# Baptist testimony on baptism and church membership



## Pilgrim (Dec 9, 2008)

I realize from the outset that in all likelihood this will be an unpopular post, but I feel compelled to invest the time in it because I'm seeing arguments all over the Baptist blogosphere that echo those in this thread. 

Here's the bottom line. None of the Presbyterians are knowingly going to allow someone to join the church and/or come to the table without being baptized. Why should the Baptist be raked over the coals for answering the question in the same way? Of course the answer is clear. It's because the results of that answer are different, and some don't like it because they appear to be uncharitable. As I'm sure we've all noticed, a lot of people don't like Calvinism and complementarianism either. Shall truth be sacrificed for the sake of unity? Does the Bible speak authoritatively on the subject of baptism or not? I have to admit some dismay at arguments like "Well he sincerely believes the sprinkling he received as an infant is a valid baptism, and he's a much better theologian than anyone in the congregation so why should we refuse him church membership?" And at times this comes from people claiming to represent the historic Baptist position! 

Also, let's not forget that many Reformed churches (particularly the continental tradition) do not consider Baptist churches to be true churches and will not allow them to partake in the Lord's Supper. Many Presbyterian churches who will let Baptists partake in the Lord's Supper will eventually discipline baptistic members who refuse to present their children for baptism. And let's not forget that it was the liberals who led the charge for open communion in Baptist churches. 

It would be far better for those calling themselves Baptists but who are out of accord with every Baptist confession that addresses this issue to just admit that they are broad church evangelicals who just happen to be personally baptistic, but to borrow a phrase from Mario Cuomo, aren't going to "force" that view on the unpersuaded. The fact that they still wear the Baptist label is a testimony to the great declension in Baptist churches over the years. This is a novel view in church history. Many will cite Bunyan, but whether or not he was actually a Baptist has long been the subject of debate. It's certainly possible that the near unanimous view of professing Christendom is wrong on this issue, but I would tread lightly before I would adopt such a newfangled position. 

By posting the above and the following from various Calvinistic and Particular Baptist confessions, I'm not really looking to debate baptism with the paedos. That's been done to death here. But I would like those who admire the Founders and who want to get back to "historic Baptist principles" to consider whether their views represent historic Particular/Calvinistic Baptist beliefs on this matter. Historic Baptist principles didn't just deal with soteriology, but ecclesiology as well. We hear the cry of Landmarkism thrown around a lot today, but this isn't Landmarkism, it's simply the confessional Baptist view. Those who believe that these views originated with American Baptists or Southern Baptists and weren't held by the English Baptists should take particular note. 

1st London Baptist Confession (1644)


> *[SIZE=+1] XXXIX [/SIZE]* BAPTlSM is an ordinance of the New Testament, given by Christ, to be dispensed upon persons professing faith, or that are made disciples; *who upon profession of faith, ought to be baptized, and after to partake of the Lord's Supper. *
> Matt.28:18,19; John 4:1; Mark 16:15,16; Acts 2:37.38, 8:36,37,etc.
> *
> XL *  THAT the way and manner of dispensing this ordinance, is dipping or plunging the body under water; it being a sign, must answer the things signified, which is, that interest the saints have in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ: And that as certainly as the body is buried under water, and risen again, so certainly shall the bodies of the saints be raised by the power of Christ, in the day of the resurrection, to reign with Christ.
> Matt.3:16; Mark 15:9 reads (into Jordan) in Greek; John 3:23; Acts 8:38; Rev.1:5, 7:14; Heb.10:22; Rom.6:3,4,5.6; 1 Cor.15:28.29. The word _ baptizo _ signifies to dip or plunge (yet so as convenient garments be both upon the administrator and subject with all modesty).


