Christian Baptism Gives Access to the Lord’s Table

Life’s exigencies occasionally interrupt our plans. Consequently, for this week I am suspending my series—”What Happened to Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Dream?”—to address an issue that came to my attention. As I wrote my response to a query from a parishioner, I soon found that I had filled five or six pages of text. Hence, I decided to recast my document for a general readership and publish it here. What I have to say concerning the relationship between Christian Baptism and the Lord’s Table, the two sacraments our Lord bequeathed to his church, is not distinctively Baptist. Paedobaptists may also find it instructive for their tradition. My desire is to return to offer more articles on my continuing series on King’s Dream, but a brief suspension of that series may be fitting.

_______________________________________

Even during the days of the apostles, erroneous beliefs and teachings emerged within churches that they planted. Consider Paul’s questions to the Corinthians, “Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified on your behalf? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?” (1 Corinthians 1:13). This makes it evident that baptism had become a source of division among the earliest Christians, at least in Corinth. That Paul expresses gratitude that he has baptized only a few of the Corinthians confirms that he recognizes that some in Corinth are inclined to attribute to baptism a significance that Christ did not give it (1 Corinthians 1:14-15). Factions developed in Corinth that focus on who baptized whom. Some mistakenly read Paul’s correction of this factionalism as if the apostle regards baptism to be irrelevant, even optional. Such a notion seriously misunderstands Paul’s concern which is to subordinate his act of baptizing to his preaching the gospel, for apart from his primary duty of proclaiming the good news, baptism is irrelevant. Thus, he makes it clear that saving power resides neither in baptism itself nor in the hands of the baptizer. Rather, it is “the message of the cross“ wherein God’s saving power resides (1 Corinthians 1:18).

Elsewhere, the apostle Paul speaks of baptism as a unifying reality. “There is one body and one Spirit just as also you were called with one hope of your calling. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all” (Ephesians 4:4-6). Today, this unity of which the apostle Paul wrote in the first century seems both illusive and elusive. This is so because from the single root of the apostolic faith many branches have emerged. Among these branches, the singular aspect that most visibly distinguishes the varieties of multiple ecclesiastical traditions and theological systems seems to be baptism. It is lamentable that the body of Christ is divided, particularly over this issue not only concerning how to baptize but also concerning whom and when to baptize. Among Christian denominations, disagreements over baptism persist around five issues: (1) when to baptize (delayed or at conversion), (2) how to baptize (immersion, pouring, or sprinkling), (3) whom to baptize (infants or confessors), (4) the effects of baptizing—whether baptism is (a) a means of grace, (b) saving in and of itself, or (c) a mere symbol without any effect, and (5) whether baptism gives access to eating at the Lord’s Table. I leave aside the first four questions to focus on the fifth throughout the remainder of this presentation.

Given the diverse voices from theologians and preachers, it is understandable why many Christians are confused concerning baptism and why (1) many have been baptized as infants, (2) many have been baptized as confessing believers, and (3) some have never been baptized. The Scriptures are not as unclear as the diverse voices of theologians and preachers make it seem, particularly concerning the biblical connection between receiving baptism and eating at the Lord’s Table even if this requires Christians to draw proper and reasonable inferences from the Holy Scriptures.

During the days of the early church, an unbaptized Christian was an incongruity, an unthinkable category. Enforcement of the inseparable relationship between submitting to Christian baptism and eating at the Lord’s Table was intrinsic to gospel preaching and the local church’s function. There is no biblical evidence that the apostles ever anticipated a time when Christians would become lax about baptism, which our Lord commanded his apostles to perform. That many, especially those of the Baptist tradition, have allowed baptism to become optional for disciples is a cause of considerable concern. Though we cannot point to any explicit directives the apostles gave for such a situation, we are obligated to draw warranted inferences from their teachings concerning how we ought to understand their instruction concerning the inseparable connection between the church’s two sacraments—baptism and the Lord’s Table—and whether only those baptized should be admitted to the Table.

Paul Baptizes Disciples of John the Baptist

The apostle Paul encountered twelve disciples in Ephesus who apparently had been baptized by John the Baptist but, like Apollos, they needed additional teaching concerning the Christ. Upon inquiry, Paul learns that these disciples had not received the extraordinary endowment of the Holy Spirit through Christian baptism at the hands of an apostle (cf. Acts 8:9-25). So, he explains to them, “‘John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.’ On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied” (Acts 19:4-6). Why did Paul rebaptize them? These twelve disciples were an anomaly according to the apostolic gospel. Though they knew John’s preaching, they somehow failed to hear the message that the Messiah, whom John’s preaching prophesied, had come, completed his redemptive mission, and bequeathed the Holy Spirit whom he promised. Without adequate knowledge, the twelve disciples were experientially stuck in the old covenant era. For the apostles, then, so tightly correlated were belief in Christ and baptism that they could appeal to believers by saying, “As many as are baptized into Christ. . . .” Because these twelve had never received Christian baptism they had also not received the Spirit’s charismatic endowment of signs, namely, speaking in tongues and prophesying. Thus, when Paul encountered them, he delivered the good news to them that all that John’s baptism foreshadowed had come to fulfillment with Jesus. Their Christian baptism and receipt of the Holy Spirit’s endowments suddenly thrust them forward from their incongruous old covenant status into the fullness of the new covenant.

