John MacArthur
Communion and baptism are the two ordinances instituted by Christ for observance by the church. Communion grew out of the last Passover of Christ with His disciples before His crucifixion. Later, Paul corrected the Corinthian church because they had perverted the commemoration through their selfish conduct. The purpose of Communion is to proclaim the death of Christ symbolically. It behooves each Christian to prepare himself carefully each time he celebrates the Lord’s Supper. Also, Christians should view the ordinance of baptism with the utmost seriousness. This means that no one who professes faith in Christ should remain unbaptized. Baptism portrays a believer’s identification with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. Jesus personally submitted to the baptism of John before beginning to baptize people Himself. While baptism plays no part in one’s personal salvation, it is a nonoptional act of obedience to Christ (Matt. 28:19).
Communion—also referred to as the Lord’s Table or the Lord’s Supper—and baptism are the two significant ordinances within Protestant Christianity. The reason the church attaches so much significance to them is that the Lord Jesus Christ instituted and commanded both. I believe so strongly in a Christian’s obedience to those two practices that I think a Christian should question his own commitment to Christ if he does not observe them. Sometimes we struggle to know exactly what God’s will is on a certain issue, but these ordinances are Christ’s clear commands and, thus, are a vital part of Christian experience. They should not be taken lightly and certainly should not be ignored.
COMMUNION
The Historical Context
On the night before His death, our Lord Jesus Christ gathered with His disciples in the Upper Room to eat the Passover meal. Every year the Jewish people met together to celebrate the Passover, which was a special meal designed by God to commemorate the deliverance of Israel from Egypt. He brought upon Egypt a series of plagues designed to free the Israelites from Pharaoh’s clutches. It was only after the last plague, the death of the firstborn throughout the land of Egypt, that Pharaoh finally agreed to let the people go. The Israelites protected themselves from the plague against the firstborn by taking the blood of a slain lamb and applying it to the doorposts and lintels of their homes. Then they ate the roasted lamb along with some unleavened bread and bitter herbs, a meal that became known as the Passover meal because the angel of death passed over them.
Whenever an Israelite participated in the annual Passover feast, he would remember that God delivered his nation out of bondage in Egypt. The Passover celebrated today still recalls that great historic deliverance but tragically misses the greater deliverance that it foreshadowed, the cross of Christ.
Jesus took that ancient feast and transformed it into a meal with new meaning when He instructed His disciples to drink the cup and eat the bread in remembrance of His death on their behalf. Calvary supersedes the Exodus from Egypt as the greatest redemptive event in history. Christians do not recall the blood on the doorposts and lintels but the blood shed at the cross. The Lord’s Supper is a memorial that Christ Himself instituted. He became the ultimate fulfillment of deliverance from sin and death when He shed His blood and died on the cross.
Mark 14:22–25 records the account of the Passover meal known as the Last Supper of the Lord:
While they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it; and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is My body.” And when He had taken a cup, and given thanks, He gave it to them; and they all drank from it. And He said to them, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. Truly I say to you, I shall never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”
Matthew 26:26–29 and Luke 22:17–20 also record that incident. John 13:12–30 alludes to it, and Paul commented on it in 1 Corinthians 11:23–34. It is that commentary on which we focus our attention below.
The Lord’s Supper became the normal celebration of the early church. Acts 2:42 says, “They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.” The expression “breaking of bread” became synonymous with a fellowship meal, with believers incorporating the Communion established by Jesus into the end of their meals together. Eventually that combination of a fellowship meal and Communion became known as the love feast (Jude 12).
The early church attached Communion to a meal not only because the Lord Jesus had done so, but because the Jewish people had always associated the Passover with a meal. The Gentiles likewise included a potluck meal with their religious festivals.
Apparently the early church celebrated the Lord’s Supper on a daily basis (Acts 2:46). Perhaps they had Communion with every meal they ate. It was common in biblical times for fellowship to revolve around a table as people ate together. The host simply sat down, took a piece of bread, broke it, and that act initiated the meal.
Later in the life of the church, the frequency of sharing a meal along with Communion was reduced to a weekly pattern (20:7). Since the Bible does not make a specific point about how often we should observe the Lord’s Supper, it would be acceptable to observe it after any meal, whether at home or at church. The important point is obeying what the Lord says and exercising the wonderful privilege of commemorating His death and anticipating His return.
