This I Believe: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper

Baptism and the Lord’s Supper
I believe that the Lord Jesus Christ appointed two ordinances/sacraments to be observed by his church until his coming: baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Baptism is the immersion of the believer in water into the name of the Triune God and is connected with entrance into the new covenant community. The Lord’s Supper was instituted by Jesus Christ to commemorate his death and is connected with ongoing covenant renewal.

Matt. 28:19-20; Rom. 6:3-5; 1 Cor. 11:23-26

This I Believe: God’s New People

God’s New People
I believe that from all eternity, God ordained to redeem and justify a multitude of guilty sinners by grace through faith in Jesus Christ from all ages from every tribe, language, people, and nation. He has set his love on this people for no other reason than that he loves them. God’s new covenant people make up the universal church, the body of Christ. The universal church manifests itself in local churches, of which Christ is the Head. Local churches are gatherings of this new people who observe baptism and the Lord’s Supper and exercise the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by God’s word. The primary mission of the church is to spread the gospel to the ends of the earth, making disciples of all nations. The church’s only proper offices are elders and deacons. God’s new people are not only justified by grace through faith but also sanctified by grace through faith. Above all, God’s new people must be characterized by love for God and love for people. They are to be salt and light in the world and holy in all their conduct.

Deut. 7:7-8; Matt. 5:13-16; 22:37; 28:19-20; Acts 2:38, 42-47; 26:18; Rom. 3:20-28; 8:1, 34; 1 Cor. 12:12-13; Gal. 3:1-7; Eph. 1:22-23; 2:19-22; Col. 1:18; 1 Tim. 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-16; 1 Pet. 1:14-16; 2:9-10; Rev. 5:9-10; 7:9-17; 21:2-3

Thinking About Infant Baptism

Note: I have updated the first bullet point with a few thoughts from Doug Moo’s commentary on Romans.

I often joke that I am one sprinkled baby away from becoming a Presbyterian. Aside from infant baptism and their church governance structure, I am fairly aligned with most of the theological convictions of the PCA (the conservative branch for those of you who get worried when the word “Presbyterian” comes up), the RCA, or the EPC.

I doubt I will ever baptize an infant, or have my children baptized as infants, so let me get those cards on the table now. I am a credo-baptist (“believer’s baptism”). In light of this, I have some honest questions for paedo-baptists (“infant-baptists”). These four bullets are not exhaustive (of course), or an attack on my infant-baptist brothers and sisters. I love you and appreciate your desire for gospel-saturated, Christ-centered ministry. These are just thoughts that sprung to mind this morning.

• Romans 6:1-4: You would be hard pressed to fit infant baptism into this scenario Paul presents to the church in Rome. Can an infant say he has died and risen with Christ to new life? Can an infant say he can “walk in newness of life.” This is what Paul connects with Christian baptism. In saying baptism is “connected” to the newness of life, it does not mean baptism brings about new life. Rather, it is a symbol of what is true in the heart. According to Doug Moo, Paul would think it an oxymoron to meet an “unbaptized” Christian. He says, “Baptism is introduced not to explain how we were buried with Christ but to demonstrate that we were buried with Christ” (NICNT, Epistle to the Romans, 364). Moreover, it seems that a baptized unchristian (an infant) would be just as unbelievable because of the context. Moo also notes that “in the early church [they] conceived of faith, the gift of the Spirit, and water baptism as components of one unified experience, which [J. Dunn] calls ‘conversion-initiation’” (Romans, 366). If an infant has not exercised faith and received the Holy Spirit, why would they be baptized? They do not need to be “initiated” since they do not belong to God’s family yet.
• Matthew 28:19-20: Would the disciples have assumed a connection with circumcision and baptism in this scenario, so as to baptize infants, even though they cannot be taught and thus become disciples before regeneration? Furthermore, Is not the promise of heart circumcision connected to, and what makes obsolete, flesh circumcision (Rom. 2:25-29)?
• Though it is true Acts speaks of “household baptisms” (twice, in Acts 16:15, 31) it nowhere says that infants were, in fact, baptized. Of course, infant baptism is nowhere forbidden in the New Testament. Nevertheless, is this the case because the apostles would have thought it absurd to do such a thing? On Pentecost, the men responded to Peter’s sermon by asking, “What shall we do?” Peter answered, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:37-39). Peter indeed says the promise of the Holy Spirit is for “your children” but there is a conditional clause: it is for “everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” Not all children of Christian parents–not even all baptized infants–are effectually called and saved by God. Will a child experience the blessing of being raised by a Spirit-filled parent? Of course! Will that Spirit be imparted to them apart from God’s grace and a true belief in Christ? No. So I ask: would Peter have expected a baby to stand in line that day? Probably not. Peter connected repentance and baptism. In the same way, John’s baptism was a “baptism of repentance” (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3), which Paul said pointed to Jesus’ coming (Acts 19:4). Jesus’ whole ministry expanded on his opening words: “Repent and believe the gospel” (Mark 1:15). Again this is something a baby–not even a toddler–can do. Paul’s own testimony connects baptism with the forgiveness of sins (Acts 22:16), something that cannot be given to a baby who is unregenerate.
• Finally, as a side note: it is interesting that the same Reformed theologians who say that “household baptisms” occurred in Acts, thus giving credibility to infant-baptism is Scripture, will be the first to say that Acts was not “normative” as it concerns spiritual gifts (i.e. the so-called “sign” gifts). In order to be consistent with the issue of what is, or is not, normative in Acts, those theologians would have to say that all gifts continue until today or say that “household baptism” are either 1) not normative for today, or 2) may not have implied infants were members of those households.

