Why We Don’t Baptize Infants

Why We Don’t Baptize Infants

The following four reasons give sufficient warrant to tell us that baptism should only be given to those who repent and believe and not infants.

For a fuller treatment than the summary here, see the essay on the proper recipients of baptism here.

1. The “newness” of the new covenant

Baptism is the sign of entrance into the new covenant. This is agreed to by both those who baptize infants and those who just baptize believers. Those who baptize infants argue for a close similarity between old and new covenants. Children were circumcised and entered the covenant in the old so children are baptized and enter the covenant in the new.

However, the new covenant is not the old and there are important differences. Hebrews 8:10–11 (quoting Jeremiah 31) speaks of the new covenant and says, “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.” This is an important difference in the new covenant. What these verses are saying is that in the new covenant, everyone knows the Lord. That is, everyone has the Spirit of God and knows God. It was not so in the old covenant. Only a remnant truly knew the Lord in the old covenant as it was a national covenant made with the nation of Israel. Paul says in Romans 9:6, “not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel.” That is, only a remnant in the nation of Israel truly knew the Lord. Not so in the new covenant.

Why does this matter for baptism? The whole nation of Israel was included in the old covenant so the covenant sign (circumcision) was given to all born into that nation. In the new covenant the covenant sign (baptism) should only be given to those in the covenant, that is, to those who know the Lord. That is why only believers receive the covenant sign, the new covenant only includes believers (not believers and their children).

2. Those who have been baptized have what the sign signifies

Consider Galatians 3:27 which says, “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” Can such be said of infants born to believing parents? Has an infant who is baptized put on Christ? Those who baptize infants would say, surely not. All those who are baptized (received the covenant sign) have put on Christ (have what the sign signifies—union with Christ).

The same is true in Romans 6:3, “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” Can such be said of all baptized infants? Surely not. Or what about Colossians 2:12 which says, “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.” Can this be said of baptized infants? Again, the answer is no. The Scriptures are clear, those who have been baptized, those who have received the covenant sign, have what that sign signifies—they have been united to Christ in his death and resurrection. As such, the sign should only be given to believers.

3. The command of Jesus and the apostles

Jesus commanded us in Matthew 28:20 to baptize. Jesus said, “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.” But baptize who? It is clear that we are to baptize disciples. Are who are Jesus’ disciples? Those who repent and believe.

The same is true in Acts 2:38 where Peter preaches and says, “Repent and be baptized.” Taking these statements it is important to realize that there is never a command given to baptize infants.

4. New Testament Examples

Lastly, there are many examples of baptism in the New Testament. Not one describes infants being baptized. When an entire household were baptized, the Scriptures are clear that it is the entire household who believed or the entire household rejoiced. That is, those who believe, who are disciples of Christ, were baptized.

It is clear that we should follow the Scriptures, uphold the new covenant sign and baptize disciples of Christ and not follow the pattern of circumcision and baptize infants. This was consistent with the nature of the old covenant but not the new covenant in Christ.

For a fuller treatment than the summary here, see the essay on the proper recipients of baptism here.

The Proper Recipients of Baptism

The Proper Recipients of Baptism

Introduction

From the time of the Reformation, the dispute has risen, sometimes to fever pitch, regarding the proper recipients of Christian baptism. The magisterial reformer, John Calvin, gave theological expression to the protestant practice of infant baptism, and on the other hand, the radical reformers argued that believer’s baptism is the proper expression of baptism in the Christian era. Today the debate still continues, and while it is regarded as a more intramural debate than it has in previous generations, it still is an important issue that calls each generation to seek the Scriptures to see if these things are so. This paper seeks to present a case for believers as the only proper recipients of baptism. As will be seen, the underlying issues center around the nature of the church and its continuity or discontinuity with the old covenant.

Statement of Positions

The positions discussed in this paper are (1) infant baptism, commonly referred to as paedobaptism (also household baptism or oikobaptism), and (2) believer’s baptism, commonly referred to as credobaptism.1 Paedobaptists believe that children born into families with at least one believing parent should be baptized as an infant. Alternatively, credobaptists believe that only upon a credible profession of faith should a person be baptized, thus excluding infants from the waters of baptism. Paedobaptists and credobaptists, while having a significant disagreement on the recipients of baptism still agree that baptism is not a saving action and neither contributes to salvation or regeneration.2

Limiting the Scope

Due to the limited length of this paper, a number of limitations should be recognized before the arguments are considered. Notions of baptism mentioned here stay within the Reformed/Calvinistic tradition. In addition, arguments of consequence will not be discussed (e.g., if credobaptism is true, there seems to be no place for children. Or, if paedobaptism is true, children have a false sense of assurance and they will not be called to repentance). The mode of baptism, while relevant to this topic, will also not be discussed. And finally, arguments from history will not be used here.3 The Scripture is the agreed upon final authority for both the paedo and credobaptist, so it is to Scripture alone that will be the source of appeal.4

Defining Baptism5

Murray, a paedobaptist, defines baptism as “the sign and seal of membership in Christ’s body, the church.”6 McCune, a credobaptist, similarly says water baptism “signifies and symbolizes incorporation or identification [to Christ] and…is an initiatory rite into the visible expression of the body of Christ—the local church.”7 While there may be quibbles over particulars, both paedobaptists and credobaptists can come to a general agreement over the definition of baptism as an initiatory rite.8 Murray’s definition will be sufficient for this paper.9

The Case For Infant Baptism

The case for infant baptism is not so much an exegetical one in the sense that there are certain texts that explicitly teach it or give a clear example. It is primarily a theological argument. Murray says “an express command or a proven instance is not the only kind of evidence that should be regarded as sufficient. What by good and necessary inference can be deduced from Scripture is of authority in the church of God as well as what is expressly set down in Scripture.”10 With this in mind, Murray succinctly states the argument for infant baptism: “The basic premise of the argument for infant baptism is that the New Testament economy is the unfolding and fulfillment of the covenant made with Abraham and that the necessary implication is the unity and continuity of the church.”11

Booth is helpful when he provides the following summation:12

  1. Covenant Theology. Throughout the Bible, God relates to his people by way of a covenant of grace. Covenant theology provides the basic framework for rightly interpreting Scripture.
  2. Continuity of the Covenant of Grace. The Bible teaches one and the same way of salvation in both the Old and New Testaments, despite some different outward requirements.
  3. Continuity of the People of God. Since there is one covenant of grace between God and man, there is one continuous people of God (the church) in the Old and New Testaments.
  4. Continuity of the Covenant Signs. Baptism is the sign of the covenant in the New Testament, just as circumcision was the sign of the covenant in the Old Testament.
  5. Continuity of Households. Whole households are included in God’s redemptive covenant.

