John Stevens – National Director for the FIEC – has written a post concerning the linking of baptism and membership. You can read it here. For my personal view on the issue at hand, you can read this. Suffice to say, I’m in the baptism/membership ought to be linked together camp.
However, I wanted to weigh in on a little side-question. Much was being stated about credobaptists and credobaptist views. There was some distinction made between baptist and paedobaptist views. But there are a range of views here. I think it was notable (and is unquestionably true) that Reformed Baptists, Strict and Particular Baptists, Grace Baptists and most Baptists adjacent to them (hereafter, we will for ease refer to all of these as Reformed Baptists) would, by and large, reckon baptism and membership to be linked.
On this, Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians would share a view in contradistinction to other baptistic churches. Presbyterians reckon all those they baptise to belong to the local church in membership and Reformed Baptists agree with them. Incidentally, so would the Roman Catholics, Anglicans and (I think) Lutherans.
In fact, not only do Reformed Baptists agree with these churches on the link between baptism and members, they also agree with the Roman Catholics that only regenerate people ought to belong to the local church. This distinguishes them from the Presbyterian, Anglican and Lutheran who are all happy to baptise and bring into membership unregenerate people and advocate for a mixed-church that includes both wheat and tares. The Reformed Baptists agree more fully with the Roman Catholics that only regenerate people should be included in the church. This would be a point of agreement with other baptistic churches too.
Of course, Reformed Baptists would disagree with the Roman Catholics over a) who is regenerate and b) the means of regeneration. We depart with them on their doctrine of baptism. We do not affirm baptismal regeneration nor that baptism conveys grace ex opere operato. We agree only regenerate people ought to be included in the church; we disagree that baptism necessarily regenerates and that it ought to be applied to unregenerate people. Reformed Baptists baptise regenerate people and include them in the church as regenerate people who have received the sign of membership; namely, baptism.
It would be the Reformed Baptist view that paedobaptistic churches want to (rightly) deny baptismal regeneration but, so as to maintain paedobaptism as a practice, include either made up unbiblical rites like confirmation or simply deny the other sign of membership – the Lord’s Supper – to those they insist genuinely belong to the church. Some end up in the situation of affirming children of believers are Shroedinger’s Covental Children – simultaneously in Adam and yet also in Christ – affirming membership of the church and admission to the covenant whilst giving one covenant sign but not the other and reckoning them to be both members of the church and yet not quite members. Those who affirm paedocommunion avoid these issues and (rightly) link both signs of the covenant to membership of the church, they differ with Reformed Baptists over who rightly ought to receive the signs.
But Reformed Baptists would agree with the historic church that the signs of the covenant ought to be granted to all those who truly belong to the church. They agree with the historic church that only regenerate people ought to be admitted to the church and granted the signs of the covenant to which they belong. They avoid unbiblical innovations by only applying the sign of the covenant to those who have evidenced they belong to the covenant by profession of faith. They give all members of the church all the signs of membership.
What seems clear is that it is a relatively recent innovation to include within the church those who are not regenerate and a much more recent innovation to suggest that the signs of belonging should be applied to those who may not belong at all. The historic position of the church has been consistently that the signs of belonging are only for those who belong; baptism and the Lord’s Supper are for those who actually belong to the church. They are, indeed, the very signs of membership given to us by the Lord.
Good points. Worth noting that there are a significant body of Presbyterian and Presbyterian influenced Anglicans who believe that the baptized child is regenerate, not just may be. Additionally the Federal Vision view that the sacraments do something is probably not baptismal regeneration but can end up looking like a close relative.
Yes, some argue for regenerate children. Anglicans on the basis of ‘charitable assumption’ and drop it if it becomes clear down the track they aren’t. They then rely on unbiblical insertions like confirmation to determine what to do about communion. Reformed Baptists dispense with confirmation and baptise at that point.