it is an implication drawn from the comprehensive theological category of the “covenant of grace,” a category which, it is claimed, unites the Scriptures and without which the Bible cannot be understood correctly. In many ways, all other arguments for infant baptism are secondary to this overall line of reasoning.

The structure of Wellum's essay is as follows:

First, I will outline and then unpack briefly the covenantal argument for infant baptism as given by the proponents and defenders of the view. Second, I will attempt to evaluate their argument, albeit in a summary fashion, both in terms of critique and positive construction.

Highly recommended!

A Debate on The Proper Recipients of Christian Baptism

From http://fide-o.blogspot.com

On Sunday Evening August 19th, 2007 about 150 people gathered in Murrieta California to hear a debate between Pastor Gene Cook, Jr and Paul Manata on the question of "Who are the proper recipients of Christian Baptism? The debate was one of the best to date, having two reformed men that were able to clearly articulate and defend their position. Over all it was a victory for the credo-baptist position, not because credos are smarter than paedos, but because of the clarity of the New Testament scriptures on the constitution of the New Covenant i.e. consisting of believers only. Of note was Gene’s exegesis of Hebrews 8; proving that the New Covenant is entirely salvific, consisting only of true believers. Paul’s counter argument that there is an eschatological aspect to the covenant failed to convince since it lacked contextual consistency with the already- fully-enacted nature of the New Covenant.

Secondly, the hermeneutic that the New Testament is the interpreter of the Old Testament was consistently applied by Gene, whereas Paul interpreted the Old over the New on this issue, and hence failed to remain true to this hermeneutical principle.
It was this that gave Gene the upper hand in the debate and ultimately the victory for the credo-baptist position. Have a listen below to see if you agree with this evaluation.

Part 1 - Free Low Quality

Part2 - Free Low Quality

Part3- Free Low Quality

The Baptism Discussion

by JHG @ http://www.inlightofthegospel.org

Mark Dever has thrown in his thoughts concerning the baptism discussion between John Piper and Wayne Grudem from last week [and Aaron Menikoff has provided a helpful post of some historical matters]. Dever’ s post illustrates the reason why I do not agree with him concerning this issue of baptism. Anything related to church membership is also related to the Lord’s Table. In other words, if you forbid someone from membership because their baptism is not valid, then you must also forbid them from the Lord’s Table because you cannot come to the Table without first being baptized.

This means that Dever cannot allow anyone who was baptized with a different mode than immersion, or at a different timing than after a profession of faith, to the Lord’s Table. The question of membership and communion go together.

Now that we have that clarity, let’s rephrase the question: how many of you who claim to follow this position for membership [only allowing those who were immersed after a profession of faith] follow it also for the Lord’s Table and bar anyone who was not immersed as a professing Christian?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Wayne Grudem’s response to John Piper, one of the central things I want to focus on is in point # 3 and the discussion concerning whether baptism is a requirement for church membership. Grudem first explains that he assumed this because it is normally the practice of every major denomination in history. The church has historically held that baptism is necessary to be part of its membership. On this basis, Grudem goes on to say that when a church that holds to believer’s baptism allows someone to be a member who has not had that baptism, then that church is allowing an unbaptized person into membership.

The problem with this is that every other church tradition except the believer’s baptism tradition allows all forms of baptism. It is the unique posture of the Baptistic tradition that makes this issue so difficult. Other Protestant churches will not make you get “re-baptized” even though they believe that baptism by immersion of an adult may not be the best practice. This is because those traditions recognize a broad understanding of the validity of baptism even though different forms may be more or less faulty.

Grudem goes on to say that by admitting someone who was baptized before the profession of faith contradicts what we believe about the essential nature of baptism: that is an outward sign of an inward spiritual change. What he is not taking into account here is the other problem in Baptist churches concerning people who were baptized and later came to faith, or people who were baptized and later moved away from Christ only to come back again. Those people, myself included, never know exactly when they were “regenerated.” I would say over half of the Baptist church would be in this situation. I cannot tell you how many people I have talked to in my office who have struggled with their Christian life and whether or not they were saved before their baptism or after their baptism.

