At the end of Matthew’s gospel, we have the Great Commission. Jesus has this to say to his disciples:
“All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
Matthew 28:18-20, CSB
Jesus tells his Apostles to make disciples from every nation, baptise them and teach them to observe all that he has commanded.
Jesus makes baptism a foundational matter here. Disciples are to be made, baptised and rightly taught. Baptism is not reckoned to be a fringe, unimportant matter by Jesus. It is the marker he gave to his Apostles to identify true disciples. It is not a matter of taking it or leaving. It is not an insignificant thing. It is a foundational command for the church.
It is similarly notable that Jesus commands the making of disciples, then their baptism and then the need to teach them. That order is restated in Acts 2, where those listening to the gospel message believe, then are baptised, welcomed into the church and devote themselves to the Apostles teaching. Nobody in the New Testament is baptised before professing repentance and faith and nobody belongs to the church before they are baptised. Given that Jesus makes baptism a foundational command for the church, and given both the order he prescribes in the Great Commission and that is followed thereafter by the Apostles, it seems difficult to then argue that baptism, its mode and subjects is not a matter of import for the local church.
Jesus commands his Apostles to teach his disciples to observe everything he has commanded. In relation to the evangelistic aspect of the Great Commission, Don Carson has this to say:
If the Great Commission itself tells the apostles to teach their disciples to obey everything that Jesus has commanded them, presumably the command inherent in the Great Commission should not be excluded.
In other words, Matthew’s version of the Great Commission does not read, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me; therefore, go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you … except for this commandment to make disciples. Keep their grubby hands off that one since it belongs only to you, my dear apostles. And, surely, I am with you always to the very end of the age.”
The ludicrousness of this reading merely has to be spelled out, and then the laughter will handle the rest. Moreover, Paul can instruct Timothy to find reliable men who will be able to teach others. He certainly does not mean, “Teach others everything except the gospel, of course, since that job was given to the apostles only.”
Calling All Nations – Don Carson – The Gospel Coalition
If such is true of the call to evangelism, the same must be true of the call to baptism. All of the Great Commission is given to all disciples after the Apostles. If the Great Commission demands that we make disciples, it also demands that we then baptise them rightly and teach them to observe all of Jesus’ commands. If that includes the commands inherent in the Great Commission itself – perhaps even especially because they are foundational to the church – then we must be very wary indeed of setting aside what Jesus taught about the proper mode and subjects of baptism too. Jesus singles baptism out as particularly important here and, if he calls us to teach his disciples to observe all that he has commanded without being specific, we surely have to take especially seriously the particular command he has singled out as foundational for the church.
We may want to suggest that it is necessary sometimes to set aside the commands of Christ because of conflict with weightier commands. That is, effectively, what the parable of the Good Samaritan is addressing. The command to worship at the temple and keep oneself ceremonially clean should have been set aside for the sake of a dying man. But we don’t see examples of the law being set aside because somebody doesn’t like, agree with, or, despite what their conscience tells them, simply misunderstood the law. The closest we get to anything like that is Jesus setting aside what was kept by the Pharisees. But in these cases, Jesus had the authority to set aside the law, without breaking it, in light of God’s purpose in the law (cf. Matthew 12:1-8, particularly v8 and the earlier reference to David). Jesus point is not that it’s okay to break the law; it is that he has particular authority to say when it is and isn’t appropriate to set the law aside knowing God’s purpose in the law having, as he does, God’s authority vested in himself. However we splice it, we do not have Jesus’ authority over God’s law but are under the New Covenant and the law of Christ. Unless Jesus has given us specific grounds to do so, and we must understand his purpose if ever we do it, we can’t just set aside his commands as we see fit.
Not only is that true generally, it is even more significant when it comes to foundational commands. If baptism is a foundational command for the church, it is hard to see how we would set this aside without damaging the church at its foundations. If we need warrant to set aside the commands of Christ, and are even less likely to find that warrant for foundational commands, we need some explicit warrant that Jesus wants us to set aside his foundational command to baptise his disciples before we do so. But I don’t see any in scripture.
Moreover, the purpose of baptism is to visibly mark out God’s people. Those who aren’t baptised are not marked out as belonging to God’s people in the way that Jesus commands. A company like McDonalds won’t let you behind the counter without wearing their uniform. You can say all you like that you signed a contract, you work for the company, but if you won’t wear the uniform you aren’t going to work. It would be similarly odd if you insisted you were wearing the uniform but everybody else reckoned you were just wearing a normal t-shirt with a similar colour. If McDonalds view marking out their employees with a uniform as that important, and all they’re about is selling cheap burgers, what makes the church think it can set aside a foundational command of Christ simply because somebody either doesn’t want to be baptised or insists they have been when it’s apparent that they haven’t?