These points will be narrowed to three for this paper: 1) the continuity between old and new covenant people; 2) the continuity of the household or genealogical principle; and 3) the continuity between circumcision and baptism. These three continuity arguments will be examined and critiqued in turn.

1. Continuity Between Old and New Covenant People

The argument of paedobaptism is based primarily on the unity of the covenant of grace and the oneness of the people of God in all ages.13 This section will examine the argument of continuity between the Old and New Testaments, specifically, the old and new covenants.14 Generally, both Old and New Testaments have an initiatory sign or rite. The Abrahamic covenant established the sign of the OT as circumcision and this covenant sign was given to the male children of the covenant when they were eight days old (Gen 17:9–14). In the NT the initiatory rite is baptism (Matt 28:19). Both of these signs are outward signs, that do not grant what they signify, but are an outward rite of entrance into the “covenant community.”

It is obvious that circumcision in the OT was given to those who were not able to profess faith. This principle, of administering the covenant sign to infants (specifically, male infants who were eight days old), is nowhere repealed in the New Testament.15 Berkouwer says, “Against those who asked for a direct scriptural proof in which infant baptism was divinely commanded, the Reformers courageously pointed at the injustice of this question. In response, they asked their critics precisely where the Bible says that this fundamental Covenant relation is broken in the New Covenant.”16 The fact that there is no indication that the way in which God dealt with covenant children has changed puts the burden of proof upon those who defend credobaptism to demonstrate how the covenant God changed his dealings with children.

Response

While the continuity of the Old and New Testaments is a large area of study, this response will look specifically at the nature of the “covenant community” in both the Old and New Testaments to see if the claim of continuity holds.17 What is disputed is not the fact that God’s redemptive work through the ages comes through biblical covenants. What is under dispute is that the biblical covenants are an expression of one covenant of grace.18 This one covenant of grace is the heart of covenant theology and it argues for a continuity in God’s redemptive work through the ages.19 In terms of the nature or membership of the covenant community, one would expect that covenant theologians would see a continuity in membership, that is a mixed community consisting of believers and their children—children who may or may not be elect. The emphasis on the members of the covenant being believers and their children is one of the key issues in the baptism debate, and if the new covenant was only for the elect, it would undermine the argument for infant baptism since only the elect are in the covenant and would receive the sign of the covenant. Surprisingly many covenant theologians, including the Westminster divines, recognize that the new covenant is a covenant between God and the elect only.20 However, Venema states, “These theologians, while acknowledging that the life and salvation promised in the covenant of grace are inherited only by the elect, argue that the covenant promise, together with its accompanying obligation, is extended to Abraham and his seed.”21 This is held because it is assumed that, apart from explicit biblical warrant to the contrary, the covenant of grace continues to include believers and their children.22 This concept directly relates to the nature of the church. Under this scheme, believers and their children are likewise included in the church.23 This highlights a big difference since the credobaptist sees the church (or new covenant community) comprised of regenerate, believing people, and not a mixed people like national Israel.24 If this latter view of the church is correct, then paedobaptism is likewise held to be incorrect.

The following arguments demonstrate why the nature of the new covenant community comprises regenerate, believing individuals, and is not a mixed people like national Israel. What is key to the discussion is that the promise of the new covenant (Jer 31:29–34) and its fulfillment in Christ (Luke 22:20; Heb 8–10) reveal that the covenant community is not continuous and supports the credobaptist view, thus undermining the main paedobaptist argument.

First, the promise of the new covenant in Jeremiah 31:33–34:

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

What is important to this discussion is when God says, “they shall all know me” (Jer 31:34). This is significant since all those in the new covenant will know God—speaking of a salvific knowledge of God.25 Not only do significant structural changes result from this,26 but under the new covenant, all will be regenerate—“I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts” (Jer 31:33). This is held in contrast to the old covenant which was broken because of the mixed nature of the community (Jer 31:32). This means there is no remnant motif under the new covenant; it cannot be said of the new covenant community that “not all Israel was Israel” (Rom 9:6).27 The argument of Hebrews further demonstrates the supremacy of Christ’s salvific work (Heb 7:22–25; 9:15, 23–25; 10:10–18). Christ’s work entails better promises, better sacrifices, and therefore, a better covenant. His work brought full, effective, and complete salvation unlike the types and shadows of old (Heb 7–10).28 Therefore, all those in the new covenant are regenerate, not a mixed people like Israel of old.

Second, the salvific benefits of the new covenant apply to the church today, not just in the future.29 There are no unbelievers or possible covenant breakers in the new covenant today since the salvific benefits of the covenant have been enacted. Hebrews 8–10 strongly suggests this is the case, especially when it says that “Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises” (Heb 8:6). In this verse, “enacted” emphasizes the completed action. Wellum states, “In Christ’s coming, the new age is here, the Spirit has been poured out on the entire community, and we now experience our adoption as sons including the full forgiveness of sin (see Rom 8), even though we long for the end.”30

Finally, the NT concept of the church strongly suggests a regenerate community. The church is a community in union with Christ, born of his Spirit, raised and seated with him in the heavenly places (Eph 2:5–6; Col 2:12–13; 3:3). The NT knows nothing of one who is “in Christ” who is not effectually called of the Father, born of the Spirit, justified, holy, and awaiting glorification.31 Given this, the sign of the new covenant age, baptism, must only be applied to those who have repented and believe. This is what is expected given the nature of the change following the work of Christ, and this is what is seen in the NT teaching and examples of baptism. Baptism is regarded as a sign that the realities of union with Christ have been applied.

2. Continuity of the Household or Genealogical Principle

The household or genealogical principle is simply a principle concerning families. That is, God’s dealings in the past dealt with families, and this principle is continuing since it is nowhere repealed in the New Testament, rather, there are definite indications that God continues to work with families.32 In Genesis 12:7 God says to Abram, “for all the land that you see I will give to you and to your offspring forever.” In Acts 2:38–39, as Peter preaches at Pentecost he says, “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. For the promise is for you and for your children.” These verses are said to support the continuity of God’s promise between a believer and their children.