The Literary Context
In 1 Corinthians 11, the Apostle Paul wrote to correct abuses that had occurred within the Corinthian church in connection with the Lord’s Supper. The Corinthian situation is marvelously instructive and applicable to the present day.
The perversion that had taken place. Christianity had broken down socioeconomic barriers, yet within twenty years of Jesus’ ascension, the Corinthians were starting to erect them again. The well-to-do were supposed to bring food to the fellowship meal and share it with the poor, but the rich would arrive early and eat all their food in their own exclusive groups before the poor arrived. The latter group then went home hungry (1 Cor. 11:33–34). Such an abuse of Christian love and unity made participating in the Lord’s Table a mockery.
Paul began his discussion of this problem by saying, “You come together not for the better but for the worse” (v. 17). It is sad to say, but that condemnation probably applies to many churches today, because either the people do not hear or apply the truth, or else they wrangle over personal preferences or trivial theological issues. When a church gets to the place where its meetings are for the worse, it is in trouble.
The Corinthians may have thought they were observing the Lord’s Supper by breaking some bread, passing a cup, and saying some of Jesus’ words, but those actions did not make up for the spirit in which they conducted Communion. Their divisive and selfish hearts produced only a superficial ceremony.
Everyone knows you do not come to a potluck and sit in a corner, eating your own food. But that is what the Corinthians were doing. The rich were gorging themselves and even getting drunk (v. 21), while the poor had nothing to eat and remained hungry. That defeated the very purpose of the love feast, which was to meet the needs of the less fortunate in a harmonious way and to remember the great sacrifice that made them one. Selfish insensitivity to the needs of others had replaced the intended unity.
The church is one place, possibly the only place, where rich and poor can commune together in mutual love and respect (John 13:34–35; James 2:1–9; 1 Pet. 4:8–10; 1 John 3:16–18). Unity through ministry to diverse groups in need became the pattern for the new church as they shared all things together (Acts 4:32–37). Racial, social, or economic separations between believers has no place in the church.
The purpose behind the ceremony. The Lord’s Supper is a memorial to the One who lived and died for us, a time of communion with Him, a proclamation of the meaning of His death, and a sign of our anticipation of His return. The sacred and comprehensive nature of Communion behooves us to treat it with the dignity it deserves. That is precisely what the Corinthians did not do. They had turned the Lord’s Supper into a mockery.
To get them back on track, Paul next gave a beautiful presentation of the meaning of the Lord’s Supper. Amidst the shameful situation in Corinth, these verses were like a diamond dropped on a muddy road:
I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it, and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same way He took the cup also, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes (1 Cor. 11:23–26).
What Paul said was not his own opinion. It was not a tradition handed down from person to person; it was special revelation he received directly from the Lord Jesus Christ. Most conservative Bible scholars agree that 1 Corinthians was probably written before any of the four Gospels, which would make this passage the first written revelation regarding the Lord’s Supper.
The night Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper was not an ordinary night. It had special significance since it was the Passover. And that particular Passover was significant because the crucifixion of Jesus came the next day while Passover was still being observed. As the Lamb of God, Jesus was the ultimate Passover sacrifice (John 1:29; 1 Cor. 5:7).
The Passover meal was structured around sharing four cups of wine at different intervals during the meal:
The Lord Jesus initiated the Lord’s Supper by taking “bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it, and said, ‘This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.’ In the same way He took the cup also, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me’ ” (1 Cor. 11:23–25). “He had given thanks” is from the Greek verb eucharisteō. The English adaption, Eucharist, is a name some people use to refer to the Lord’s Supper.
Some have misunderstood Jesus’ identification of the bread and wine with His body and blood as a literal reference to His physical body and blood. The verb estin, “is,” frequently means “represents.” Jesus was saying that the bread and wine of that particular Passover meal represented His body and blood. The wine was not literally His blood; His blood was still in His veins when He said that. And the bread was not His body; His body was still physically present at the supper for all to behold.
Jesus often spoke in figurative language. When He said, “I am the door” (John 10:9), He meant He is the channel through which people enter into eternal life. He is not literally a door. The parables He told are examples of common things He pointed to as illustrations of spiritual realities. The failure of some of His followers to understand the figurative or metaphorical sense in which Jesus spoke of His body and blood caused them to stop following Him (John 6:53–66).