What do I tell those people? Do I say, “Well, we are Baptists and in order to do things properly we better baptize you again because your baptism has to come after your profession of faith to be completely valid.” I can assure you I have not only never said that but I normally never rebaptize a person in that situation. What do I say? I encourage them to look to Christ and the gospel for their assurance and hope, and leave the hidden things in the hands of God.

Ultimately as Baptists the logic falls back on us. We do not have to discuss other traditions. We need to talk about what happens in our tradition and whether or not all the people in the situation described above are in fact truly baptized with a valid baptism. At the end of the day, I am willing to admit to a valid baptism that is faulty. I have no problem with a position like that. And if we are going to move in the direction of unity, Baptists have to take the first steps.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I previously noted, Mark Dever has now brought the baptism discussion up for the 9 Marks blog. Dever brings up the next point that I was going to consider in terms of unity: the Lord’s Supper. We cannot talk about membership and baptism without also talking about the Lord’s Supper. It is fundamental that one is baptized before partaking of the Lord’s Supper.

Dever points this out in his post, and he argues that not only should Baptists not open membership to those who have been baptized in a different manner, but we also should not open up the Lord’s Table to them either since they have not been baptized. This means that Mark Dever’s friend and fellow brother in the “Together for the Gospel” movement, Ligon Duncan, cannot be a member at Capitol Hill Baptist church, nor can Ligon take communion with them.

Now the irony of this is that Dever has so narrowly defined the gospel to be only about preaching that he will allow Ligon Duncan to preach at his church. Why? Because they are “Together” for the sake of the gospel. Tell me, what excatly is the Lord’s Supper? Doesn’t Paul say that it proclaims the death of the Lord until he comes? Are we really “together” for the gospel if we cannot sit together around the Lord’s Table?

From my perspective, we all have inconsistencies in our theology. Our theological work will never be accurate until we see Jesus. That being the case, we have to decide what is primary and secondary. I believe it is of primary and ultimate importance that we view this issue concerning baptism and communion in terms of eschatology, partly because eschatology is primary and precedes soteriology.

We must view this issue in terms of what will be true on that day when we all see Jesus. On that day, I will sit down at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb with Mark Dever and John Piper and Ligon Duncan, with John Calvin and Martin Luther and St. Augustine. We will all feast together on that day because of the gospel, and if our doctrine of the Table does not reflect this eschatological reality, a reality that we are sure of because of the gospel, then we have missed a fundamental aspect of unity, and we are not really “together” for the gospel after all.

Wayne Grudem's Response to Piper

By: Wayne Grudem @ http://www.desiringgod.org

Dear John,

Thank you for the kind, gracious spirit in your response!

And thank you for your friendship, which has meant so much to me for so many years.

And thank you for helping me to think more clearly about the details of what I have written. You write so persuasively! In fact, last night I printed out what I had written and your response, and gave it to Margaret, and before we went to bed Margaret informed me with a smile, “I agree with John.” Now what can I say to that??

Nevertheless, here are some responses:

(1) I do not see denial of church membership as “virtually the same as excommunication,” nor do any of the Baptist churches known to me.

Non-members who are clearly believers in Jesus Christ are welcomed as believers into many aspects of fellowship. They share in the Lord’s Supper together with members (in all but a very few of the most strict Baptist churches). They participate freely in worship and prayer and fellowship. Sometimes a Baptist church will even have a Bible-believing Presbyterian or Episcopalian or Methodist or Lutheran pastor preach as a guest from the pulpit. That is far from “excommunication”!

And in varying degrees (in different churches) non-members are encouraged to minister to others in the church – they can become active members of home fellowship groups (and in some churches, such as my own Scottsdale Bible Church, they can lead such groups). They can become (in various churches) members of the choir or worship team, youth group workers, ushers, greeters, and so forth. These all give visible signs of treating this unbaptized person as a brother or sister in Christ. (I realize that Baptist churches and denominations have varieties of allowed participation in such things, but they all allow some measure of participation and treat unbaptized Christians as Christians.)