The genealogical principle has additional support, passages such as Deuteronomy 7:9 say, “Know therefore that the LORD your God is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations.”33 That is, his covenant is for current covenant members and their children. Wilson cites texts such as Jeremiah 32:38–40, Isaiah 59:21, and Acts 2:39 to support his claim that the new covenant promised by the prophets included children.34 Others mention the idea that the types of baptism in Scripture, e.g., the Genesis flood (1 Pet 3:20–21), and the baptism of Moses (1 Cor 10:1–2), both included families and children.35 There was Jesus’ attitude toward children (Luke 18:15–17; Mark 10:13–16; Matt 19:13–15) which speaks to the reality of their covenantal inclusion in the kingdom of God that he preached.36 Paul addressed children as saints (Eph 1:1; 6:1, 4; Col 3:20–21).37 Paul also says in 1 Corinthians 7:14 that children with at least one believing parent is “holy.”38 Such evidence is weighty when considering the idea that children of believers are included in the same way as children were in the OT. This evidence, with a lack of a direct repeal of the genealogical principle, is argued to support the paedobaptist position.39

Relating this continuing genealogical principle to baptism then, is supported by the NT evidence of household baptisms (discussed in detail below). While Murray agrees that there is no explicit example of infant baptism in the NT, he says, “it would be practically impossible to believe that in none of these households were there any infants. It would be unreasonable to believe so. The infants in the households belonged to the households and would be baptized.”40

Response

Since there is no text that explicitly repeals the genealogical principle, does Scripture give us indications that the administration after the time of Christ is different than before Christ?41 In what follows, it is argued that the NT does give indications that the genealogical principle was repealed.

First, frequent references are made to Acts 2:39 “the promise is for you and your children” to support the idea that the covenant sign to be given to children.42 Interestingly, many paedobaptists do not include the rest of the verse during the discussion of this text. The full sentence reads, “For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself” (emphasis added). If the covenant sign is to be applied to children based on this text, then consistency demands it to be applied to all who are far off as well. However, Acts 2:38–39 together and in context simply do not teach such an idea. From the context, the promise is “the gift of the Holy Spirit” (2:38), and those who receive it are ultimately “everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself” (2:39). The promise is for all those who are called, whether Jew or Gentile, not for believer’s and their children. This text does not speak of a continuance of the genealogical principle, rather the promise is for the elect only.

Second, it must be noted that John’s baptism—while not “Christian” baptism as paedobaptists are quick to point out—was nonetheless an example of baptism functioning outside of the genealogical or household principle.43 John’s baptism is not an explicit repeal of the household principle, but he does explicitly turn away those who said “We have Abraham as our Father” (Matt 3:9). True children of Abraham bear fruit in keeping with repentance (Matt 3:9–10). John’s baptism also introduced the idea that baptism was, at least in this case, not applicable to infants, but only those who professed (and demonstrated) repentance and faith (Matt 3:11). While space does not permit elaboration, it must be recognized that John’s baptism provides a better exemplar to Christian baptism than does circumcision (Acts 10:34–37).

Third, the household baptisms in the NT do not support the continuation of the genealogical principle, rather upon examination they are shown to support believer’s baptism. The different household baptisms will now be examined.

Cornelius’ Household

Peter preached the gospel to Cornelius’ household (Acts 10:22; 11:12, 14). The text expressly states “the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word” (Acts 10:44; cf. 11:14–15), and in Acts 10:47 Peter baptized those who had received the Spirit. Peter refers back to Pentecost where only “those who received his word” were baptized (Acts 2:41). While it does not explicitly say there were no children in the household, those who were there “heard the word” (Acts 10:44) and were “speaking in tongues and extolling God” (Acts 10:46).44 Certainly this episode does not support infant baptism, but is rather a strong indicator for believer’s baptism.

Lydia’s Household

There is not much detail concerning the baptism of Lydia and her household (Acts 16:13–15). It seems that only women were at the riverside where Lydia was converted (v. 13), and it appears that Lydia and her household were baptized at the river since after she is baptized she invites Paul back to her house to stay (v. 15). The data is inconclusive but there is no mention of children of any age, nor her husband. Certainly no one would argue that mature women would be baptized based on Lydia’s household headship. It’s more likely that the women with her at the riverbank were of her household and that they believed and were baptized.

The Philippian Jailer’s Household

The baptism of the Philippian jailer’s household (Acts 16:30–34) also appears to support believer’s baptism rather than infant baptism.45 The jailer’s household rejoiced that he believed in God (v. 34).46 Certainly they believed as well since it would be hard to imagine that they rejected the message that Paul preached to them (v. 32) and then were baptized (v. 33) and then rejoiced that the jailer believed (v. 34). The text is clear that the entire household was baptized and the entire household rejoiced in the jailer’s faith. Infants do not rejoice over the faith of others, which would exclude their presence in this text since the entire household (the same ones who were baptized) was rejoicing. Rather, it seems clear that his household heard the word, believed, were baptized, and rejoiced.

Crispus’ Household

In Acts 18:8, it is said that Crispus “believed in the Lord, together with his entire household.” Therefore, it is plain that his entire household believed and were baptized following the pattern established at Pentecost. In fact the verse continues, “And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.”

Stephanas’ Household

This household baptism is not in Acts, but is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 1:16 where Paul testifies that he baptized the household of Stephanas. Here again, there is no support for infant baptism as part of this household baptism since 1 Corinthians 16:15 (“you know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints”) makes it clear that the household was converted (i.e., they were believers) and “devoted themselves to the service of the saints.” Such descriptions are not applicable to infants. Again, the evidence here supports not infant baptism, but believer’s baptism.

Conclusion

In each of the cases of household baptism, there is no reason for assuming that the genealogical principle is perpetuated. Rather the pattern of belief and baptism from Pentecost continues throughout Acts and the household baptisms.

Excursus: NT Attitude Toward Children

Regardless of the lack of evidence provided by the accounts of household baptism in the NT, some respond with the idea that the NT portrays children in such a way that they are regarded as saints, and holy because of their parents’ faith. Bavinck uses this as his starting point into the argument when he states: “The validity of infant baptism depends exclusively on how Scripture regards the children of believers and hence wants us to regard them. If Scripture speaks about such children in the same way it does about adult believers, the right and hence the duty to practice infant baptism has been established.”47 Here, the NT’s attitude is examined to see if it lends support to paedobaptist beliefs.