The bread that had represented the Exodus now came to represent the body of the Lord. According to Jewish thought, the body represented the whole person, so this reference to Christ’s body can be seen as symbolizing the entire period of His incarnation from His birth to His resurrection. Christ was born, crucified, and resurrected as a sacrificial gift given to mankind.
The cup that Jesus took was the third cup of the Passover meal, the one immediately following dinner. Jesus stated that the cup of wine represented the promise of the new covenant that would soon be ratified by His blood. The old covenant was ratified by the blood of animals, but the new covenant was ratified by the blood of Christ. In the same way that a signature ratifies a contract or promise today, shedding the blood of a sacrificial animal accomplished the same thing in Old Testament times. The foremost example, of course, is God’s promise not to take the lives of the Israelites’ firstborn if they would agree to sign on the dotted line, so to speak, with the blood of a lamb smeared on the doorposts and lintels of their homes.
Whereas the old covenant required continual animal sacrifices, the new covenant, represented by the cup of Communion, was fulfilled by the once-for-all sacrifice of the Lamb of God (Heb. 9:28). It was as if on the cross Jesus was taking His blood and signing on the dotted line. The blood of the cross has replaced the blood of the Passover.
In response to all He has done for us, Christ asks us to remember Him and what He has accomplished. To the Hebrew mind the concept of remembering meant more than simply recalling something that happened in the past. It meant recapturing as much as possible the reality and significance of a person or situation in one’s conscious mind. Jesus was requesting that all Christians of all times ponder the meaning of His life and death on their behalf. A person can participate in Communion, but if his mind is a million miles away, he has not truly remembered the Lord.
We proclaim the death of Christ every time we remember Him in Communion (1 Cor. 11:26). This is a reminder to the world that God became man and died a substitutionary, sin-atoning death for all mankind (1 John 2:2). We also look forward to the day of His second advent when we all will commune with Him in His presence.
The preparation required before partaking. The Lord’s Table is a comprehensive ordinance. We remember what Christ has done, we refresh our commitment to Him, we commune with Him, we proclaim the gospel, and we anticipate His return. That is why we must observe it with the right attitude.
The Corinthian church participated in Communion in an unworthy manner (1 Cor. 11:27). We also can be guilty of this in any of several ways:
Those who do such things “shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” (v. 27). That is to treat Christ’s unique life and death as something common and insignificant. A man who tramples on his nation’s flag is not merely trampling on a piece of cloth; he is guilty of dishonoring his country. Communion is a real encounter with the Lord Jesus Christ. It is so real that failing to acknowledge the reality behind it brings judgment (v. 29).
To avoid judgment, each participant should “examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup” (v. 28). The Greek word translated “examine” conveys the idea of a rigorous self-examination. Check out your life—your motives and your attitudes toward the Lord, His Supper, and other Christians. Once you have done that and have dealt with any sin or improper motive, then you are ready to share in the bread and the cup.
He who participates in Communion without having done that “eats and drinks judgment to himself, if he does not judge the body rightly” (v. 29). The word translated “judgment” (krima) is better translated “chastisement.” It refers to the Lord’s chastisement of believers, not the damnation of unbelievers, which is referred to in verse 32 with the term katakrinō. Such a person has not discerned the meaning and significance of the Lord’s body. Although this may be a reference to the corporate body of Christ, the church, the context supports a reference to the Lord Himself.
The Lord disciplined the Corinthians for their abuse of the Lord’s Supper by causing some to be sick and taking the lives of others (v. 30). In a similar way, God put to death Ananias and Sapphira for lying to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:1–11). Such stark reminders of God’s holiness and man’s sinfulness show what everyone deserves and what some actually receive. Some Christians today may have become sick or died from observing Communion improperly.
Although that is true, God does not want believers to be overly fearful of celebrating the Lord’s Supper. Paul assured us that though we might be disciplined by the Lord, we will not be damned with the world (1 Cor. 11:32). No Christian under any circumstance will ever be damned. God disciplines His children not to punish them, but to correct their sinful behavior and to direct them in paths of righteousness. Hebrews 12:6 says, “Those whom the Lord loves He disciplines, and He scourges every son whom He receives.” We never have to fear losing our salvation and being eternally damned. God will intervene with His chastening hand before that can happen.