Appendix to the 1646 Confession of Faith by Benjamin Cox:



> Though a believer's right to the use of the Lord's Supper doth immediately flow from Jesus Christ apprehended and received by faith, yet in as much as all things ought to be done not only decently, but also in order, 1 Cor.14:40; and the Word holds forth this order, that disciples should be baptized, Matt.28:19; Acts 2:38, and then be taught to observe all things (that is to say. all other things) that Christ commanded the Apostles, Matt.28:20, and accordingly the Apostles first baptized disciples, and then admitted them to the use of the Supper, Acts 2:41, 42; *we therefore do not admit any in the use of the Supper, nor communicate with any in the use of this ordinance, but disciples having once been Scripturally baptized, less we should have fellowship with them in their doing contrary to order.*


Midland Confession of Faith (1655)



> 13th. That those who profess faith in Christ, and make the same appear by their fruits, are the proper subjects of Baptism. Matthew xxviii.18,19.
> 
> 14th. That this baptizing is not by sprinkling, but dipping of the persons in the water, representing the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Romans vi.3,4; Colossians ii.12; Acts viii.38,39.
> 
> 15th. *That persons so baptized* ought, by free consent, to walk together, as God shall give opportunity in distinct churches, or assemblies of Zion, continuing in the Apostles' doctrine and fellowship, breaking of bread and prayers, as fellow-men caring for one another, according to the will of God. All these ordinances of Christ are enjoined in His Church, being to be observed till his Second Coming, which we all ought diligently to wait for.


2nd London Baptist Confession (1689)




> *
> **Chapter 28: Of Baptism and the Lord's Supper*
> 
> 1._____ Baptism and the Lord's Supper are ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, to be continued in his church to the end of the world.
> ...


Carter Lane Declaration--John Gill's Confession of Faith (1757)



> XI. We believe, That Baptism (Matthew 28:19, 20; 1 Cor. 11:23-26) and the Lord's Supper are ordinances of Christ, to be continued until his second coming; and *that the former is absolutely requisite to the latter; that is to say, that those (Acts 2:41 and 9:18, 26) only are to be admitted into the communion of the church, and to participate of all ordinances in it, (Mark 16:16; Acts 8:12, 36, 37 and 16:31-34 and 8:8) who upon profession of their faith, have been baptized, (Matthew 3:6, 16; John 3:23; Acts 8:38, 39; Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12) by immersion, in the name of the Father, (Matthew 28:19) and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.*


The Sandy Creek Confession (1758)



> IX. That true believers are the only fit subjects of baptism;, and that immersion is the only mode.
> X. *That the church has no right to admit any but regular baptized church members to communion at the Lord's table.*



The Baptist Catechism, Charleston Association (1813)




> Q. Who are the proper subjects of this ordinance? (The Lord's Supper)
> A. They who have been baptized upon a personal profession of their faith in Jesus Christ, and repentance from dead works (Acts 2:41, 42).


New Hampshire Confession (1833) 



> Of a Gospel Church We believe that *a visible Church of Christ is a congregation of* *baptized believers* (66), associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel (67); observing the ordinances of Christ (68); governed by his laws (69), and exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by his Word (70); that its only scriptural officers are Bishops, or Pastors, and Deacons (71), whose qualifications, claims, and duties are defined in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus.
> Of Baptism and the Lord's Supper We believe that Christian Baptism is the immersion in water of a believer (72), into the name of the Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost (73); to show forth, in a solemn and beautiful emblem, our faith in the crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, with its effect in our death to sin and resurrection to a new life (74); that *it is prerequisite to the privileges of a Church relation; and to the Lord's Supper* (75), in which the members of the Church, by the sacred use of bread and wine, are to commemorate together the dying love of Christ (76); preceded always by solemn self- examination (77).


Abstract of Principles--Adopted at the founding of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in 1858: 


> XV. Baptism.
> 
> Baptism is an ordinance of the Lord Jesus, obligatory upon every believer, wherein he is immersed in water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, as a sign of his fellowship with the death and resurrection of Christ, of remission of sins, and of his giving himself up to God, to live and walk in newness of life. * It is prerequisite to church fellowship, and to participation in the Lord's Supper.*


A Catechism of Bible Teaching by John A. Broadus (1892)




> Lesson 11: Baptism and the Lord's Supper
> 
> 10. Who ought to partake of the Lord's Supper
> A. Those ought to partake of the Lord's Supper who have believed in Christ, and have been baptized, and are trying to live in obedience of Christ's commands.