And surely a Baptist church would not give notice to the whole church that the unbaptized non-member should be “treated as an unbeliever from now on,” which would be done in the case of church discipline and excommunication. All these examples show that Baptist churches do not consider the refusal of membership to be equivalent to, or anything even similar to, excommunication. So I am not persuaded by that part of your thoughtful response to me.

(2) But there is a still a clear difference between members and non-members. Unbaptized believers are not members, so they cannot be elders or church officers. They cannot speak or vote at church business meetings. In other words, they can have no formal, recognized part in determining the ongoing policies and teachings of the church. And there will be other activities that each church decides, for various reasons, to restrict to members. There is considerable freedom for churches to decide what they think is wise in this area, in my opinion. And I have seen considerable variety in the Baptist and other believer’s baptism churches that I have known. But there is a clear difference, which I think is right.

(3) There was an unexpressed assumption in my discussion, an assumption which your response makes clear to me. I did not express it because it is so commonly assumed in nearly all churches. The assumption is this:

Baptism is required for church membership.

I think I assumed this because, as far as I know, it has been the practice of all major denominations throughout history. Presbyterians believe that baptism is necessary for church membership (for they consider infant baptism true baptism). Episcopalians believe that baptism is necessary for church membership. Baptists believe that baptism is necessary for church membership. Pentecostals believe that baptism is necessary for church membership. Methodists believe this. The Evangelical Free Church of America (which allows both views of baptism) believes this. Independent Bible churches believe this. Even Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox churches believe this. Apart from some unusual groups that don’t practice baptism at all (such as the Salvation Army), I think that the whole church throughout its history has held that baptism is necessary for church membership.

In the light of that assumption, which I have now made explicit by adding the words in boldface type, I think the section that you objected to makes good sense: [In this section I am explaining the problem that will arise if a church decides to allow both views of baptism to be held and taught:]

On the other side, those who hold to believer’s baptism (as I do) would have to be willing to admit into church membership people who have been baptized as infants, and who did not make a personal profession of faith at the time they were baptized. But from a believer’s baptism position, genuine baptism has to follow a personal profession of faith. So how can believer’s baptism advocates in good conscience say that infant baptism is also a valid form of baptism? That contradicts what they believe about the essential nature of baptism – that is an outward sign of an inward spiritual change, so that the apostle Paul could say, “As many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ,” Gal. 3:27.

For someone who holds to believer’s baptism, and who holds that baptism is necessary for church membership [I just now added these words], admitting to church membership someone who has not been baptized upon profession of faith, and telling the person that he or she never has to be baptized as a believer, is really giving up one’s view on the proper nature of baptism. It is saying that infant baptism really is valid baptism! But then how could anyone who holds to this position tell anyone who had been baptized as an infant that he or she still needed to be baptized as a believer?

(4) Now it may be that someone would want to start a new denomination in which baptism is not necessary for church membership. Or people may decide to change their church constitutions so that baptism is no longer required for membership. People are free to do that if they wish.

In that case, I suppose a (hypothetical) Baptist church could say to someone, “We require baptism for church membership, unless you disagree with our view of baptism. For those who disagree with us, we do not require baptism for church membership. Whether we require it or not depends on what you think of baptism.” I suppose a church could say that.

In such a church, they could allow an unbaptized person to be a member. If a godly, Bible-believing, born again Presbyterian (such as your examples of our friends Ligon Duncan or R. C. Sproul, or others) came and wanted to be a member, this (hypothetical) Baptist church could say to him, “We don’t believe you have been baptized, but you can become a member anyway because we allow unbaptized people like you to be members.”

(5) But I don’t think I could support such a practice in a church. I think the reason churches throughout history have required baptism for membership is that the New Testament so clearly makes baptism the public act that every believer undergoes at the outset of the Christian life. It is right there in the Great Commission: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:19-20). There is no such thing in the New Testament as an unbaptized person being an active member of any local church. So how could we say today that we should start allowing unbaptized persons to be members of our churches? But that (it seems to me) is what my earlier position, and your current position, would have to say.