Paul concluded his discourse on Communion by saying, “So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you may not come together for judgment” (1 Cor. 11:33–34). The Corinthians were to wait for each other when they gathered for a fellowship meal rather than selfishly gorging themselves before everyone else arrived. Those who attended just to satisfy their physical hunger were to eat at home. Otherwise they would pervert the purpose of Communion and be subject to divine chastening.
The Lord is very serious about how the ordinance of Communion is to be treated. We must never overlook its significance or fail to evaluate our hearts before we partake of it.1
BAPTISM
As noted previously, the Lord has left only two ordinances for the church: Communion and baptism. We teach much about the Lord’s Table because we celebrate it, as commanded, on a regular basis. The subject of baptism, however, seems to be somewhat of a nonissue in the church today. We hear little about it. It has been years since anyone has written a book emphasizing baptism. Religious programming gives practically no thought to baptism. To my knowledge, “Grace to You,” our daily radio program, is the only radio program in America that puts baptismal services on the air. Such a wide diversity of opinion exists about what baptism means and how important it is that most believers have relegated it to the level of an antiquated ecclesiastical discussion. They have little concern for its spiritual importance. At best, baptism has become a secondary matter.
I believe this failure to take baptism seriously is at the root of the most serious problems in today’s church because it betrays an unfaithfulness to the simple and direct commands of the Lord. Baptism is central to Jesus’ Great Commission to the church: “Go . . . and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19). The command “repent, and . . . be baptized” (Acts 2:38) is as applicable to each believer today as when it was first uttered on the Day of Pentecost. When all three thousand who believed that day were immediately baptized, they set the example for the church of all time.
Why Would Someone Who Professes Christ Not Be Baptized?
Several reasons may lie behind the failure of some professing Christians to be baptized.
What Is Baptism?
From a physical viewpoint, baptism is a ceremony by which a person is immersed, dunked, or submerged into water. There are two verbs in the New Testament describing this reality: baptō and baptizō. Bapto occurs only four times. It always means to dip, as in dipping a piece of cloth into dye. Baptizō is an intensive form of baptō. It is used many times in the New Testament and always means “to dip completely” or even “to drown.”
Another important technical note is that baptō and baptizō are never used in the passive sense. Water is never said to be baptized on someone, that is, sprinkled or dabbed onto someone’s head. Always someone is baptized into water. That is clear in the New Testament from its very outset.
Matthew 3 begins by describing the ministry of John the Baptist. Verse 6 notes that people were coming out to him and being baptized by him in the Jordan River. Obviously, if they were baptized in the river, they had to be immersed. You do not need a river if you are just going to dab a dot of water on someone’s forehead.
John 3:23 says that “John was also baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there.” Why did he need much water? Because he had multitudes of people who needed to be submerged into water.
The familiar account of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch is in Acts 8. Philip preached Christ and the eunuch believed. As a result of his faith he said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?” (v. 36). Therefore “they both went down into the water” (v. 38).
Only immersion can accurately portray the reality that baptism is meant to picture: The believer at salvation is united with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. Going into the water symbolizes death and burial; coming out symbolizes new life. As any student of the Old and New Testaments knows, God likes to teach with symbols, pictures, illustrations, parables, and analogies. Baptism is one of His finest.
What Is the History of Baptism?
Where did it originate? How did we get it? Where did it start? It began back in Old Testament times. The people of Israel had received God’s law, promises, prophets, and covenants. They worshiped the true God. Some of the peoples from other nations, called Gentile nations, recognized that and wanted to identify with Israel so they could worship the true God in the true way. They wanted to become Jews—not racially, for that is impossible—but religiously or spiritually. The system for their doing so was called proselyte induction. It had three parts: circumcision, animal sacrifice, and baptism.
The baptism part involved being immersed in water. It represented the Gentile as dying to the Gentile world and then rising in a new life as a member of a new family in a new relationship to God. It was in proselyte Gentile immersion that baptism first appeared in redemptive history.
Now skip ahead to the ministry of John the Baptist. His job as Christ’s forerunner was to prepare people for the coming of Christ. How did he attempt to do that? He knew Christ would be holy and demand righteousness, so he preached repentance from sin and turning toward God. Then he baptized the people as a visible symbol of that inward turning.