The Baptist Faith and Message (2000) of the Southern Baptist Convention echoes the language of the New Hampshire Confession and the Abstract of Principles: 



> [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Univers,Zurich BT][SIZE=-1]Being a church ordinance, it [baptism] is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper. [/SIZE][/FONT]


----------



## Wannabee (Dec 9, 2008)

Regardless of where one lands on this, Chris, you've shed some historical light on the discussion. Thank you.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 9, 2008)

Good Post Chris.


----------



## Hippo (Dec 10, 2008)

Pilgrim said:


> Shall truth be sacrificed for the sake of unity? Does the Bible speak authoritatively on the subject of baptism or not?



The last thing that is needed in this discussion is more heat, however the issues are both important and interesting therefore I hope that my post offers at the least a different perspective on this issue that I feel is necessary.

Firstly I am not defending the Presbyterian confessional membership position, as I feel that there are certain commanalities between this and the areas of the Baptist position that I do not agree with. 

If on an island (or even in the world, who knows what will happen) there was one church and that was a baptist church, and one inhabitant on that island had been baptised as an adult by sprinkling by a now defunct trinitarian (non baptist) Church the Baptist position as you have stated it is that he would be denied membership of the visible church on the basis that he believes himself to be baptised, any further baptism being for him a heinous rebaptism.

In the real world you can always argue that the individual should join another church that accepted his baptism but you cannot base your eclesiology on a model that only works with division, that cannot be the true model for a whole host of reasons. We are not talking about some liberal desire for unity but the unity of the visible Church that is an Apostolicly required imperitive. The bible speaks authoritively on every issue under the sun but as Christians we disagree, the Apostles are not here to settle every issue.

A pride in being historically Baptist cannot cannot be the basis for theology, it can only rightly be an expression of a theology and not its basis. It cannot be the court of final appeal and it cannot be the limit of the Church unless you take the extreme position that all non baptists are not members of the visible church. 

The WCF is non sectarian as it provides a model for the visible Church and should be interpreted in this way, to quote the Baptist confessions with pride at their sectarianism has got to be problematic for people. If you engage with this board you presumbably accept paedos as Christians and as such it is just plain wrong not to let them join the visible Church.


----------



## Wannabee (Dec 10, 2008)

I understand your reasoning, Mike, but there is an inconsistency involved. Unity is never desirable above doctrinal integrity. In fact, where doctrinal disparity exists there will always be a tension in any perceived unity. Consider this: baptism is one of the first acts of obedience from a baptist perspective, or even a paedo if it's a new, unbaptized, convert. It is not negotiable. If someone came to join your church that had never been baptized, would you allow them? If you would, but would require them to be baptized and they still refused then would you put them out? Basically, what you've done if the second is true is allowed a disobedient Christian to be counted a member of the local church before disciplining them.
For the Baptist any form of infant baptism is merely a dedication ceremony. I don't mean that condescendingly. That is a difference in our perspective on baptism. Therefore, regardless of how genuine or sincere one is, how well thought out their theology is, how close their walk to Christ is, from a baptistic perspective they are in disobedience if they have not been baptized as a believer. If they refuse to do so them they are considered proud and to be rebelling against the command of the One they profess to represent. This does not deny their salvation. But a line is drawn somewhere for any sound church. Would you let those who ascribe to FV join your church? Masons? Open theists? pick some more names? I doubt it. But one could be any of these and still be a Christian (though confused). You have a statement of faith that you most likely require perspective members to agree with and adhere to. 
Some baptistic churches accept paedos quietly. Some do it openly. Some refuse them as members. As I stated in the other thread, I'll leave communion as an issue of conscience between the professing believer and God. But membership is a privilege that I will guard within the bounds of our doctrinal stance. To be sure, even within that there are degrees, and someone may be a member but not allowed to teach because of theological differences. And, for more clarity, in fellowship and unity with many I would share my pulpit with paedos, but still not share membership. Spurgeon held much the same view, as does Dever. MacArthur's church does not openly allow paedos, but if one wishes to join GCC and can give credible theological reason for their position they will be accepted.
To claim that "it is just plain wrong not to let them join the visible Church" is a subjective statement, based on your assertion of what's right and wrong. For the Baptist shepherd it could just as well be plain wrong to allow anyone who is walking in disobedience to join the visible church. And it potentially makes the matter of obedience in baptism negotiable, undermining obedience within the local flock.