No matter what side of the debate you are on, what are your thoughts?

Christian and Unbaptized? Unthinkable.

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? (Romans 6:3)

How could someone, Paul argues, who has died with Christ through the public display of baptism (the external display of an internal reality; the symbolic representation of our death and resurrection with Christ) still continue to obey sin as a master?  Baptism is a display of what Paul spoke of in 2:29, “But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter.”  Baptism is an outward act that one has been circumcised in the heart and wants to display it to the world.  Baptism is what signifies our death and resurrection with Christ.  It is not the instrument through which we die and rise with Christ.  John Piper gives the analogy of a marriage and the wedding ring:

All of us who have put on the ring of marriage have, by putting on this ring, forsaken all others to cleave only to our wives. Therefore by this ring I am united to my wife alone and dead to all others.

Now you could press the language and say, “Aha, it was the actual putting on the ring that caused your forsaking all others and your cleaving to Noel alone. You said it explicitly: ‘By this ring, I am united to my wife alone.’ What could be plainer? The ring does it all.

But that is not what I would mean by these words. I would mean that putting on the ring is a sign of my forsaking all others and cleaving only to her. The decisive leaving and cleaving is in the promise, the covenant, the vows. “I plight thee my troth.” “I promise you my faithfulness.” Then comes the ring, the symbol.

The vows stand for faith in Christ, and the ring stands for baptism. And the point is that we often talk this way. We often speak of the symbol as though it brings about what it only signifies.

But is baptism just a symbol? In Galatians 3:27, Paul says, “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”  This, and Romans 6:3, does not mean baptism saves you.  Grace through faith alone justifies a person before God (Rom. 3:24-26, 28; 5:1; Gal. 3:5-6; Eph. 2:5, 8-9).

However, baptism in Paul’s day has a much more significant meaning than it does today.  We have cheapened the meaning of baptism in the Christian church. In his commentary on Romans, Doug Moo writes, “J. Dunn…points out that the early church conceived of faith, the gift of the Spirit, and water baptism as components of one unified experience, which he calls ‘conversion-initiation’” (Moo, Romans, 366).

In Acts 10, when Peter is preaching Jesus to the Gentiles, in the middle of his message, the Holy Spirit came upon them and immediately.  Peter did not wait and have them complete a spiritual gift survey or go through a membership class or a doctrine class.  He said, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people?” (v. 47).  In Acts 8, when Philip preaches to the Ethiopian eunuch, the Ethiopian believed and immediately asked Philip if he could be baptized (v. 36).  In Acts 16, Lydia and her whole household were saved and on that same day they were baptized (v. 15).  The point is that when people believed in the NT, they were immediately baptized as a public declaration that they identified with and were saved by the death and resurrection of Jesus. To these new believers, and the New Testament writers, it was unthinkable, even inconceivable, that a person would believe in Jesus yet not be baptized with water.