I do not think such a position is wise, or consistent with the New Testament, and I would not recommend any church to adopt it.

Thank you again for your thoughtful, gracious response, John.

Your friend,

Wayne

Response to Grudem on Baptism and Church Membership

By: John Piper @ http://www.desiringgod.org

Lots of people know that Wayne Grudem and I are the deepest of friends. We love to room together at conferences. We love to do things together with our wives. We were both in seminary together for a season. We have co-edited a book together. We taught together at Bethel College. And at this very moment I love him and would fly to his side in a crisis. But, Wayne, Wayne, Wayne, why did you rewrite page 983?

Justin Taylor drew our attention to the fact that Wayne revised section F1 in his new edition of Systematic Theology (pp. 982-983). The section is titled, “Do Churches Need to Be Divided Over Baptism?”

In the first edition, Wayne answered that question no. In the new edition, he does not answer it. He concludes, “Some kind of ‘compromise’ position on baptism is not very likely to be adopted by denominational groups in the future.” That’s probably true.

But, with that cautious comment on what is likely to be, rather than what ought to be, the new section has lost the prophetic, biblical force of the original edition. Evidently, Wayne is not so sure any more that we should make the effort to overcome the divisions among evangelicals for the sake of welcoming true brothers and sisters as members in the local church. I think his first edition was closer to the biblical balance.

In the first edition, he advocated finding a way to have conscience-persuaded paedobaptists and credobaptists as members of the same local church. He said,

This would mean that Baptist churches would have to be willing to allow into membership those who had been baptized as infants and whose conviction of conscience, after careful consideration is that their infant baptism was valid and should not be repeated. Of course, Baptist churches could be free to preach and to attempt to persuade prospective churches members that they should be baptized as believers, but if some, after careful consideration, are simply not persuaded, it does not seem appropriate to make this a barrier to membership.

I agree with this. And the main reason I do is that excluding a true brother in Christ from membership in the local church is far more serious than most of us think it is.

When I weigh the kind of imperfection involved in tolerating an invalid baptism because some of our members are deeply persuaded that it is biblically valid, over against the kind of imperfection involved in saying to a son or daughter of the living God, “You are excluded from the local church,” my biblical sense is that the latter is more unthinkable than the former. The local church is a visible expression of the invisible, universal, body of Christ. To exclude from it is virtually the same as excommunication. And no serious church takes excommunication as an invitation to attend the church down the street.

Wayne’s new considerations are less compelling than what he wrote in the first edition. In the new edition, he writes:

For someone who holds to believer’s baptism, admitting to church membership someone who has not been baptized upon profession of faith, and telling the person that he or she never has to be baptized as a believer is really giving up one’s view on the proper nature of baptism.

No, Wayne, this is not true. I would gladly admit Ligon Duncan or Sinclair Ferguson or R. C. Sproul or Philip Ryken to membership at Bethlehem (if I were allowed by our constitution), and in doing so I would not be giving up my view on the proper nature of baptism.

I would say to them: “Brothers, I think you are not baptized. But you believe on biblical grounds as you see them, with as much humility and openness to truth as God has given you, that you are baptized. Your understanding of baptism does not imply that Christ’s command may be neglected or that infant sprinkling is regenerating. You give good evidence of being born again and that you embrace Christ as your Savior and Lord and Treasure, and you manifest an authentic intention, on the basis of that faith, to follow Jesus as Lord and obey his teachings. Therefore, since there is good evidence that you are members of the Body of Christ, you may be members of this local expression of that body. But understand this: I will spend the rest of my ministry trying to persuade you that you and your children should follow through on the full obedience to Jesus and be baptized. In admitting you, I do not give up on my view of baptism. That is the whole point. We are finding a way to work on this disagreement from inside the body of Christ in its local expression.”

When Wayne says that admitting to church membership a biblically conscientious paedobaptist amounts to saying that “he or she never has to be baptized as a believer,” he is being (I am sure unconsciously) slippery. “Has to” implies a result that will not be achieved if one doesn’t do it. What goal does Wayne mean? “Has to in order to go to heaven?” He doesn’t believe that. “Has to in order to be fully obedient to Jesus?” Both he and I would agree with that. But that is precisely what I would say to any paedobaptist who joined our Baptist church.