----------



## Pilgrim (Dec 10, 2008)

Mike,

I think we've largely talked past each other on this subject, but I will give it one more try and explain in more detail the reason for my post. 



> Firstly I am not defending the Presbyterian confessional membership position, as I feel that there are certain commanalities between this and the areas of the Baptist position that I do not agree with.


I agree that there are certain commonalities with the confessional membership view and the confessional, historic Baptist view. You can find posts on the PB where Baptists complain about the perceived sectarianism of the confessional Reformed. My whole point in posting what I did is that for a Baptist to adopt open membership is to cease to be Baptist. A church that adopts that view may still be antipaedobaptist in the sense that it rejects paedobaptism, but it has rejected Baptist ecclesiology. 

I don't think that a church that practices restricted membership but open communion as Spurgeon's Metropolitan Tabernacle did ceases to be Baptist, although at this time that view seems inconsistent to me since it regards baptism to be prerequisite to church membership but not the Lord's Supper. 




> If on an island (or even in the world, who knows what will happen) there was one church and that was a baptist church, and one inhabitant on that island had been baptised as an adult by sprinkling by a now defunct trinitarian (non baptist) Church the Baptist position as you have stated it is that he would be denied membership of the visible church on the basis that he believes himself to be baptised, any further baptism being for him a heinous rebaptism.


This is a position that you've stated more than once. But your position requires that Baptist churches abandon their principles. This is something that is as odious to the Baptist as having an Arminian minister would be for a Presbyterian. Again there are those among the Reformed that would not view this Baptist church as a true church anyway whether or not they practiced open communion or open membership. (I realize you don't hold that view.) 



> In the real world you can always argue that the individual should join another church that accepted his baptism but you cannot base your eclesiology on a model that only works with division, that cannot be the true model for a whole host of reasons. We are not talking about some liberal desire for unity but the unity of the visible Church that is an Apostolicly required imperitive. The bible speaks authoritively on every issue under the sun but as Christians we disagree, the Apostles are not here to settle every issue.


Obviously these disagreements are the cause of the divisions between Baptists, paedobaptists, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Calvinists, Arminians, Brethren, etc. Your desire for charity and unity is laudable. I'm just not convinced that it is Biblical when it comes to this issue. 

Those who press the desire for unity too far often call for some kind of rapprochement with Rome. The evangelicals cited John 15 as the impetus for Evangelicals and Catholics Together in the mid 90's. Now we hear evangelicals saying that some Mormons are Christians too. Others have embraced leaders whose view of the Trinity amounts to modalism. 




> A pride in being historically Baptist cannot cannot be the basis for theology, it can only rightly be an expression of a theology and not its basis. It cannot be the court of final appeal and it cannot be the limit of the Church unless you take the extreme position that all non baptists are not members of the visible church.


You're quite correct that the Baptist confessions can't be the court of final appeal, no more than the WCF or TFU can be in disputes such as this. 



> The WCF is non sectarian as it provides a model for the visible Church and should be interpreted in this way, to quote the Baptist confessions with pride at their sectarianism has got to be problematic for people. If you engage with this board you presumbably accept paedos as Christians and as such it is just plain wrong not to let them join the visible Church.