On a special day in the midst of his ministry, a marvelous thing happened: “Then Jesus arrived from Galilee at the Jordan coming to John, to be baptized by him. But John tried to prevent Him, saying, ‘I have need to be baptized by You, and do You come to me?’ But Jesus answering said to him, ‘Permit it at this time; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.’ Then he permitted Him” (Matt. 3:13–15).
How did Jesus fulfill the righteousness of God? By dying on a cross. Whatever Jesus’ baptism means, it is somehow connected to the time when God in His righteous indignation poured out vengeance on the Lord Jesus Christ, the perfect sacrifice. All righteousness was then fulfilled, and a righteous God was satisfied and able to impute righteousness to believing people.
In Luke 12:50 Jesus said, “I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished!” Notice He did not say, “I have a death or crucifixion to undergo.” He viewed His death as an immersion, which gave a hint of the resurrection or rising to come. This was all beautifully prefigured in His own baptism.
When James and John asked to sit on Jesus’ right and left in the kingdom, Jesus responded, “You do not know what you are asking for. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” (Mark 10:38). I believe that when Jesus looked at His baptism and said it was to fulfill all righteousness, He was saying, “My death and resurrection will fulfill all righteousness, and I will give a symbolic demonstration of that great baptism yet to come.”
What followed after the baptism of Jesus? Jesus Himself began to baptize. According to John 4:1, the Lord was making and baptizing more disciples than John the Baptist. It signified that sinners who believed in Him were affirming their need to die and be buried to the old and to rise in newness of life. After Jesus Himself died and rose again, He gave the command to go into all the world and make disciples, baptizing them (Matt. 28:19–20).
When the church was born, three thousand believed and three thousand were baptized. There’s absolute continuity in the historical record of baptism as symbolizing the death of the old and the resurrection of the new. It finds its ultimate fulfillment in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
What Is the Theological Significance of Baptism?
What is the spiritual significance of Christian baptism? What is it really depicting? When you as a believer are baptized by immersion into water, you are demonstrating not just the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, but also your union with Christ in that death, burial, and resurrection.
For whom did Christ die? You. Whose sins did He bear? Yours. For whom did He rise? You. The Apostle Paul expressed that reality by saying, “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered Himself up for me” (Gal. 2:20). Through a sovereign, spiritual miracle at the moment of salvation, God puts you in Christ. It is as if you died when He died on the cross, and you rose again when He did.
The New Testament sometimes uses the word baptism to speak of that spiritual union only, not of water baptism. Galatians 3:27 says, “All of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.” Colossians 2:12 says, “Having been buried with Him in baptism, . . . you were also raised up.” And perhaps the most explicit passage of all on our union with Christ reads, “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ have been baptized into His death?” (Rom. 6:3).
Although those passages are not referring to water, it is water baptism that symbolizes our spiritual union with Christ. Notice how the apostle Peter made that distinction: “Baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 3:21). What saves is not water baptism but our spiritual union with Christ, also spoken of as the washing of regeneration in Titus 3:5 and the washing away of sins in Acts 22:16. But water baptism is the symbol of what saves.
What Is the Relation of Immersion to Salvation?
Some people say you have to be baptized to be a Christian, and if you are not baptized, you are not saved. They are confusing the relationship of water baptism to salvation, which is akin to the relationship of obedience to salvation. Having been saved, we enter into obedience. In the New Testament we see baptism as the immediate and inseparable indicator of salvation. On the day of Pentecost three thousand believed, three thousand were baptized, and three thousand continued in the Apostles’ doctrine, prayer, fellowship, and the breaking of bread. No loss. That is God’s standard. The Apostles insisted on it.
Typically today you may hear someone say, “We had a great evangelistic rally: three thousand were saved, forty-two were baptized, and ten integrated themselves into local churches.” What a difference! The cost of baptism was very high in New Testament times: ostracism from one’s culture, persecution, and sometimes even death. Only those who were serious in their commitment to Christ would pay the price. Baptism was, therefore, the inseparable token of salvation, as it should be today.
In Acts 2:38 Peter said, “Repent, and . . . be baptized . . . for the forgiveness of your sins.” Does that mean water is needed to wash away sin? No, but the act of baptism is what demonstrates to others that one’s sins have been remitted or forgiven.
