Article XV of our Confession of Faith states: "baptism is prerequisite to the privileges of a church relation, and to the Lord's Supper

Is baptism a prerequisite to church membership and to the Lord's Supper? I appreciate everyone who asks about this important subject. I hope this article may aid their understanding of our views.

 First, I believe that the position is rooted in the way we view the church. For those who hold to the concept of the church being universal and the local assembly as the expression of the universal church, I can understand why they may be more open on the issue of the Lord's Table. On the other hand, those who hold a strong local church position may have greater problems with a more open position. I personally do not see the so-called universal church ever assembling except in heaven. It has no officers, holds no business meetings, does not baptize nor does it serve the Lord's Table. Something that is also key; the universal church never exercises any discipline that is required by the church to be exercised in serving of the Lord's Table.

Second, I believe we have a clear order of command in the Great Commission and in the New Testament example. To make a disciple and then to baptize that disciple and teach them to observe all things that He has commanded is the order that we find being obeyed in Acts 2:41,42. The example is this: those who received the Word were quickly baptized after their conversion. Baptists at one time believed that baptism was the first public confession of faith. (Acts 16:33)

Third, baptism is an act of obedience. Why would a believer want to obey Christ on the one hand regarding the Lord's Table but not Baptism? Peter tells us that it is the answer of a good conscience toward God. (I Pet.3:21) Any reluctance to be baptized is a signal to question the reality of what is professed. There ought to be a great deal of desire to express one's faith in baptism as seen in the case of the eunuch. (Acts 8:36)

I have also been asked if there are any Baptist writers who have held to this position and who have written on the subject. The answer is that there are many. I will give the statements of several Baptist theologians and writers but because of space I cannot quote all they say.

Dagg states: "We have seen that the Lord's Supper has been committed to the local churches, if organized according to the Scriptures, contain none but baptized persons. It follows hence, that baptism is a pre-requisite to communion at the Lord's Table." (Page 214) All of Dagg's arguments ought to be read and I would urge everyone to do so.

Strong states that the command of Christ fixes the place of baptism as first in order after discipleship. (Matt.28:19-20) "Here the first duty is to make disciples, the second to baptize, the third to instruct in right Christian living.

Is it said that there is no formal command to admit only baptized persons to the Lord's Supper? We reply that there is no formal command to admit any but regenerate persons to baptism. In both cases, the practice of apostles and the general connections of Christian doctrine are sufficient to determine our duty." (P.971) Strong also follows with many arguments for the case I am presenting.

Hiscox says: "Who ought, and who have a lawful right to come to the Lord's Table will be seen by a careful study of the Scripture narratives. From these it is manifest that baptized believers, walking orderly in the faith of the Gospel, and in the fellowship of the Church, constitute the proper subjects for this privilege. And no others." (P. 134)

The first London Confession of Faith (1646) states the following. "BAPTISM is an ordinance of the New Testament, given by Christ, to be dispensed upon Persons professing faith, or that are made disciples; who upon profession of faith, ought to be baptized, and after to partake of the Lord's Supper." (Article XXXIX page 14)

The New Hampshire Confession ~states precisely what our Confession states because we used that confession in the formation of our own with some revision.

As I have argued before, if you take I Cor.5:11 to be a common meal as some do, how much more must it apply to eating at the Lord's Table. I know this' goes further than our Confession, but I want to show that what we have in the Confession is minimal practice and normative for Baptists throughout our history. I would invite all to read Abraham Booth's Apology for Baptists in which he defends this position.

There are many, many others who also hold that discipleship is recognized only in an immersed assembly of believers who regularly and faithfully remember Him as He commanded.