Some argue from Matthew 18:1–6 and 19:13–15 and their parallels48 that Jesus includes little children in the kingdom of God and thus, they should not be forbidden from baptism.49 However, this cannot be sustained, as many paedobaptists even admit. In Matthew 18 Jesus is teaching that if one is to enter the kingdom, he is to enter like a child who responds to Jesus’ call.50 In Matthew 19 Jesus blesses the children but made no promise of entering the kingdom. The most that can be taken from these passages is infant blessing, not infant baptism.51

First Corinthians 7:14 is also used to defend infant baptism.52 However, when Paul says that children are “holy” through a believing parent, he does not mean that they are part of the covenant. In the same verse he says that the unbelieving spouse is “made holy.” Consistency would demand that that the unbelieving spouse should be baptized or included in the covenant since they are “made holy” just as the children are “holy.”53

Lastly, the addressing of the children in texts like Ephesians 6:1–4 as “saints” and “faithful” (Eph 1:1), would not help the paedobaptists since infants are not given instructions to obey their parents or are called faithful.54 It would seem that from the text alone that these children were confessors.55

3. Continuity Between Circumcision and Baptism

The continuity between circumcision and baptism is a key issue in establishing the practice of infant baptism. All of the paedobaptist arguments discussed thus far assume that circumcision and baptism are practically equivalent initiatory rites into their respective covenant communities and while the sign has changed, its recipients remain the same. This section will examine the arguments set forth to prove the continuity between the signs.

Berkhof flatly states, “If baptism did not take its place [as new covenant initiatory rite], then the NT has no initiatory rite.”56 If it is granted that both signs function as an initiatory rite, there are two main lines of evidence that suggest that their application function in the same manner. The first, is based on an identity in meaning between circumcision and baptism. Circumcision refers to the cutting away of sin and a change of heart, and baptism refers to the washing away of sin, and to spiritual renewal.57 What is argued is that the outward form has indeed changed, but there was no change in what the sign represents. Booth helpfully provides a number of continuities between circumcision and baptism:

Both are (1) initiatory rites; (2) signify an inward reality; (3) picture the death of the old man of sin; (3) represent repentance; (4) represent regeneration; (5) represent justification by faith; (6) represent a clean heart; (7) represent union and communion with God; (8) indicate citizenship in Israel; (9) indicate separation from the world; and both (10) can lead to either blessings or curses.58

The second line of evidence is based on a direct textual argument found in Colossians 2:11–12 which is said to clearly link baptism with circumcision. Chapell says of this verse, “These words remind us that salvation comes through faith, and also that the rite of circumcision that once signified the benefits of Abraham’s covenant has been replaced by baptism” (emphasis original).59

Response

While space limits the ability to respond to each of Booth’s ten points of similarities between circumcision and baptism, a few of these similarities will be examined here as well as some of the dissimilarities that must be kept in mind when consider the relationship between circumcision and baptism. Following this, a brief discussion on Colossians 2:11–12 will demonstrate that this text does not support baptism as the replacement of circumcision.

Similarities and Dissimilarities between Circumcision and Baptism

It must be admitted that circumcision and baptism do share certain things in common. These commonalities mostly flow from the fact that both are initiatory rites into covenants between God and man.60 One would expect many similarities in this regard, however it cannot be maintained that baptism replaces circumcision as a covenant sign or carries the same spiritual meaning.61 They should be regarded as covenantal signs tied to different covenants.

First, to maintain that a “covenant of grace” has a continuity of an initiatory sign proves dubious. There has not always been a covenant sign. God’s promise went out in Genesis 3:15, yet no covenant sign existed to mark God’s people for hundreds of years. The sign of circumcision was instituted in Genesis 17 where it is clearly tied to the Abrahamic covenant and later, the Mosaic covenant. The promises which were signified by circumcision were not only salvific (as Booth’s list seems to suggest), but included national ones, particularly the land promise, and the promise of physical descendents; it marked a nation to prepare the way for the coming Christ. This was a unique time in redemptive history. Baptism certainly does not signify these promises. Second, one cannot find in Israel the idea that circumcision was only for “believers and their children” since many unbelieving Jews circumcised their infant boys and were considered part of the covenant nation.62 That circumcision was a national sign, not a sign for believers and their children demonstrates that its meaning is not continuous with baptism, not even in a spiritual sense. Third, in the OT, physical circumcision pointed to the need of spiritual circumcision, i.e., circumcision of the heart or regeneration (Deut 30:6).63 Likewise, in Romans 2:25–29 Paul describes this same parallel. This clearly links circumcision as a type pointing to or finding fulfillment in regeneration, not baptism. Fourth, it is clear in the NT that circumcision is abrogated as a sign of membership into the people of God (Acts 15:1–35; Gal 1:6–9; 2:11–16; 6:15; 1 Cor 7:18–19).64 Unlike circumcision, baptism is not a sign of physical or national descent, nor does it anticipate gospel realities. It is a sign that signifies union with Christ and all the benefits that are associated with that union. Related to this, if the paedobaptist position were true, Paul could have easily silenced the Judaizers by saying that circumcision was unnecessary because baptism has replaced it.65

A Look at Colossians 2:11–12

The one text that appears most often to support the idea that baptism supersedes or replaces circumcision is Colossians 2:11–12:66

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.

This text does bring together both circumcision and baptism, however the connection is not between physical circumcision and baptism. The connection is between spiritual circumcision (i.e., regeneration), union with Christ and baptism.67 First, it must be noted that “by the circumcision of Christ” refers to circumcision of the heart, i.e., regeneration.68 Spiritual circumcision finds its fulfillment in being joined to Christ—the body of flesh is put off by union with Christ’s death through faith. Second, and most significant, in verse 12 it is clear that in baptism the realities of having died and made alive in Christ have already taken place: “having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith.” This is not something that can be said of baptized infants. It seems best to conclude that in this text, as others mentioned above, physical circumcision pointed to regeneration or circumcision of the heart, whereas baptism testifies that these realities have actually occurred.69 Therefore, it is crucial to note that Christian baptism has a different meaning than circumcision, what is signified in baptism cannot be said of circumcision.70

Concluding the Case for Infant Baptism

The paedobaptist argument rests on the covenant of grace (applied to believers and their children) to provide an overarching unity which connects baptism with circumcision. However, the Abrahamic covenant was a national covenant, not one between believers and their seed. It now includes Abraham’s spiritual descendents through the true seed, Jesus Christ. In addition, contrary to what is often assumed, the Abrahamic covenant cannot be equated with the covenant of grace. Does the covenant of grace promise all believers a vast nation of physical descendents or the land of Canaan? It seems that neither the logic, nor the exegetical evidence can sustain the paedobaptist argument.71

The Case For Believer’s Baptism

It must be conceded that there is no direct command in Scripture to baptize only believers to the exclusion of believer’s children. This fact has caused some paedobaptists to accuse credobaptists of deducing their conclusions in the same manner as they do.72 While this is true to an extent, it is argued that the credobaptist position is a better deduction from Scripture given the problems with the paedobaptist position mentioned above. That is, rather than arguing from tenuous continuities between Old and New Testaments, it will be shown that there are multiple lines of evidence from both Old and New Testaments that support the credobaptist position.73 It is to these lines of evidence that this paper now turns.