Then Wayne continues: “It is saying that infant baptism really is valid baptism!”

No. Admitting a conscientious paedobaptist to membership in a Baptist church would not say that the infant baptism is valid. What it does say is: “Your mistaken understanding of baptism and the invalid baptism that follows from it are not the kind of disagreement, mistake, and failure that we are going to use in defining the meaning of the local church. We view you as a brother whose resting place is Christ alone, through grace alone, by faith alone, to the glory of God alone. You are in the Body of Christ. You may be in this body of Christ.”

Finally, Wayne says,

But then how could anyone who holds to this position tell anyone who had been baptized as an infant that he or she still needed to be baptized as a believer?

By saying: “You are wrong in your understanding of baptism. And your practice is wrong. You need to be baptized to be fully obedience to Jesus.”

Turning the tables, I would say that when a person looks a true and precious brother in the eye and says, “You may not join this church,” he is doing one of two things: Seriously diminishing our spiritual union in Christ, or seriously minimizing the importance of church membership. Very few, it seems to me, have really come to terms with the seriousness of excluding believers from membership in the local church. It is preemptive excommunication.

There are dozens of questions that need to be answered. When we walked through this several years ago, I did my best to answer as many as I could. I have hope that I will have Wayne back on this side of the issue eventually.

Grudem's Change of Mind regarding Differences on Baptism within a Local Church

By Justin Taylor @ http://theologica.blogspot.com

While at a Christian bookstore today I noticed that Zondervan has retypeset Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology, using the Minion font and a wider trim size. The result is quite attractive, with bigger margins for note-taking. (If you don't own the book, I'd highly recommend purchasing it right away. It's excellent.)

By and large the text (and pagination) are unchanged. But readers may be interested to know that Grudem completely rewrote section F1 (pp. 982-983) in the baptism chapter (ch. 49). Grudem previously argued for "allowing both views of baptism [i.e., paedobaptism and credobaptism] to be taught and practiced in denominations on both sides of the question." Grudem has since changed his mind. Here's the rewritten section:

Do Churches Need to Be Divided Over Baptism? In spite of many years of division over this question among Protestants, is there a way in which Christians who differ on baptism can demonstrate greater unity of fellowship? And is there a way that progress can be made in bringing the church closer to unity on this question?

Much progress in this regard has already been made. Christians who differ over baptism already demonstrate their unity in Christ through individual fellowship, Bible studies and prayer groups in their communities, occasional joint worship services, cooperation in city and regional evangelistic campaigns, joint support of many mission agencies and other parachurch groups, joint sponsorship of youth activities, pastors’ fellowship groups, and so forth. Although baptism remains a difference, that difference does not generally lead to harmful divisions. In fact, most Christians seem to realize that baptism is not a major doctrine of the faith.

A very few denominations have decided that they would allow both views of baptism to be taught and practiced within their denominations. The Evangelical Free Church of America (EFCA) does this, for example, as a result of a “compromise” reached in 1950 when the denomination was formed from two different groups that had different views on baptism. The EFCA allows ordination for pastors who hold to believer’s baptism and for pastors who hold to infant baptism. And they allow into membership those who had been baptized as infants in a Christian church, without requiring them to be baptized as believers before joining the church. If some parents want to have their infant child baptized and the local pastor does not hold to infant baptism, the local church invites some other Evangelical Free Church pastor who holds to infant baptism to come and baptize the infant.

Although the Evangelical Free Church continues as a strong, healthy denomination today, there still remain some difficulties inherent in this position. One is that there can be a tendency to minimize the importance of baptism: since members disagree on this topic, it is easier not to talk about it much or emphasize its importance.

But the most serious difficulty arises when people begin to think about what such a “compromise position” implies about the views of baptism held by the people who go along with this compromise. For people who hold to infant baptism, they have to be able to say that it is acceptable for believing parents not to baptize their infant children. But according to a paedobaptist view, this seems close to saying that is acceptable for these parents to disobey a command of Scripture regarding the responsibility of parents to baptize their children. How can they really say this?