The WCF says that it a great sin to "contemn or neglect" infant baptism (28.5). It is well within the prerogative of sessions in Presbyterian churches to refuse to admit professing Christians who will not have their children brought to the font, and many have done so down through the years, although I would imagine you would oppose such action. 

I did not start this thread out of pride. It was motivated primarily by what I saw as great ignorance, primarily in the blogosphere, about ecclesiology and what Baptists have historically believed. (I think most here other than perhaps some neophytes realize that to jettison restricted membership is to cease to be Baptist.) In many cases these people are Calvinistic and are labeling views like the ones I noted in the OP as being Landmark or "Neo-Landmark." If they are Landmark then Baptists have been "Landmark" from the beginning, something that the Landmarkers would like you to believe but something that non-Landmarkers have always denied. As you say, no doubt these views are problematic for Presbyterians and others just as Presbyterians are problematic for Baptists on certain issues. 

Earlier this year I rejected paedobaptism and decided I had to leave Presbyterianism and seek out a baptistic assembly. I have joined a Southern Baptist church whose practices of restricted membership and close communion conform with the confessions in the OP. I am still working through these issues regarding church membership, what if any restrictions should be placed on communion, etc. If I eventually come to the firm opinion that there should be open membership, I won't consider myself a Baptist any longer. If that were to happen, I would at some point probably seek out some other assembly more in conformity with those views rather than press them upon people who are confessionally bound to the restricted membership view, especially if they are unwilling to adopt the open view and change their confession. There are many examples of various independent churches that, while firmly holding to credobaptism and immersion, practice open membership and open communion, although in some parts there are few if any, and at times they hold to other doctrines or practices that are objectionable. 

A few years ago I heard a Southern Baptist evangelist relate a conversation he once had with a church member. "But it's not Baptist!" she exclaimed in reference to some proposed change at the church. He replied that if it's Biblical but "not Baptist" we need it and if it's Baptist but not Biblical we need to get rid of it. The same goes for Presbyterian, etc.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 10, 2008)

Hippo said:


> The WCF is non sectarian as it provides a model for the visible Church and should be interpreted in this way, to quote the Baptist confessions with pride at their sectarianism has got to be problematic for people. If you engage with this board you presumbably accept paedos as Christians and as such it is just plain wrong not to let them join the visible Church.



Wow, 
The WCF is non sectarian? According to who? Their are many distinguishing marks the WCF makes that separates its adherents from the other Christian cultures. Covenant Theology being one of them. Ecclesiology is another. The sacraments are another. 

Wanna elaborate for me?


----------



## LawrenceU (Dec 10, 2008)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> > The WCF is non sectarian as it provides a model for the visible Church and should be interpreted in this way, to quote the Baptist confessions with pride at their sectarianism has got to be problematic for people. If you engage with this board you presumbably accept paedos as Christians and as such it is just plain wrong not to let them join the visible Church.
> ...



Me too!


----------



## Hippo (Dec 10, 2008)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> > The WCF is non sectarian as it provides a model for the visible Church and should be interpreted in this way, to quote the Baptist confessions with pride at their sectarianism has got to be problematic for people. If you engage with this board you presumbably accept paedos as Christians and as such it is just plain wrong not to let them join the visible Church.
> ...




Sectarianism occurs when those who do not share your doctrinal distintives are excluded from the visible church, it does not mean that doctrinal distictives do not exist. I also do not understand how the mode of baptism (i.e. immersion) can be placed on an equal footing with the need for a profession of faith, theologicaly it is just not as soundly grounded and has nowhere near the same internal logic.

I fully accept all the instances of presbyterian issues in these areas that have been highlighted, however I would see these problems as aberations, the problem with the Baptist position as I see it rests precisely in its internal logic that is very strong.

I think that there is a general problem of unity being seen as a theological aim rather than a reality that has to be recognised, I am not suggesting that Baptists change their views on what Baptism is, what I am suggesting is that they reconcile a belief that non Baptists may be Christians with their eclesiology.