1. Commands Concerning Baptism

Baptism is a NT ordinance, commanded by Christ (Matt 28:18–20). He specifically commands that disciples, i.e., converts, are to be baptized (v. 19).74 In the very next verse, Christ continues his command that these same disciples are to be taught all that he has commanded. Certainly such instructions are not applicable to infants. The same is also seen at Pentecost when Peter commands his listeners to repent and then be baptized (Acts 2:38). Again, this command cannot be applied to infants.

2. The Practice of the Early Church

This argument is not an argument from history, but an examination of the practice of baptism from its beginnings in the gospels to its expression through the book of Acts. The baptism of John seems to serve as a prototype for Christian baptism, which no one disputes was a baptism of repentance that necessarily excluded infants.75 In Acts, after Peter’s sermon at Pentecost the Scriptures are clear that “those who received his word were baptized” (Acts 2:41). This text explicitly states who were baptized that day, it was “those who received his word.” Later, when Philip preached the gospel in Samaria, “when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women” (Acts 8:12; also 8:35–38).76 It is clear that throughout the early church that baptism followed the pattern established at Pentecost of people hearing the word, repenting and believing, and then being baptized.77

3. The Meaning or Symbolism of Baptism

While a full discussion of the meaning of baptism is not the purpose of this section, some brief notes on the issue are relevant to the argument concerning the recipients of baptism. Berkhof states that baptism symbolizes or “refers to the washing away of sin, Acts 2:38; I Pet. 3:21; Tit. 3:5, and to spiritual renewal, Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:11, 12.”78 Granting, for the sake of argument, that Berkhof is correct in what baptism symbolizes, the NT testifies that those who have the sign of baptism, also possess what the sign signifies. For example, in Galatians 3:27 Paul says, “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” That is, all those who were baptized, have put on Christ. One could not say, “As many infants as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ,” since infants do not yet possess what the sign signifies.79 Similarly, in Romans 6:3 Paul says, “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?”80 Certainly, infants who have received baptism cannot be said to have also been “raised with him through faith” since they are not yet old enough to express faith for themselves. These verses clearly demonstrate that those who have the sign were already recipients of what that sign signified.81 The NT says that all those who have been baptized, have been buried with Christ, have been raised with him through faith, and have put on Christ.82 Certainly by good and necessary inference, this limits the recipients of baptism to those who possess what the sign signifies, i.e., they are those in union with Christ through faith.

Conclusion

The bulk of this paper has been arguing against the continuities seen by the paedobaptist from OT to NT. This is due to the fact that such continuity arguments can be complicated to describe and respond to. The latter portion of the paper which examines the case for believer’s baptism is relatively brief since the evidence seems clear in the NT that baptism was commanded to be practiced on disciples and the evidence (including household baptisms) support that this practice was upheld by the early church. There is evidence of certain continuities between the two Testaments, but not to the extent that is required to support the doctrine of infant baptism. Understanding the proper discontinuities and the teaching of the NT clearly demonstrates that believer’s baptism is the biblical teaching on this important Christian ordinance.

How We Worship at Fairview

A practical guide to our weekly Sunday gatherings.

Scripture Reading

We begin and end our time of worship with the reading of Scripture. The Bible is the very word of God and therefore is authoritative, sufficient, necessary, clear and without error. When we worship, we want God to speak, so we start and end with his words. In addition to the opening and close of Scripture, we typically read an entire chapter of Scripture before the pastoral prayer.

Hymns

The church has a rich history of praising God in song. We value that rich heritage and so sing hymns from the earliest centuries of the church to hymns written today. The primary instrument of praise is the congregation singing in unity to our God. Therefore we value hymns that are rich in truth and that allow us to unite our hearts and voices together. Our worship in song is typically accompanied by the piano and/or organ with a capella singing on the last stanza.

Prayer

We worship the one true God who can hear and answer prayer. Central to our time of worship is a pastoral prayer where one of the elders prays for the people and our mission to glorify God by making and maturing disciples of Jesus Christ.

Sermon

In every age, the proclamation of God’s word has been central to the worship of believers. A sermon takes the word of God, explains its meaning and gives appropriate application for us today. Through the sermon, we are instructed, and encouraged to see and love God for who he is.

The Lord’s Supper

The Lord’s Supper, sometimes called Communion or the Eucharist, was instituted by Jesus as a way for his disciples to: (1) remember his work on the cross that brought the new covenant into effect, (2) to enjoy present fellowship with him and one another, and (3) to look forward to his glorious return.

In an effort to love one another, we use non-alcoholic grape juice in individual cups and have gluten-free bread available.

If you have questions concerning who should participate in the Lord’s Supper, click here.

If you want to know why we practice the Supper weekly, click here.

The Fellowship Meal

An important part of the early church’s gathering was a time of fellowship together over a meal. Most Sundays after our time of worship we head downstairs for a meal. For more details about our weekly Fellowship Meal, click here.

Preparing for Baptism

To be a member at Fairview Baptist Church you must be baptized as a believer. The New Testament pattern is faith and repentance towards Christ followed by being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit.

For those desiring baptism, this is the procedure we follow at Fairview:

  1. You will meet with the elders to share your testimony and desire to be baptized. The elders want to be sure that you have experienced the saving grace of God and you understand what it means to be baptized.
  2. If you are new to our fellowship, you’ll be encouraged to take our New Members class before being baptized. This class is offered multiple times each year.
  3. A date will then be chosen for the baptism.
  4. On the day of baptism, you’ll be asked to share your testimony to the church. This is a public proclamation of how Jesus has saved you and an opportunity to share the good news of Jesus. Click here for help in preparing a testimony.
  5. After your testimony, one of the elders will baptize you by immersing you under the water, baptizing you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
  6. After this, you have been baptized in the pattern established almost 2000 years ago when our Lord Jesus walked this earth!