The other issue we have to contend with here is how we square setting aside Jesus’ foundational command, from a part of scripture where he insists our job is to teach others to observe everything he has commanded, without that having implications for everything else we do going forward. If, right at the front door, we set aside a command of Christ what exactly are we teaching Jesus’ disciples to do forever thereafter other than set aside his commands? Especially when it is a matter that seems to be so foundational for the church. And this isn’t only a matter for Baptist churches, but any church that considers its view on baptism (whatever it may be) to be biblical.
I am often reminded of the old Groucho Marx quote when it comes to people suggesting baptism shouldn’t matter for churches and we should just set aside our differences: ‘I don’t care to belong to any such club that will have me as a member.’ The same should be true for paedobaptists who think their view on baptism is properly biblical when it comes to joining Baptist churches too. At the end of the day, I want to belong to a church that will teach and uphold the scriptures as they understand them. Particularly on foundational commands that Jesus gives to the church. Any paedobaptist church that would set aside its convictions about the baptism of infants for the sake of welcoming one such as me – who refuses to do that because of my understanding of what Jesus commands – is not a church I want to join because they are not standing on what they think the scriptures say. Any Baptist church willing to set aside the commands of Christ which they think are clear and foundational in order to welcome those who will not do what Jesus says – whether out of overt rebellion or sincere conviction – is not a church they should wish to join because they are setting the scriptures aside in the face of any command or a single biblical example of this being a legitimate time to do so.
There was a discussion between Mark Dever (Baptist), John Piper (Baptist) and Ligon Duncan (Presbyterian) on this issue. Dever explained his position that only baptised members should belong to the local church and receive communion. Piper, an open-baptist, tried to make Dever uncomfortable by suggesting that Dever’s position necessarily entails excommunicating Duncan from the front door. Piper would welcome him whereas Dever would turn him away. But it was Duncan who then piped up that he would, on that basis, rather attend Dever’s church than Piper’s because Dever was leaning into what he believed the scriptures taught whereas Piper was actively setting aside his understanding of what the Bible demands. What matters most, Duncan argued, is our approach to scripture and he would prefer a church pushing into what it believed the scriptures taught, even if it isn’t where he stands, rather than attending a church that actively eschews what it really believes for his sake. I agree with Ligon Duncan and I think it is an issue for both open Baptists as well as paedobaptists who do not make infant baptism refusal a matter of church discipline. Both such churches are simply setting aside what they believe scripture teaches concerning a foundational command for the church given by Jesus with no biblical example of it ever happening or scriptural warrant to do so.
Some would mount a case for catholicity and gospel unity at this point. That is all well and good. But, to me, it has always seemed a particularly unpersuasive vision of gospel unity and catholicity to insist that because I read the Bible differently to you, you must sear your conscience and change your convictions to accommodate me. That is not a particularly compelling case and I can think of no other scenario in which we would employ it. But that is precisely what some argue at this point. Because some think Jesus taught something different about baptism to me, I must sack off my convictions, ignore what I think the Bible teaches and welcome them into membership of a church actively rejects their understanding. Rather than find a church in which one can worship freely, or look to start one in line with what one believes scripture teaches (as the historic Baptists and Independents did), the view is that a whole church must sear its conscience and go against its standards in order to accommodate the one they believe is not acting in line with scripture. This seems both crackers and not very catholic. It is, when all is said and done, hyper-individualism on steroids!
It seems a far better approach to catholicity is to see two churches, with different convictions on secondary matters, who can affirm one another in the gospel without forcing one another to sear their consciences and do what they think scripture says ought not to be done. I can work with paedobaptist brethren in the gospel, and they with me, without either one of us forcing the other to welcome unbaptised people (as we judge it) or those who refuse to give the covenant signs to infants who belong to it (as they judge it) into membership. Catholicity is best served when we can say: yes, they are believers but we respect each other’s convictions and therefore have our own churches.
Forcing churches to do what they believe the scriptures tell them not to do is not an act of gospel unity, it is an act of sin. It also undermines the witness of the church as they are pushed to do what the scriptures they claim to hold as their highest authority tells them not to do. It also encourages them to affirm those who do not do what the scriptures tell them not to do as being perfectly in line with the scriptures. It, therefore, stops them doing precisely what Jesus commands all churches everywhere to do as a foundational part of being a church. It stops them baptising those who should be baptised and it stops them teaching them to observe everything he has commanded. Which, as far as I can see, is a dereliction of two-thirds of the Great Commission.