On the other side, those who hold to believer’s baptism (as I do) would have to be willing to admit into church membership people who have been baptized as infants, and who did not make a personal profession of faith at the time they were baptized. But from a believer’s baptism position, genuine baptism has to follow a personal profession of faith. So how can believer’s baptism advocates in good conscience say that infant baptism is also a valid form of baptism? That contradicts what they believe about the essential nature of baptism – that it is an outward sign of an inward spiritual change, so that the apostle Paul could say, “As many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27).

For someone who holds to believer’s baptism, admitting to church membership someone who has not been baptized upon profession of faith, and telling the person that he or she never has to be baptized as a believer, is really giving up one’s view on the proper nature of baptism. It is saying that infant baptism really is valid baptism! But then how could anyone who holds to this position tell anyone who had been baptized as an infant that he or she still needed to be baptized as a believer? This difficulty makes me think that some kind of “compromise” position on baptism is not very likely to be adopted by denominational groups in the future.

However, we should still be thankful that believers who differ on the issue of baptism can have wonderful fellowship with one another across denominational lines, and can have respect for each other’s sincerely held views.

Notes

1. I realize that some readers will object to this sentence and will say that baptism is very important because of what the differing positions represent: differing views of the nature of the church. Many Baptists would argue that practicing infant baptism is inherently inconsistent with the idea of a church made up of believers only, and many paedobaptists would argue that not practicing infant baptism is inherently inconsistent with the idea of a covenant community which includes the children of believers.

I would encourage those who reason this way to consider how much they hold in common with evangelical believers on the other side of this issue -- not necessarily with those far from them on other matters as well, but especially with those on the other side who agree with them on most other aspects of the Christian life. Many Baptists do encourage and demonstrate a valued place for their children within their churches, and many paedobaptists do pray for the salvation of their baptized children with the same fervency with which Baptist parents pray for the salvation of their unbaptized children. Regarding church membership, evangelical paedobaptists do require a believable profession of faith before children can become full members of the church (their term is "communicant members"; that is, those who take Communion). They also require a believable profession of faith before any adults are allowed to join the church.

When these procedures are functioning well, both Baptists and paedobaptists use very similar procedures as they seek to have a church membership consisting of believers only, and both love and teach and pray for their children as most precious members of the larger church family who they hope will someday become true members of the body of Christ.

2. I did not realize this difficulty when I first published this book in 1994. I have revised this entire section for the 2007 printing.

Views of Baptism

From Wayne Shih @ http://acts18910.blogspot.com

Tim Challies, Baptism: Sacrament or Ordinance? - examines the Reformed and Baptist views of baptism.

R. Scott Clark, A Contemporary Reformed Defense of Infant Baptism - includes a helpful summary of the different views of baptism.

John Piper, Brothers, Magnify the Meaning of Baptism - I found his defense of believers baptism to be very helpful.

Zwingli and Calvin and their heirs have treated signs of the covenant as if no significant changes happened with the coming of Christ. But God is forming His people today differently than when He strove with an ethnic people called Israel. The people of God are no longer formed through natural kinship, but through supernatural conversion to faith in Christ.

With the coming of John the Baptist and Jesus and the apostles, the emphasis now is that the spiritual status of your parents does not determine your membership in the covenant community. The beneficiaries of the blessings of Abraham are those who have the faith of Abraham. These are the ones who belong to the covenant community.

And these are the ones who should receive the sign of the covenant: believer baptism.

How Young Is Too Young? Children and Baptism

From http://www.sfpulpit.com

Here at Grace Community Church, we are firmly committed to believers’ baptism — meaning that we do not see Scriptural precedent for the baptism of unbelievers, including infants. (We would agree with John Piper that if our covenantal brethren applied their reformed view of baptism/circumcision consistently, they too would abandon the practice of infant baptism. But that’s for another post. Those who want to think through the baptism issue are encouraged to listen to this debate, between John MacArthur and R.C. Sproul.)