Paul’s Letter to the Galatians

Throughout the apostle Paul’s letters to churches, he clearly regards baptism as integral to Christian faith and not a barren symbol. Consider his letter to Christians in Galatia where he declares, “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ you have clothed yourselves with Christ” (Galatians 3:27). The apostle seems to equate all who have put on Christ with all who are baptized into Christ, as though the inward reality and the outward sign were fused as one. Thus, to be baptized into Christ by submission to the gospel’s symbolic washing is to be clothed with Christ Jesus. This seems remarkable since this statement appears at the pinnacle of Paul’s argument against Jewish intruders who have attempted to seduce Christians in Galatia to subject themselves to the circumcision of the flesh so that they might become Abraham’s children (Galatians 2:16-3:29, esp. 3:6-7,29). Paul identifies Christian baptism as the ritual act that marks one as clothed with Christ, and if one belongs to Christ, that one is Abraham’s child (Galatians 3:29). Yet, he also warns the Galatians that to submit to the ritual act of circumcision, the sign of the covenant God made with Abraham (Genesis 17), would be to sever oneself from Christ (Galatians 5:2-6). Now, all who are baptized into Christ—Jew and Gentile alike—not those who are circumcised in the flesh, whether Jews or Gentile proselytes, are Abraham’s children. This indicates that Paul’s principal argument for the Galatians is that submission to circumcision to become Abraham’s seed is tantamount to repudiating Abraham’s one true seed, Jesus Christ. Paul does not mean that to receive circumcision is an act that constitutes “works righteousness.” Rather, he means that to receive circumcision is to sever oneself from Christ who has brought both the Abrahamic and the Mosaic covenants to their climactic completeness, to their God-designed fulfillments. Thus, to receive circumcision is to be united with unfaithful Israel under the law’s curse (Galatians 3:10). To receive baptism is to be united with Christ who is Abraham’s True Seed, to be clothed with him, for to belong to Christ is the only way one can become a member of Abraham’s seed (Galatians 3:26-29).

Paul’s Letter to the Romans

Likewise, in his letter to the Christians in Rome, the apostle Paul expressly links receiving Christ’s saving effects with Christian baptism when he asks, “Or do you not realize that as many as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We, therefore, were buried with him through baptism into this death with the purpose that just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, in the same manner, we also might walk in newness of life” (Rom 6:3-4). As Paul formulates the matter, to be “baptized into Christ Jesus” is to be “baptized into his death.” Thus, “baptism into Christ Jesus” is the means through which the believer is “buried with him.” Paul makes this clear when he says, “Thus, we were buried with him through this baptism into death.” This addressing Christians as ones who are baptized obligates us to acknowledge that among the apostles converts to Christ were promptly baptized as they were on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2).

Of course, Paul does not attribute to baptism the power to cause our dying in Christ and our rising in him. He is not speaking of the effectual cause of our salvation; he is speaking of the instrumental means of grace. The distinction between these two is essential. When Paul and others of the apostolic era mention the sacred act of baptism, they point to baptism as conversion to Christ, which entails regeneration marked by repentance, confession, and belief, all symbolically encompassed in the act of baptism. Lamentably, today’s Christians have separated baptism from conversion, the very thing the apostles refused to do.

Jesus Links Discipleship with Baptism and Instruction

As Jesus commissioned his twelve apostles, he commanded them: “Therefore go and make disciples of all the nations by baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, by teaching them to keep all things I commanded you” (Matthew 28:19-20). It is difficult to miss the clarity. Jesus obligates his apostles to call people to become his disciples by way of receiving Christian baptism and Christian teaching.

Peter’s Call to Repentance and Baptism for the Forgiveness of Sins

When Peter proclaimed the gospel to the Jews at Pentecost and was asked, “Men, brothers, what shall we do?” his response, in keeping with Jesus’ commission, was “Repent and let each of you be baptized on the name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). Many Evangelicals, who seek to preserve salvation by grace through faith, have been uncomfortable with the close association of baptism with repentance and forgiveness. Even Christian scholars attempt to circumvent this tight correlation between repentance and baptism. However, all such attempts are strained and look like attempts to avoid the obvious sense of the verse. These attempts originate from confusing the instrumental means of salvation (belief, repentance, baptism in Jesus’ name) with the effectual ground of salvation (the redeeming work of Christ Jesus). Once again, the importance of distinguishing the instrumental means and the effectual ground of salvation can hardly be overstated.