I agree with many of the points made in this thread and wish all my baptist brethren a very fine day and thank you for interacting with me so positively.


----------



## Pilgrim (Dec 10, 2008)

LawrenceU said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > Hippo said:
> ...



I think that Mike probably means sectarian with regard to church membership and not leadership or holding church office i.e. that most Presbyterian churches will allow Baptists to join. 

I'll allow myself to hijack my own thread and offer up this thought. I wonder if Lewis Sperry Chafer thought it was "sectarian." In the late 20's he sought to cooperate with Machen and Westminster Seminary but was rebuffed. He and his Dallas Seminary graduates managed to get dispensationalism condemned as heresy by the PCUS (the old Southern Presbyterian church,) and this at a time in which the PCUS was moving left wouldn't be considered very confessional by confessionalists today. This was at about the same time that the PCUS adopted the PCUSA's Arminianizing amendments from 1903. No doubt some Dispensationalists found a home in the PCUS and I've even heard of some Dispensational elders from the early days of the PCA. But their overall rejection was a major factor in the independent Bible church movement that typically allows the kind of latitude on baptism that Mike is arguing for. Some of the "Independent Presbyterian" churches that you see in Texas and maybe some other places may have been PCUS at one time or else may have been started by disgruntled former Presbyterians who left the mainline church. Some are even 5 pointers who are dispensational to some degree and have elders. 

I wonder if those who founded the Bible Presbyterian Church, due in large part to the antipathy toward premillenialism in the OPC, (as well as the lack of enthusiasm for things like Prohibition) thought that those who were against their essentially fundamentalist stance were too narrow and "sectarian" in their insistence on being so self-consciously Reformed. That divide to some extent explains why the PCA and OPC remain separate denominations today, although I don't think this is quite what Mike had in mind since no one is being barred from the table in this circumstance. Yet it does have some applicability to his plea for unity and against division.


----------



## InevitablyReformed (Dec 10, 2008)

I have an interest in Baptist ecclesiology as I am relatively new to the reformed faith. I have been a PBer for a few months now (reading on it for about a year) and I think this is one of the better baptism threads in terms of clarity, history, and charity. So, for what it's worth: Thanks for the posts.


----------



## Herald (Dec 10, 2008)

Adding to the discussion, there is a glaring lack of understanding as to what Baptists believe; this coming from _within _Baptist ranks! Confessionalism does not mean truth, whether it be the LBC, WCF or 3FU. Tradition does not mean truth, although many confessional believers are more Roman than the papists in that regard. 

Chris, your OP did not seek to lay out the scriptural arguments for the Baptist position on baptism and the Lord's Supper. That's fine. I understood the intent and it accomplished it's purpose. Nothing is ever a "given" when discussing theology and practice, but perhaps we should state that we acquiese to the confessions in these areas because we do consider them to be scriptural. 

Now, if we (Baptists) are in agreement with the various confessions, cathecisms and declarations contained in the OP, considering them to be scriptural, what are our alternatives other than to commit ourselves to obey the truth even if it means perceived disunity? 

Mike, I appreciate your island analogy, but it fails on many fronts. It eliminates the opportunity to properly teach the biblical view of the ordinances. And by eliminating the other offices of the church, well you really don't have a church. This type of "what if" polarizes the conversation from the outset and results in the bunker mentality I have seen (and participated in) far too often on the PB. 

Confessional Baptists need to know what they believe in these areas. They may find out they're really not Baptists, even though they may retain their credo conviction. 

Chris, excellent thread. I can't say that about most baptism related threads.


----------



## Prufrock (Dec 10, 2008)

Pilgrim said:


> I realize from the outset that in all likelihood this will be an unpopular post, but I feel compelled...&c.



(Keep in mind this is coming from a paedo...) Thanks for the post. What good is a confession if we forget/neglect/don't confess it? It may or may not be wrong, but claiming to hold it where ignoring its teachings is pointless. Thanks for reminding us all.


----------