People often ask, “Do you have to be baptized to get into heaven?” The thief on the cross did not (Luke 23:39–43). There may be exigencies that preclude baptism, but if someone is reluctant to be baptized, it may be a sign of a heart that is unwilling to obey. And a disobedient heart is a sign of an unregenerate person, for as Jesus said, “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments” (John 14:15), and “Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?” (Luke 6:46).
Why Is There So Much Confusion Regarding Baptism?
Is the Bible’s discussion of baptism confusing? No, but there are a lot of confused Christians, nonetheless. One of Satan’s main objectives in the life of a believer is to shatter any pattern of obedience, and the sooner the better. If he can make baptism so confusing that one ignores it, then he has started the believer on the path of indifference and disobedience. And Satan has been working overtime to confuse churches throughout the centuries.
The confusion of churches. The Salvation Army, the Quakers (otherwise known as the Friends Church), and the ultradispensationalists (who follow the teachings of E. W. Bullinger) all deny that baptism has a place in the believer’s life today. On the other hand, the Churches of Christ say that baptism saves you. They think that if you believe but do not get baptized, you will go to hell. One extreme errs on the side of grace, and the other on the side of law. One ignores the command to obedience; the other ignores that salvation is by faith.
Outside orthodox Christianity, the Mormon church practices proxy baptism for the dead. It sanctions the heretical concept of being baptized vicariously for another to assure him or her a place in heaven. It is not uncommon in one year alone for the Mormons to have three million proxy baptisms for three million dead people. This is clearly an unbiblical practice.
The error of infant baptism. The Roman Catholic Church instituted infant baptism as a ritual of regeneration. The Catholic Church officially teaches that water cleanses a baby from original sin and results in salvation. Until the Middle Ages they immersed all the babies, and then they started sprinkling them after that.
Roman Catholic theology asserts that a baby who dies without being christened or baptized goes to “the Limbo of the Innocent.” That is supposedly a place where babies live forever enjoying some kind of natural bliss, but without any vision of God. A baptized infant who dies, however, is said to avert that second-class status by going to another place that does have the vision of God.
That notion is patently unbiblical, but it has pervaded many churches beyond just the Roman Church. For example, Martin Luther, initiator of the Protestant Reformation and, therefore, the father of many churches, never disentangled himself from Roman infant baptism. In fact, he wrote the manual that the Lutheran Church uses for infant baptism. He believed that baptism cleansed a baby from sin. When asked, “How can you affirm that if you believe in justification by faith alone?” he replied, “Well, somehow a baby must be able to believe.” There is nothing in the New Testament about babies being baptized or about salvation apart from personal faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, which can come only to one who understands the meaning of the gospel.
Why did the practice of infant baptism get started? Early on, the Roman Catholic Church did it to secure everyone into the system. By making everyone from birth a “Christian,” they made sure they belonged to the church and were therefore under its control.
Reformed or Reformation-based churches unfortunately adopted, instead of jettisoning, the long-standing practice of infant baptism, but in time varied it a little. They teach that when Christian parents have their baby baptized, that baby automatically becomes a little member of God’s covenant people. They say that reality is confirmed when the child is old enough to recite the church’s catechism properly, a rite known as confirmation.
A threat to both the Roman and Reformed churches was a group of people who arose and said, “This is all wrong: Baptism is only for people who consciously put their faith in Jesus Christ. Infant baptism means nothing in God’s eyes.” They faithfully preached the gospel, and many people became converted as a result of their ministry. These infant-baptized converts proved the reality of their conversion by being rebaptized as believers. The bold preachers who led them to do that were known historically as Anabaptists, ana being the Greek word for “again.” Both Catholic and Protestant churches persecuted them severely, because they viewed them as a threat to their power base. That is one of the greatest tragedies of church history, because the Anabaptists were upholding the teaching of God’s Word.
People often ask, “Should I be rebaptized?” If a person was not baptized according to the New Testament—not immersed in water after a conscious commitment of one’s life to Jesus Christ—then he or she needs to be baptized. Any other baptism experienced, either wittingly or unwittingly, means nothing. Baptism is only for believers, and it should be done as soon as possible following conversion (Matt. 28:18–19).