Those who suppress the proper function of baptism as a means of God’s grace separate baptism from repentance rather than merely distinguish them. They do this because they suppose that to speak of repentance and baptism as the divinely appointed means by which God administers his saving grace is tantamount to denying God’s redemptive accomplishment in Christ Jesus as the sole ground of God’s gracious, saving act. If we conceptually and temporally isolate baptism from repentance, then baptism loses its integral and defining connection with conversion. The result is that baptism becomes an empty religious form, ancillary to and optional to repentance. Consequently, today, many converts to Christ remain unbaptized.

Peter’s double command presents the call of the gospel, requiring all to “repent and be baptized . . . for the forgiveness of your sins.” The apostle links repentance and baptism together “for the forgiveness of your sins.” The resulting translation, then, is: “Repent and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” For Peter, though repentance and baptism are distinguishable they are inseparable. One without the other is unthinkable for him and his fellow apostles as well as for all early Christians.

“Baptism Now Saves you” (1 Peter 3:21)

It is fitting to follow consideration of Peter’s preaching in Acts, which called for repentance and baptism for the forgiveness of sins, with his own written comments on baptism and cleansing. First Peter 3:18-22 appears to be a digression within a larger discussion of suffering. The digression concerns the “days of Noah” and the ark “in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water” (3:20). Then Peter writes in v. 21, which water, namely baptism, also now saves you, the antitype of the great flood’s waters. He explains that baptismal waters entail not the removal of filth from the flesh but an appeal to God out of a good conscience through the raising of Jesus Christ.

The basic sense of the passage is not difficult: Noah’s family of eight was saved through water, so also Christians are saved through the water of baptism. Peter sets up the relationship between baptism (the figure) and the flood (the prefigurement) in several ways. He draws out the analogical relationship between Noah’s family and Christians by linking “through water” with “baptism” and then by linking the two verbs, “they were saved” and “baptism saves.” The negation, “not the removal of filth from the flesh” (flesh refers to the body), is doubly instructive. On the one hand, Peter makes no allowance for anyone to suppose that water, when used for the sacred act of baptism, has magical powers to effect salvation. On the other hand, by mentioning the ordinary use of water for cleansing filth from one’s flesh, he makes it clear that he conceives of baptism as a sacred cleansing rite that is infused with signifying effect as an aspect integral to the reception of Christ for salvation. For Peter, baptismal waters figure salvation in Christ as the floodwaters that buoyed up the ark figured deliverance and simultaneously prefigured the saving work of Christ. So, with his qualifiers in place, Peter puts the figure, baptism (understood as cleansing), in the place of the thing figured, the cleansed “good conscience” that makes a pledge unto God.

The final phrase of v. 21, “through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” links to the verb “save.” Thus, in this one verse, Peter speaks of both the instrumental and efficient causes of salvation: “now baptism saves you . . . through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Anyone who is tempted to suppress Peter’s assured declaration that baptism’s water “now saves you” and in its place elevates his attached mention of the effectual cause, needs to understand that the apostle speaks of baptism in keeping with the way the rest of the New Testament does. Any suppression of baptism as if it were an embarrassing ceremonial addition to faith in Christ which treats it as irrelevant to Christian salvation, does so against the teaching of the New Testament.

Conclusion

For the apostles, baptism is an indispensable aspect of conversion along with at least four elements: regeneration, confession, repentance, and belief. During the apostolic era, no one came to faith in Christ with questions whether baptism was necessary for one to become a Christian. To refuse baptism was to reject Christ Jesus and the veracity of the gospel as preached by the apostles. The believing thief on the cross, who could not be baptized, is a glaring providential exception to the gospel rule. Similarly, the twelve disciples Paul met in Ephesus are an anomaly, which is why the apostle baptized them as confessing Christians. The time-lapse between their conversion and their receiving Christian baptism is an atypical abnormality due to their uncommon historical situation. Thus, the apostolic practice makes it clear that they linked baptism with conversion without any time delay. When time delay did occur, it was due to ignorance not willful rejection of baptism. Today, because many ministers tend to ignore the significance of baptism many converts remain unbaptized. With such folks, patience must prevail as with the apostle Paul when he met those disciples of John the Baptist. On the other hand, it is reasonable to observe that any deliberate refusal to receive baptism after receiving instruction concerning the significance of baptism is unconscionable for anyone who claims to follow Jesus Christ, for it is a defiant repudiation of the order that the Lord of the church assigned to conversion and baptism.