Some Practical Considerations to Keep in Mind

  • Make sure you bring a change of clothes that can get wet.
  • Bring a towel to dry off after you come out.
  • Be sure to prepare your testimony, having it reviewed by the elders, and have it printed out the day of your baptism.
  • The clothes you wear for baptism should be modest. Not see-through or overly snug.

Deacons

Our church is led by a plurality of elders or pastors. A question sometimes raised is, “What about deacons?”

In the New Testament we have many references to elders, but just a few references are made to the role of deacon within the church. In fact, they are only mentioned by name in two places in the New Testament (1 Timothy 3 and Philippians 1:1, and arguably Romans 16:1). First Timothy 3 mentions the qualifications for deacons but nothing about what they actually do and Philippians 1:1 is simply a greeting to the elders and deacons in Philippi (dido with Romans 16:1).

Modern Conceptions of Deacons

Modern conceptions typically portray deacons as a board of church leaders functioning as a committee that meets regularly and handles most of the physically needs of the congregation (e.g., building and finances). In recent times, when churches have realized the need for a plurality of elders, they end up moving toward a form of government that now has two boards or committees that share power and rule the church. This is not the biblical model. There is no indication, not even a hint, that the New Testament church operated with a dual-board structure of elders and deacons. There is no indication in Scripture, nor history, that it was setup like the House and Senate in a democratic government. There is also no indication that the elder board primarily handles spiritual issues and the deacon board handles physical ones.

The biblical data establishes a plurality of elders (also called overseers or pastors) to rule the church (e.g., Acts 14:23; Acts 20:17; 1 Timothy 4:14; 5:17; and James 5:14). Deacons are godly men (who meet the qualifications of 1 Timothy 3:8-13) and are appointed by the elders to specific tasks so that the elders are free to focus on the ministry of prayer and the word.

Acts 6

While deacons are only mentioned a few times, their inception is seen in Acts 6. Here the apostles are functioning as elders. They are leading, feeding, and shepherding the early church in Jerusalem and a problem arises that demands their attention. Greek-speaking Jewish widows were being neglected in the daily distribution of food (v. 1).

This problem, while brought to the elders for attention, wouldn’t be handled by them. They needed to remain devoted to prayer and preaching, not to serving food (v. 2). The situation was delegated by having the congregation identify seven godly men whom the elders would appoint to this task (v. 3). So they chose seven men and these men then serve as the pattern for New Testament deacons.

When we examine the qualifications for elders and for deacons in 1 Timothy 3 we notice that both elders and deacons must be godly men. The major difference between the qualifications is that elders must have the ability to teach whereas this requirement is not asked of a deacon. This makes perfect sense when we consider the roles of elders and deacons as expressed in Acts 6. The elders in Acts 6 devoted themselves to the ministry of prayer and the word (v. 4), and the deacons handled this task of making sure the Greek-speaking Jewish widows were not neglected.

Role of Deacons

What we can conclude from the qualifications of deacons in 1 Timothy 3 and from their role in Acts 6 is that deacons were godly men who were appointed by the congregation and elders to carry out a specific task. There is no data in the New Testament or what we know from the history of the early church to suggest that the deacons in the early church met together as a committee or board.

This biblical task-oriented model in today’s context would mean that we would have a deacon (or deacons) appointed to certain tasks (e.g., building maintenance, cleaning, finances, fellowship meals, sound equipment, etc) and there would be no need for a regular meeting of all the deacons. Why would the deacon handling sound need to have a monthly meeting with the deacon handling lawn care? And why would deacons need to wait for a monthly meeting to get approval for what they’ve already been assigned to do by the elders? What we see from Scripture is task-specific godly men who serve the needs of the church appointed by the elders so that the elders can devote themselves to prayer and the ministry of the word.

Is this what comes to your mind when you think of deacons? It certainly is a ministry mind-shift for what many conceive when we ponder the role of a deacon. I believe that this task-oriented deacon model is so foreign to us because we’ve lost sight of biblical eldership. When a church is functioning biblically with a plurality of qualified, godly men serving as elders, the deacons come under their leadership and act as the recognized servants of the church. As needs are brought to the elders, they direct deacons to handle these needs so they can continue their labor of leading, feeding, guarding, and praying for the sheep.

Female Deacons?

The New Testament word for deacon is diakonos and this word is translated as “servant,” “deacon,” or “minister.” For example, the term is used to refer to the office of deacon in Philippians 1:1 and 1 Timothy 3:8, 12. It is used to refer to the civil authority as the “servant of God” (Rom 13:4). It is used of Christ where he is called the “servant to the circumcised to show God’s truthfulness” (Rom 15:8). It is used to refer to Apollos and Paul as “servants through whom you believed” (1 Cor 3:5) and to Timothy as a servant (1 Tim 4:6). The same term is also translated “minister” (e.g., 2 Cor 3:6; Eph 3:7; 6:21; Col 1:7, 23, 25; 4:7).

Concerning female deacons we start our investigation in Romans 16:1 where Phoebe (who is called “our sister”) is referred to as a diakonos. Should this be translated “servant” or “deacon”? Did Phoebe serve in the office of deacon in the early church? In this verse, the translators of the NIV and NLT translate the word as “deacon” whereas the ESV, NASB, KJV, NKJV translate the word as “servant.” This verse is really no help to us since the context does not give us any more detail about Phoebe’s specific role (some suggest that she was the one who carried the letter to the Romans church). Either translation is an accurate rendering of diakonos.

In addition to Romans 16:1, some understand 1 Timothy 3:11 to be giving qualifications for women deacons. This verse says, “Women, likewise, must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things.” The original language can either be translated women or wives depending on the context. The ESV translates the verse this way, “Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things.” In this regard, it’s better to understand this verse, like the ESV translators, to be speaking about deacon’s wives since the verses both before and after verse 11 are speaking about male deacons (and in verse 12, faithful husbands!).

From these two verses you can see that the evidence for women appointed to the office of deacon is tentative at best. We simply do not have a clear example of women serving as deacons in the early church, however, there is no Scripture saying that they cannot.

