Wash and Wear Christians

One of the oldest arguments that baptists of all kinds have engaged in is the importance of believers' baptism.  If you are not from a baptist tradition, I'll try to explain the idea quickly, and then address the argument itself.  Basically the baptist tradition is that baptism is only for believers.  That means that baptists do not baptize infants, and, historically, have not accepted those who were baptized as infants as members of baptist churches.  Only those who are believers can submit to baptism, and therefore if someone was "baptized" as an infant, unless they undergo a real baptism, as a believer, they are not generally granted membership in baptist congregations.

There are exceptions to the statement that baptists do not allow membership to those who received only infant baptism (paedobaptists).  John Bunyan, for instance, advocated that paedobaptists should be allowed church membership, and that they should be allowed to come to the Lord's Table.  However, even in his day, there were those who argued against him.  More recently John Piper and Mark Dever argued about this point, with Piper taking Bunyan's side, and Dever taking what I am calling the historical baptist side.

I would like to make a point of clarification though.  I am not calling Dever's position the historical position because it predates the position of Piper, but only because it has been the position accepted by most baptists throughout history.  This is why most baptist ministers, at least until modern times, would "fence the table" when inviting people to participate in the Lord's Supper.  The "fence" could be put up with a statement as simple as, "We invite those of like faith and practice who are in good standing in their church..." wherein the "faith" is the Christian faith, and the "practice" is those who had received believer's baptism.  The "good standing in their church" indicated that the person was not under discipline, and therefore there was no question of that individuals standing before Christ.

This last point could be broken into a whole essay of its own, and I intend to address the point eventually, but for now it is sufficient to note that most early baptist churches (and most baptist churches up to the 1950's at least) practiced church discipline and took it very seriously.  It was in fact because of church discipline that this whole issue arose.

Why would church discipline cause baptist churches to need to discuss the question of membership of paedobaptists?  In part it was because of the Lord's Supper.  Most baptist churches held that there were effectively two (or three) ordinances of the church.  In the three ordinance division you have foot washing, baptism, and the Lord's Supper.  In the two ordinance division you can remove foot washing.  Most baptists today do not practice foot washing, nor was it ever the majority of baptists position that it should be practiced.

Ordinances for baptists are not a means of grace.  The acts of baptism and the Lord's Supper are spiritually significant and symbolic events.  In the case of baptism the believer is joined to the death of Christ, and his resurrection through baptism.  But, what baptists mean by that is that the believer who has been baptized has made a public demonstration of their need for cleansing, of which the baptism is only a symbolic demonstration.  The actual salvation of the individual happens at conversion, in which the person is sealed by the Holy Spirit and joined to Christ eternally.  Thus baptism (as commonly expressed and understood) is an outward sign of an internal reality, and an act of obedience to what Christ has commanded.

For baptists historically then the argument has been that those who refuse to be baptized after coming to faith are living in disobedience to Christ.  Because the individuals are living in disobedience to Christ they cannot be given church membership, nor should they be invited to the Lord's Table.  To invite someone who is living in disobedience to the Lord's Table to is make light of their sin, which is wrong.  Moreover, to invite someone to the Lord's Table who has refused to participate in one ordinance of the church then includes that person in another ordinance of the church, and thus would be to treat the person as a member, even though they do not meet the qualifications of membership.  Thus, those who cannot be members of the church, for a refusal to participate in the ordinances of the church, ought not to come to participate in that ordinance which is restricted to only members of the church.


To explain this position from Scripture, baptists take seriously the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 11.  In verse 18 he says, "For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part."  This indicates that what Paul is about to say he says to the church, not individuals.  Thus when he says in verse 26, "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes," this is not a command to individuals, but to the church.  Therefore it is those who are in the church who should eat the bread and drink from the cup.

Further, we read, "For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself." (1 Corinthians 11:29)  This passage is not telling people that they must simply examine themselves, but that they must understand who they are in Christ.  Yes, an individual ought to examine himself to see if there is any unrepentant sin in his life, but what Paul calls us to here is a consideration of who the body of Christ is.  The body of Christ is to partake of the Lord's Table, and the body of Christ is the regenerate church here on earth.  The question then, for who can partake of the Lord's Supper, is one of who is a member of the regenerate church on earth.

This is where baptism enters the issue.  We have already seen that the Lord's Table is to be open to all members of the church.  But, baptism is generally recognized (by baptists) as the means by which one enters into the church.  Thus, if one has not been baptized, then they are not to be considered members of the church.  If they are not to be considered members of the church, then they are not to take of the Lord's Supper, and they are not subject to church discipline.

But, why should baptism be a required ordinance for church membership?  If, as baptists have historically professed, faith alone is the means of salvation, shouldn't the church accept all of those who profess faith in Christ, regardless of whether they have been baptized?  The answer to that question must be answered "no" if the historic argument is to stand.  But is the answer no?

Yes, the answer to the question is no.  Yes, all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved.  Yes, we are saved by grace through faith, and this is not of ourselves, it is the gift of God. (Ephesians 2:8)  And yes, all those who are saved are part of the regenerate church here on earth.  But, no, the church should not simply accept those who profess faith in Christ as members with no reservations.

The reason for this is what James says, "Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works." (James 2:18)  The fact is that we, as humans, cannot judge perfectly the salvation of any person.  It may be that someone has been genuinely saved, though we cannot discern such from their lives.  But, we are called to judge the works of one another (ourselves included) and determine if those works line up with that which Scripture commands us.  Therefore, while we may wrongly exclude some from membership with the church because we cannot discern their salvation, we must labor to rightly discern the body, that we may know, as far as possible, that those who are members of the church do appear to be Christians.

Once again, this is where baptism enters the equation.  If baptism is a command of Christ (and baptists hold that it is, based on: Matthew 28:19, Acts 2:38, Acts 10:47, Romans 6:3, and many more passages besides) then those who refuse to be baptized are not simply refusing to undergo some specific event, they are refusing to submit in obedience to God.  Therefore, while these people may evidence many other signs of salvation, the fact that they persist in refusing to be baptized causes the baptist to look at them with some reservation, recognizing that the church should be wholly obedient to Christ, and not only obedient in some, or most ways.  Therefore, baptism becomes a necessary step for anyone to enter into church membership, because it is the sign that demonstrates that the person has indeed entered into the death of Christ, and risen with him.


The reason I have attempted to lay out this discussion is because unfortunately many baptists are losing their distinctiveness.  Most baptist churches have failed to seriously educate their members as to what the significance of baptism is, and why the Lord's Table is so important.  Most baptists would probably still say that they do not want to allow paedobaptists as members, but would they know why, from a biblical perspective?  Whether you agree with the argument or not, I hope that you understand now that baptism is not just a matter of one becoming a "wash and wear Christian" but it really is important.  Because it is so important we ought not neglect the discussion of baptism in our churches.

If you aren't aware, I am a historic baptist.  I was raised in the Southern Baptist tradition, and I have come to embrace that tradition as I think it is the most orthodox biblical position.  That does not mean that there aren't skeletons in the closet of Southern Baptists.  Our racial divisions and the long standing issue of slavery that lead to the formation of the Southern Baptist convention need to be dealt with.  The last generation of Southern Baptists made apology for how our tradition assisted in perpetuating slavery, but they were not able to overcome the racial divisions that still exist in most Southern Baptist churches.  But, despite the problems that exist within the Southern Baptist tradition, we must continue to hold to the importance of believers' baptism, and in order to do so we must understand the importance of the Lord's Table and church discipline, understanding which has been lacking in the last 50-60 years.