Because the apostles express no hint of a time when Christians would become lax concerning the sacred rite of baptism and give free access to the Lord’s Table to unbaptized converts, we cannot point to any explicit directives they gave for such a situation. Instead, we are obligated to draw warranted inferences from their teachings concerning how we ought to understand their teaching concerning the inseparable connection between the church’s two sacraments—baptism and the Lord’s Table—and whether only those baptized should be admitted to the Table.

Though the apostolic teaching is clear that the Lord’s Table is for baptized confessors, lamentably, since the days of the apostles, faulty preaching and teaching have given rise to numerous disputes and questions concerning baptism. Now, it is not uncommon to meet numerous individuals who have come to faith in Christ but even after several years or even decades have never been baptized. This has come to pass because many preachers have failed to proclaim with clarity the fact that the New Testament disallows an incongruous category called “unbaptized Christians.” It is both ironic and lamentable that Baptists have historically imposed a time-lapse between conversion and baptism for two principal reasons: (1) to avoid the theological bogeyman of “baptismal regeneration,” the notion that baptism effectually saves; and (2) to assess the authenticity of a convert’s faith lest baptism be administered to one who does not truly believe the gospel.

For the spiritual welfare of converts who have been subjected to preaching that inserts a time delay between conversion and baptism, ministers of the gospel must address the question of whether believers who have not been baptized should be admitted to the Lord’s Table. Drawing proper and reasonable inferences from Scripture concerning this question is not difficult but applying the New Testament’s teaching requires prayerful and mindful pastoral care. Unless a minister of the gospel identifies a defiant posture toward baptism by an unbaptized convert to Christ, a pastor is obliged to acknowledge that the anomaly exists because the individual has been subjected to improper teaching. The situation calls for generosity, patience, and careful instruction of those who have gladly embraced Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior but who have been inadequately and poorly taught concerning the inseparable connection between repentance and baptism. Even so, instruction in keeping with the apostolic practice might well draw upon access to the Lord’s Table as an incentive for inquirers to submit to Christian baptism. Many Baptist churches have established a “Baptism Class” to provide instruction for those who have confessed faith in Christ but have not been baptized. Because such a practice fosters the separation of conversion and baptism, it should be avoided. Instead, frequent comments and instruction concerning the gospel’s linkage of repentance and baptism should be made during the regular preaching and teaching of the church.

Churches should affirm that the New Testament teaches us that the Lord’s Table welcomes all baptized converts and should embrace and practice this as the apostolic belief and teaching. However, because so many evangelical churches have not upheld the apostolic identification of Christians as ones who have been baptized, creating a whole anomalous category of unbaptized Christians, churches must also affirm that insistence on the apostolic practice must be conducted with utmost care while also upholding baptism as the covenantal marker of Christian converts. Coercion is not an option in the ministry of the gospel. Pastoral care calls for acknowledging the role of an individual’s Christian conscience to be convinced that there is a gospel order that places baptism as giving access to the Lord’s Table. From the Holy Scriptures, ministers should appeal to the consciences of fellow believers to receive baptism as Christ’s appointed outward testimony and sign of union with him in his death and resurrection. Concerning children who are still under the governance of their Christian home, parents, in keeping with their own consciences convicted by the gospel, have the obligation to guide their children concerning when they have proper access to the Table.

_______________________________________

Afterword.

I had Andrew Sandlin’s blog article, “Allegiant Baptism” in my queue to read, but I had not yet either looked at it or read it. After reading his article I am not surprised but completely heartened that he, a Paedobaptist, and I a Baptist are so harmonized and synchronized with one another concerning the cruciality of baptism as our covenant pledge before the Lord of the church and his people. Andrew’s conclusion makes clear our harmony.

A leading reason for the futility of today’s church is its severance of allegiance from the Gospel. Christ died, it is thought, to take away our sins and give us hope and assure our eternal bliss with him. Correspondingly baptism is treated as a celebration of a saved sinner or a new church member. It is these, for sure.

But the meaning of baptism is at once more glorious and more severe. Glorious, because it signals a lifelong covenant devotion to Jesus Christ as risen Lord, and severe, because it’s a self-maledictory oath calling down new covenant curses if we turn our back on him (Heb. 10:29).

As a covenant, baptism is bilateral. God has a part, and we have a part. God’s part in the covenant is always more important and always comes first. At baptism he visibly pledges his love and care and protection, the blanketing blessings of his Lordship.

In response, we pledge our faith and fidelity (allegiance), acknowledging the never-ending claims of his Lordship. He tattoos us with his loving mark of ownership, and we bear that mark our entire lives.

Christianity is a serious faith that demands serious allegiance. Baptism is the vestibular, visible testimony to that allegiance.