As baptists, our church continually faces the question reflected in the title of this post: How old must a child be before he or she is ready to be baptized? This very question was asked in the comments section a couple days back, and it is an important one.

The Bible does not put an age requirement on baptism. But it does describe water baptism as a post-conversion act of identification with Christ. In Acts 2:38, Peter emphasized repentance as a corollary to baptism. In verse 41 of that same chapter, Luke records that it was “those who had received his word” that were baptized. Acts 16:34 indicates that the Philippian Jailer’s household believed before they were baptized. Colossians 2:11-12, 1 Peter 3:18-21, and other passages associate baptism with saving faith; and even the order of the Great Commission puts “making disciples” before “baptizing them” (Matt. 28:19).

Thus, without putting an age-requirement on baptism, the Bible indicates that a person must understand the gospel, repent of his or her sin, and savingly trust in Christ before being baptized. If water baptism is an external sign of genuine conversion, then genuine conversion must take place first.

At what point, then, is a child capable of understanding the gospel, repenting from sin, and savingly trusting in Christ? Again, Scripture gives no specific age limit. In our experience, however, we have found that most children do not really begin to objectively evaluate their own thoughts until they reach junior high. Before then, they usually feel little concern over the contradictory values to which they cling. Seldom during elementary years do they conscientiously think about and spiritually evaluate life’s demands independently of their parents.

This does not mean that all young children are incapable of committing the rest of their lives to Christ and being indwelt by the Holy Spirit. However, prior to adolescence, few children truly appreciate the significance of their separation from God, and few have sufficient mental sophistication to project far enough into the future to commit “the rest of their lives” to anything.

Although we do baptize eleven or twelve year olds from time to time at Grace Church, our children’s pastor spends enough time in conversation with them beforehand to settle any doubts he may have in two areas: (1) has the child actually rejected a worldly set of values in making his commitment to Christ? (2) can he project far enough into the future to make a lifelong commitment?

If these issues are resolved, we proceed to evaluate whether or not the child has an understanding of salvation by grace apart from works, and we seek verification from others that he or she demonstrates the fruit of the Spirit in everyday life. We believe a child who can meet these qualifications is ready to identify with Christ and His church through believer’s baptism.

The temptation for many parents is to rush their child’s baptism. Our elders here at Grace Church believe it is better to wait, and be absolutely convinced of a child’s conversion, than to baptize the child prematurely — and thereby potentially give an unsaved child a false sense of assurance.

Why Baptism Must Be into the Membership of a Local Church!

By Sam Waldron@ http://www.mctsowensboro.org

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.

Baptism?

Not what you would call your normal baptism.

Baptism: Why Do We Not Value It More?

By Ray Van Neste

Yesterday I spoke to a group of ‘ministerial’ students here at Union and my assigned topic was baptism. I chose to frame my comments with the question, “Why is baptism so unimportant in our Baptist churches?” (I am here writing clearly from my baptist perspective, though I realize non-Baptists may read this blog as well). It is a concern to me that though we, Baptists, take our name from this ordinance, we treat it with little concern. So, I argued for four reasons why baptism is so little appreciated in our Baptist churches.

1. We have bought our culture’s line that ritual is bad. We don’t tend to have the ability to see the value and beauty of traditional practices. Instead we tend to think that spontaneity and change are always best. But we should examine critically this assumption. Why do we assume that having a regular pattern to our worship is necessarily bad and that ‘changing things up’ is necessarily good? Probably part of the reason is that generations before us failed to think through for themselves and thus to teach to us why we did what we did, so that we saw empty tradition and ritual. However we must not let a bad example turn us away from the real thing. As you search the Scriptures you find that God is pretty big on tradition and ritual- properly done. Jesus and Paul will warn us not to let our man-made traditions obscure Scripture (Mt 15:1-9; Col 2:8); but, Paul also praises the church for holding firmly to apostolic tradition (1 Cor 11:2), exhorts the church to hold fast to apostolic tradition (2 Thess 2:15), and calls for the discipline of those who do not live according to apostolic tradition (2 Thess 3:6). This is pretty high commendation for tradition. The distinction between good and bad tradition is whether it is something God has commanded or whether it is something we have dreamed up. Baptism, and communion for that mater, are traditions Christ has commanded. If we appreciate the place of history and tradition, baptism becomes all the more meaningful as we join with the church through the ages in administering the sign of Christ.

