Skip to main content

Bobby Jamieson:Why Baptism Is Required for Membership

By


Why Baptism Is Required for Membership

 
Baptized_in_the_Jordan_River

By Bobby Jamieson
Why must someone be baptized as a believer in order to join a local church? Because church membership is a public affirmation of someone’s public profession of faith in Christ, and Jesus has appointed baptism as the means by which his followers publicly profess their faith in him. A church can’t affirm the profession of someone who hasn’t yet made that profession.
Baptism is how you publicly identify yourself with Jesus and with his people (Acts 2:38–41). It is how you visibly signify that you are united to Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection (Rom. 6:1–4). It is how you become identified before the church and the world as one who belongs to the Triune God (Matt. 28:19). It is how you publicly embrace Jesus as your Savior and submit to him as Lord (1 Pet. 3:21).
Baptism is where faith goes public. It is how you nail your colors to the mast as Jesus’ disciple. Therefore baptism is how a new Christian shows up on the whole church’s radar as a Christian. Baptism is like a jersey that shows you’re now playing for Jesus’ team. Because of this purpose Jesus has assigned to baptism, a church may publicly identify itself only with those who have publicly identified with Jesus in baptism.
Baptism is a wordless vow, a symbolic promise to follow Christ in the fellowship of his church. The Lord’s Supper is another wordless vow, in which you repeatedly own Christ as your Savior and his people as your people (1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:17–34). On one level, church membership is nothing other than ongoing admission to the Lord’s Supper. And no one can renew their vow to Christ who has not first made that vow in the form appointed by Christ. No one can be identified with the body of Christ who has not first identified with Christ and his body.
Baptism necessarily precedes the Lord’s Supper like entering the front door necessarily precedes sitting down at the family meal.
But what about infant baptism? If baptism is where faith goes public, then infant baptism simply is not baptism, and those who have been “baptized” as infants need to be baptized—for the first time—as believers. It’s not that the first baptism was somewhat lacking, so there needs to be a do-over. Instead, the first “baptism” wasn’t baptism at all, and a believer who has not yet been baptized needs to obey Christ’s first command in order to enter his church.
We who are convinced of believers’ baptism must love our paedobaptist brothers and sisters in Christ. In this case, the best way to love them is to help them see that they have not yet obeyed Jesus’ first command, and they need to.
__________________________
Bobby Jamieson is assistant editor for 9Marks, a member of Third Avenue Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky, and the author of Sound Doctrine: How a Church Grows in the Love and Holiness of God (Crossway, 2013). This post is condensed from his forthcoming book Going Public: Why Baptism Is Required for Church Membership (B&H, 2015). You can follow him on Twitter.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

John Stott on the "old man" and the "body ruled by sin" in Rom 6 v 6

By
  There are, in fact, two quite distinct ways in which the New Testament speaks of crucifixion in relation to holiness. The first is our death to sin through identification with Christ; the second is our death to self through imitation of Christ.  On the one hand, we have been crucified with Christ. But on the other we have crucified (decisively repudiated) our sinful nature with all its desires, so that every day we renew this attitude by taking up our cross and following Christ to crucifixion.  The first is a legal death, a death to the penalty of sin; the second is a moral death, a death to the power of sin.  The first belongs to the past, and is unique and unrepeatable; the second belongs to the present, and is repeatable, even continuous. I died to sin (in Christ) once; I die to self (like Christ) daily. It is with the first of these two deaths that Romans 6 is chiefly concerned, although the first is with a view to the second, and the second cannot take place w...
Post a Comment
Read more

Boice: “... the federal way of dealing with us was actually the fairest and kindest of all the ways God could have operated. ”

By
  Adam had been appointed by God to be the representative of the race so that if he stood, we too would stand, and if he fell, we would fall with him. Adam did fall, as we know.  So death passed upon everyone. “But isn’t that terribly unfair?” someone protests. “Isn’t it cruel for God to act in this fashion?” ... the federal way of dealing with us was actually the fairest and kindest of all the ways God could have operated.  Besides, it was the only way it would later be possible for God to save us once we had sinned. In other words, federalism is actually a proof of God’s grace, which is the point the passage comes to (vv. 15 ff.). It was gracious to Adam first of all. Why? Because it was a deterrent to his sin. God must have explained to Adam that he was to represent his posterity. That might have restrained him from sinning. A father who might be tempted to steal his employer’s funds (and would if only he himself were involved), might well decide not to do it if he kne...
Post a Comment
Read more

Repackaging the gospel? It's more like obscuring the gospel!

By
Preface : I recognize this post may make me unpopular with some, but I think it is an important issue to blog about here.  I’ve had time to reflect on this video and in my opinion, I think what is in this video raises some questions.  This gentleman featured below is slotted to speak at the SBC's 2020 Pastors' Conference and it prompted me to think more about this illustration.  I want to note that I don't know him and I have no personal issue with him.   I assume he is a brother in the LORD.  Having said that, I see some significant issues here that relate to this type of preaching being clear on the gospel of Jesus Christ. In fact, it appears to be obscuring it in my observation. Concern:  Should the SBC or churches, in general, be in the habit of holding this up as a  good and healthy example?  Let's think about it some together.  (Watch this clip below here first.) Context:  The clip was posted to stand on its own a...
2 comments
Read more