Would Paul have a category in his mind for a Christian who believed in Jesus as Lord and Savior and repented of their sin, yet was not baptized? No. There are many reasons that baptism isn’t done immediately today, but I won’t discuss that here. The point is this: if you are a Christian and are not baptized, what is holding you back? Don’t disobey. Believe and obey, and get baptized today!

Why is local church membership important?

Church membership is something that the local church — particularly my generation — has black-eyed.  It’s too structured and too old school.  It’s not cool.  It’s just a way for the church to have a hand in your pocketbook.

I couldn’t disagree more. Carly and I recently went through our church membership class.  We connected with our lead pastor and were able to align ourselves with the mission and vision of our church.  That is significant, but more than that, I think membership in a local congregation is important; and I think there are texts in the New Testament that infer something like the contemporary version of what we know as church membership.

It’s important for a couple reasons — off the top of my head.  First, for the lead elder/pastor to know who he is accountable for before God (see 1 Peter 5 and Hebrews 13 for examples).  Second, in order for church discipline to be handled correctly, there must be an identifiable group of people who are members, who can vote on such issues. After all, how can a man be kicked out of church if there is no membership (see 1 Corinthians 5 for example).

Lord willing, expect more on this later.

Here are John Piper’s thoughts on the subject.

Why Should I Get Baptized?

After the last two posts, I thought it would be helpful if I quickly said why it’s important for Christians to be baptized.  Some people may assume that because I believe paedo-baptists are sinning (since they do not get baptized as believers) that they might be disqualified from salvation.  I don’t mean that.  Belief in Jesus as the atonement for one’s sin saves people.  After all, the thief on the cross next to Jesus was not baptized, yet Jesus said to him, “Today, you will be with me in paradise.”

What I do mean when I say that paedo-baptists (or others!) who have not been baptized as believers is that they must obey the Bible’s command to be baptized (just as we must obey other commands in the Bible).  If the Bible tells us to do something, by God’s grace we need to do it.  Here’s a sampling of verses to show this truth:

• Acts 2:37-38, Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers what shall we do?”  And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
• Matthew 28:19, 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.
• Acts 8:35-36, Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus.  And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water!  What prevents me from being baptized?”
• Acts 10:46-47, Then Peter declared “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”

I have heard people say, “Well, I don’t want the church to tell me what to do.”  “I don’t want people to think that you need to be baptized to be saved, so I’m not going to do it.”  “I’m not going to be legalistic.  It’s not a big deal.”

But it is a big deal.

Peter said, “Repent and be baptized” to receive forgiveness.  Simply, this verse says that new birth is something that God works in our hearts and we respond by turning from sin (repentance).  The outward sign of that which is true on the inside is water baptism.  It should be a willful, joyful, happy obedience in the Christian’s life, just as it was for the Ethiopian eunuch.

Now I must be careful here.  The above statements are not made by paedo-baptists — for they think that they are truly baptized.  And though I think they are wrong, I will respect their diligent study and not question their faith in Jesus, yet still encourage them in the truth to change their stance on baptism.

But what I would say to someone who makes the statements above — someone who is willfully and knowingly not seeking to be baptized when they know they must be?  I would ask them plainly: Are you are true believer in Jesus?  Don’t you want to publicly declare your death, burial, and resurrection with Christ?  Are you viewing baptism through the lens of an imperfect body of believers or through the perfect Holy Scriptures?

Baptism doesn’t save you.  But if your disobedience is willful and stubborn, as with any sin, there must be a great examining and testing of your faith.  Jesus’ blood saves you by God’s grace through faith.  If that’s your confession, then trust God that your baptism is designed to be an external display of internal realities and that it will be a great public testimony of the transforming power of God in your life.

Baptism, Communion, and Ignorant Sin, Part 2

In my last post, I wrote about the developing debate in the blogosphere regarding Mark Dever’s comments that a proponent of infant baptism is sinning (though unintentionally and with sincerity of heart) and is therefore not welcome at the communion table.   I will first address whether or not being a paedo-baptist is a sin, then I’ll talk about whether or not paedo-baptists are welcome at the Lord’s table at a credo-baptist’s church (such as Capitol Hill Baptist where Dever preaches).