2. This leads to a second and related point. Our culture has largely lost its ability to appreciate symbolism. In short we have lost our poetry and as a result have little appreciation for the symbolic. As people are realizing this many try all sorts of way to integrate the use of the symbolic and dramatic into our worship all the while missing that Christ Himself has instituted for us two symbolic practices which are dramatic portrayals of the gospel.
Our general failure to appreciate symbols is seen in the language used when baptism or communion is described as a ‘mere’ symbol. ‘Mere’?! Why ‘mere’? Not ‘mere’, but Christ-ordained, holy, precious symbols which portray for us the gospel.

3. A third problem is that baptism does not fit well in entertainment driven worship services. Things like baptism (and communion as well) take up too much time and get in the way of our show. They don’t make for good television. It should be a cause for pause when we feel that events commanded by Christ ‘get in the way’ of things desired by us.

4. Lastly, I think we have removed baptism from its proper place as the public profession of faith. We have created new ordinances which are not mentioned in the Scriptures (e.g. walking the aisle, praying the prayer) which have pushed aside the divinely ordained ones. In the New Testament baptism functioned as the public profession of faith (which is expected in Rom 10:9-10) as the new believer publicly identified himself with the Church by taking on himself the ritual sign of this group typically in the public square rather than inside a church building. Notice this with the Ethiopian eunuch, Saul, the Philippian jailer, etc. We tend to make ‘walking an aisle’ the public profession rather than baptism thus robbing the act of baptism of some of its significance.

This connection of baptism with the public profession also helps us to make sense of the texts which could seem to say that baptism is necessary for salvation. Acts 2:38 is an example when Peter calls upon the people to “Repent and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” Baptists too often see this as a text to explain away. Having successfully argued that it does not mean baptism saves we contentedly move on without addressing what it does actually mean! It is not enough to be sure what a passage does not mean if we have not wrestled what it does then mean. The typical apostolic call is to repent and believe. Baptism here takes the place of ‘believe’ because it is the expected way of professing this faith. If we would reclaim baptism’s place as the profession of faith, I think we would more readily see its significance.

More could be said on each of these points (esp. more exegetical defense of point 4), but this is long enough already. Perhaps there is enough here to stir some conversation. I am very interested in response and conversation on these points and the basic idea in general.

__________________________________________________________________
By Scot McKnight
http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=1230

Nearly every human being with a taste for mischief explores what Paul says in Romans 5. If sin’s forgiveness magnifies grace, why not just sin? Paul’s answer might surprise some of us.

The answer to this mischievous exploration is baptism. Yes, that’s right. Romans 6:1-4 sets it out: “Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound?” “Never!,” Paul says. Why? Because we’ve been baptized.

Once again: Law increases sin; sin is “hyper-increased” by grace. Therefore, the more sin the more grace. That is mischievous moral logic. Why? Because of baptism.

Baptism, according to Paul, is dying in Jesus’ death and rising in Jesus’ resurrection. Baptism is our incorporation into Jesus, it is participation in Jesus’ own recapitulation.

Baptism ushers a person into Christ. Baptism is a picture of both death and resurrection. So, the power for a life “beyond sin” is the elimination of death by dying with Christ and the acquisition of life by rising with Christ.

Now, for those of us who grew up in that very-low church tradition where baptism meant nothing — even though it was made sure that everyone got dunked, this message shocks a bit. Does Paul really believe that baptism ushers us into Christ? Clearly. No other way to read Romans 6:1-4. Does this mean “baptism saves”? Now we’re asking questions as Paul’s opponents ask. Of course not. Christ saves. And we enter into Christ by undergoing baptism because we have come to trust in Christ.