What is clear from Scripture is that women are not to hold positions of authority or teaching over men in the congregation (see 1 Tim 2:14). Therefore, in churches where deacons teach or exercise authority, women would not be able to serve as deacons. However, when we consider that teaching and governing are functions given to elders, not deacons (see 1 Tim 3:2, 5; 5:17; Titus 1:9; Acts 20:17, 28), there is no reason why women serving as servants in the church could not be called a “deacon.” That is, if a deacon is a servant of the church that does not teach or exercise authority over the congregation, there is no reason why women could not serve in this role.

Elders are given the authority to rule and teach. This office is reserved for biblically qualified men. We also see that when deacons are functioning as deacons, and not elders, there is no biblical reason to exclude women from this role. Caution is necessary in this case however, since to most people “deacon” is a label that carries with it authority and a governing role. It would seem that in many ways, biblical eldership has undergone a period of misunderstanding, and so to for the office of deacon.

A Call to Service

Everyone in the church is called to service (Eph 4:12). In that sense, everyone is a deacon. However, some are entrusted with tasks that involve skills of organization, administration, and leadership. As a church body grows, more deacons are needed to carry the weight of the growing vine. Both men and women are necessary in roles of service so that the body can continue to grow, and go into the world as ambassadors for Christ.

Elders and the Congregation

One aspect to consider with regard to elders and the life of the church is to understand how elders should be selected. The second is to understand where authority rests: the eldership or the congregation. In other words, who rules who? It’s these two matters that this article addresses.

Selection of Elders

In Acts 14:23 it says, “And when [Paul and Barnabas] had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed.” How did Paul and Barnabas appoint elders in the young churches in Galatia that they just planted?

Paul gave Titus the same instructions for the churches in Crete when he said, “This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you” (Titus 1:5).

At first glance these two passage would indicate that other church leaders, or elders, selected elders in these young churches without congregational involvement. However, as commentator Simon Kistemaker notes, “the term to appoint actually means to approve by a show of hands in a congregational meeting” (Acts, New Testament Commentary, 1990, p. 525). The Didache (an ancient Christian document dated to 80–150 ad) referred to bishops and deacons appointed by the congregation with a show of hands (15.1). The historic London Baptist Confession also included a congregational vote for these offices.

From this we see that congregations were involved in selecting their own leaders. This is certainly what we see in Acts 6. When the early church encountered an issue, rather than the apostles dealing with the issue directly, they appointed deacons. Acts 6:3 says, “Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty.” This text is clear in its example. The apostles asked the congregation to select seven godly men and then the apostles would appoint them to this duty. We see here that the leaders of the early church are appointing officers but this does not mean the congregation is not involved. This is the biblical pattern we seek to maintain.

Elder Led vs Elder Rule52

The second issue we must investigate is with whom does authority rest? God has given elders to lead the church, to exercise oversight, to manage the household of God, to preach and teach sound doctrine, and to refute false teaching. Certainly, these elders’ functions carry with them authority. This is why in Hebrews 13:17 it says, “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account.” That is, elders are called to lead the church, exercising authority.

We also have text in which the congregation is invested by God with authority. Final disciplinary action to remove a member is given to the congregation of believers (Matt 18:15–17; 1 Cor 5:1–13). So is receiving a member in love (2 Cor 2:6–8). We’ve seen already how the congregation is involved in selecting its own leaders and servants. Not only these items but the church, as a whole, is called to advance the Great Commission (Matt 28:19–20), and is called to do the work of ministry (Eph 4:12). From these texts we can conclude that the congregation has the final responsibility with regard to the church. This is what we mean by congregationalism.

So how do the elders relate to the congregation? Mark Dever says, “The final responsibility of the congregation does not contradict or undermine the elders’ general leadership, but it provides an opportunity to confirm it when it is right and to constrain it when it is in error. This position is called elder led” (The Church: The Gospel Made Visible). Elder led means that while the final authority rests in the congregation, the congregation recognizes and submits to the elders.

Dever continues and says, “On matters that are important and clear, the elders and congregation should normally agree; and when they do not, the authority of the congregation is final. On matters that are less clear, the congregation should trust the elders and go along with them, trusting God’s providential work through them. Churches always benefit from clearly delineating and agreeing upon everyone’s responsibilities and obligations.”

Elders: New or Old?

Elders? Aren’t elders a Presbyterian thing? Don’t the Mormons have elders too? What do elders have to do with a Baptist church?
These questions are understandable. Especially since elders are a new thing for our church. What may surprise you is that elders aren’t just a modern church fad, but rather are an historical form of church governance, even for Baptists!

Historic Baptist Position

Arguably the most famous and influential confession of faith among Baptists is the London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689 LBC). Regarding the church, it says, “The officers appointed by Christ to be chosen and set apart by the church are bishops or elders and deacons.”

A few things are important to note here. First, two offices in the church are affirmed, elders (Greek: presbuteros) and deacons. Notice also that elders are regarded as synonymous with bishops (Greek: episkopos, which is also translated overseer). This is important since churches today in a move toward biblical eldership miss the mark and end up with three offices, i.e., pastor, elders, and deacons. Rather, this historic confession and the historic practice of Baptist churches has been to recognize the two offices outlines in Scripture: elders and deacons.

It must also be noted that elders and pastors are regarded in this historic confession as the same office. In the same section, the famous confession also says, “an obligation lies on the elders or pastors of the churches to be urgently preaching the Word by virtue of their office.” Here, it is quite clear that elders and pastors are synonymous, they are one and the same. We can then see that Baptists historically have recognized the two offices of the church being elders (also called pastors, bishops, or overseers) and deacons. This is not a new idea.
Second, what we also see from this historic confession is that our forefathers in the Baptist heritage recognized a plurality of elders. It speaks of appointing elders (plural) when it says:
“The way appointed by Christ for the calling of any person fitted and gifted by the Holy Spirit for the office of bishop or elder in a church, is that he is to be chosen by the common consent and vote of the church itself. Such a person should be solemnly set apart by fasting and prayer, with the laying on of hands of the eldership of the church (if there be any previously appointed elder or elders).”

By noting churches in history we see that a plurality of elders/pastors in Baptist churches was common. There was commonly an “eldership,” i.e., a plurality of elders/pastors that shared the responsibility of leading and exercising oversight over the church.

So what happened?

Why does the “normal” Baptist church function with a single pastor and with a board of deacons? Why does eldership, a plurality of elders/pastors leading the church seem so foreign to us if it’s an historical position?