In his original post, Dever wrote that practicing paedo-baptism was sinful.    I agree with Dever for the simple fact that if the Bible teaches something clearly then we must obey what it says.  I believe the Bible is clear on the issue of baptism and that paedo-baptists are unintentionally sinning for at least three reasons:

1. The Greek word baptizo means “to submerge, dunk, immerse in water.”  The word alone does not allow for a baptism by sprinkling, which is the method of baptism performed by paedo-baptists.
2. Jesus’ command in the Great Commission is to make disciples and baptize them.  The New Testament practice shows that people who believed and followed Jesus were baptized.  Paedo-baptists will say that passages like Acts 16:15 support infant baptism.  In that passage, Lydia was baptized “and her household as well.”  But this baptism followed an opening of “her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul” (v. 14). Babies cannot be disciples for obvious reasons.  A baby’s heart cannot be opened to the things of God.  A baby cannot confess and believe in Jesus.
3. Infant baptism is not the New Testament equivalent of circumcision.  The paedo-baptist will say that baptism equates to circumcision and since circumcision was done on infants, baptism should be performed on infants as the sign of the covenant between God and his people.  I’m unconvinced for two reasons: 1) Girls weren’t circumcised, so why wouldn’t we just baptize baby boys? 2) More importantly there is a New Testament version of circumcision and it’s the circumcision of the heart that God performs.  Colossians 2:11 says, “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, 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” (cf. Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4; Rom. 2:26; 4:9, 12).  So circumcision is something God does through Christ to our hearts, and an outward symbol of what God has done in the heart is that we are “buried with him in baptism.”  This again showing that baptism is a burial — that we go “under the water” — which symbolizes our death and burial with Christ.

The other part of Dever’s post that I’d like to address is the issue of whether or not a paedo-baptist could partake of communion at, say, a local Baptist church.  Dever wrote, “I simply lack the authority to admit someone to the Lord’s Table who has not been baptized.”  I disagree with him on this for three reasons:

1. I find no evidence in Scripture for keeping someone from the Lord’s Table for an unintentional sin.  If someone is knowingly and happily sinning without seeking to kill the sin, we will enact church discipline on them, and if they are unrepentant we must remove them from fellowship.  The Lord’s Table, however, is for all of us wretched sinners who battle the inconsistencies and errors in our lives while at the same time confessing the death of Jesus as the payment for our sins (1 Cor. 11:26).
2. I find no connection in the Scripture between being baptized and partaking of communion.  As far as we know, when Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper with his disciples, they had not even been baptized with water!  There is no Scripture that says they were.  Of course we know Jesus was, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that his disciples were.  Before I was baptized (at age 13), I had taken communion at church because I had received Jesus as my Lord and Savior.  Was I living in sin by partaking without yet being baptized?  You’d be hard pressed to find biblical support for that view.
3. There are other sins that are committed because of a willful disbelief or an ignorance of biblical doctrine that would not keep someone from the Lord’s Table.  Let’s take disbelieving in the doctrine of election.  I know many sincere Christians who love Jesus, are saved, and yet are firmly committed to Arminian theology, which I find unbiblical.  This person is wrong in certain parts of their theology, yet is sincere in their love for God, their doctrine, and their pursuit of holiness.  Would it be a right thing to say to this person, “Your theology is off.  You are not welcome at the Lord’s table”?  Of course not!  That would be legalistic, proud, and unloving.  Furthermore, there are others who do not hold to the doctrine of election because of a preconceived notion of Reformed churches/preachers.  They are willfully not believing in the doctrine of election whether or not they have studied the Scriptures for truth.  Our goal should be to love these people and shepherd them and teach the truth, while encouraging them to examine themselves while partaking of the Lord’s table.

Despite this whole tiff, Dever admits that he is far from perfect in his own theology.  He said that both paedo- and credo-baptists have errors and inconsistencies in their theology.  That’s a good word, Mark, and for that reason alone, if our confession is Jesus by grace through faith alone, then true believers of any denomination, practice, and theology should be welcome.

And now I say to all my paedo friends: I disagree with your stance.  I think you are unintentionally sinning by not being baptized as a believer.  You are free to believe I am sinning as well (it would be odd if you didn’t!), though of course I’d disagree.  However, when I take communion before God and with his people, you are more than welcome to join me and proclaim Jesus and his death as the propitiation for our sins.  And when we do, may we examine ourselves, and all our theological inconsistencies, so we do not drink judgment on our heads (1 Cor. 11:29)