In his book, Elders in the Life of the Church, Phil Newton offers two explanations. The first, the rise of individualism in our culture. This cultural trend led to a suspicion of authority in the church with many churches limiting the leadership to a single pastor so that more authority rested in the individuals in the congregation. This reaction is unfortunate since Baptists have maintained that elders lead under the final authority of the congregation. Authority and submission are not dirty words. God demonstrates this in the inner workings of the trinity and by giving church, civil, and family structures positions of authority and submission.

The second factor that Newton mentions that has led to a model of church governance where there is a single pastor is how churches have begun to resemble big businesses and adopting corporate structures of leadership. The pastor became more of a CEO with a board of directors leading different groups of volunteers that were determined to “grow the business.” This has led to a professionalism among church leaders, a growing trend of moral failure in pastors, short-lived pastorates where the pastor uses churches like stepping stones as he climbs the corporate ladder. [Note: The book shown here is NOT recommended!]

It is time that we, like our Baptist forbearers anchor our church structure and practice in the teachings of the Scriptures. Let us not conform our church to the popular designs or trends of our day, but apply the paths of Scripture, knowing that we stand in an historical tradition that has done likewise.

The primary focus for church leaders today must be to understand what God’s Word teaches, and then to order their churches accordingly. History merely serves to affirm the veracity of Scripture — Phil Newton

November 2016 – O Sing My Soul

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1KIirSd6Sk

Words & Music: Matt Boswell & Matt Papa © 2012 Dayspring Music, LLC (a div. of Word Music Group, Inc.)
Centricity Music Publishing/Love Your Enemies Publishing

VERSE 1
O sing my soul the ancient song
And lend your highest praise
To Him who is the King of old
And dwells in endless days
How resplendent His glory
How majestic His name
Now to the uncreated One
O let the anthem raise

VERSE 2
O worship Him, our Father God
The Spirit, and the Word
Who fashioned all things from His joy
And saw that it was good
What perfection of friendship
What communion we shared
But choosing death, we fell from life
Aside the guilty pair

VERSE 3
How hear us all the gospel song
Attend the joyful news
For Christ has come, the perfect Son
His Father’s will to choose
In our place He did suffer
In our place became sin
The death of death, the death of Christ
Who stands alive again

VERSE 4
Now people of the risen Lord
O hear the call to go
Into the world we have been sent
As messengers of hope
Christ alone be our treasure
Christ alone our reward
Come bid the nations sing with us
The praises of the Lord

October 2016 – Come Behold the Wondrous Mystery

Words and Music: Matt Papa, Matt Boswell, Michael Bleecker © 2013 Love Your Enemies Publishing

VERSE 1
Come behold the wondrous mystery
in the dawning of the King.
He the theme of heaven’s praises
robed in frail humanity.

In our longing, in our darkness
now the light of life has come.
Look to Christ, who condescended
took on flesh to ransom us

VERSE 2
Come behold the wondrous mystery
He the perfect Son of Man.
In His living, in His suffering
never trace nor stain of sin.

See the true and better Adam
come to save the hell-bound man.
Christ the great and sure fulfillment
of the law; in Him we stand.

VERSE 3
Come behold the wondrous mystery
Christ the Lord upon the tree.
In the stead of ruined sinners
hangs the Lamb in victory.

See the price of our redemption;
see the Father’s plan unfold.
Bringing many sons to glory
grace unmeasured, love untold.

VERSE 4
Come behold the wondrous mystery;
slain by death the God of life.
But no grave could e’er restrain Him;
praise the Lord; He is alive!

What a foretaste of deliverance;
how unwavering our hope.
Christ in power resurrected
as we will be when he comes.

The Lord’s Supper: Who Can Participate?

At Fairview we practice the Lord’s Supper weekly. (You can read here for an explanation of this practice.) One question that we receive is, who can participate in the Lord’s Supper?

Closed, Close, or Open

Different churches have different stances on who can participate in the Lord’s Supper. Some practice “closed” communion which permits only those who are members in good standing of that church to participate. Some practice “close” communion which is similar to closed but also allows others who are members in like-minded churches to participate. The last, and the one we practice at Fairview, is open communion where all those we are followers of Christ, who have been baptized, and are participating with proper motives can participate.

Why Open Communion?

In passages such as 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 where the Lord’s Supper is discussed we recognize that this ordinance is for the church, those who are followers of Christ. The instructions in this passage are for those present to examine themselves, to ensure they are eating and drinking in a worthy manner. That is, they are not living in immorality, they are not causing strife or division in the body, and so on. The Supper is for believers who are walking in fellowship with the Lord. If anyone does partake in an unworthy manner this passage tells us that the Lord will judge. At Fairview, we repeat this warning before we partake and give opportunity for people to confess sin to the Lord.

Is Baptism a Requirement?

While there is no explicit command for participants of the Lord’s Supper to be baptized first, but it can be inferred from Scripture. First, no Christian in the New Testament was an unbaptized Christian. People believed and were baptized. Second, baptism is the initiatory rite of the church. To be baptized is to be identified with Christ and his body, it happens at the beginning of one’s Christian life and only happens once. The Lord’s Supper is a regular practice, not a one-time rite. It is a remembrance of Christ’s work that inaugurated the new covenant. As such, it is the regular practice for baptized believers to participate in the Lord’s Supper. In fact, in the Didache, that ancient document describing early Christian practice, it makes baptism a prerequisite for the Lord’s Supper. It makes the best sense that baptism, an ordinance that symbolizes and pictures ones entrance into the new covenant and being a disciple of Christ would be done before the practice of the ordinance that remembers union with Christ and participation in that covenant. So yes, baptism should come before one partakes of the Lord’s Supper.

What About Children?

Since both ordinances (baptism and communion) are not effective in their actual working but depend on the faith of one who participates, young children often lack the maturity to understand the meaning and significance of these ordinances. It’s my understanding that both baptism and the Lord’s Supper should be reserved for those old enough to understand what it means to follow Christ. That doesn’t mean that a child cannot be a Christian, but the ordinances should wait until there is a greater understanding. For example, children are prevented from getting a loan from the bank, getting a mortgage to buy a house, they do not buy their own clothes, they do not vote, they are limited in many things because of a lack of maturity. And deciding to follow Christ and participate in the ordinances are an even a greater commitment than these things. And when I speak with people who’ve been baptized young, many express that they wished they waited till they were older. Considering this, it is best for children to wait until they are more mature to participate in these ordinances of the church.