BAPTISM AND CHURCH MEMBERSHIP (Santamaria)

BAPTISM & CHURCH MEMBERSHIP

FOREWORD

Does baptism involve Church membership? Can an individual be baptized and just float around apart from any church supervision? We hold that they should not. This is an excerpt from an upcoming eBook on the same subject.

Guillermo Santamaria

The connection between credo-baptism (believer’s baptism) and church membership is both theological and historical. The two were never meant to be separate ideas.

Let’s unpack it from the inside out.

1. Baptism as the visible entrance into the community of faith

In the New Testament, baptism is not treated as a private symbol but as a public entrance into the fellowship of the redeemed.

Acts 2:41-42 says:

“Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.”

Here, baptism and “being added” (i.e., incorporated into the local body) are part of one act of obedience. There is no limbo period between the two. The early believers were not baptized into nothing — they were baptized into the church.

2. Credo-baptism assumes a confessing, regenerate people

“Credo” comes from credo — “I believe.” The pattern of the New Testament shows baptism administered to those who personally repent and believe (Acts 8:12; Acts 10:47-48; Romans 6:3-5).

That means baptism is not merely a ritual washing but a public testimony of faith, identifying the believer with Christ’s death and resurrection. Since the church is defined as a company of those “called out” and “sanctified in Christ Jesus” (1 Cor. 1:2), it logically follows that only those who have made this profession by baptism can properly be counted as church members.

3. Church discipline and the baptized community

Jesus’ words in Matthew 18:17 assume a defined body that can include or exclude. Paul likewise commands in 1 Corinthians 5:13, “Put away from among yourselves that wicked person.”Without baptism as the mark of entry, and church membership as the mark of belonging, these commands have no practical meaning.

For that reason, Baptist and Anabaptist churches historically maintained fenced communion and disciplined membership — because the covenantal line of belonging begins with a credible profession sealed by baptism.

4. Theological logic: covenant sign and community sign

Paedobaptists (those baptizing infants) see baptism as a covenant sign replacing circumcision; hence, infants of believers are included. Credobaptists, however, argue that the New Covenant is only with the regenerate — those who “know the Lord” (Jer. 31:34).Therefore, baptism cannot signify entrance by birth, but by
new birth. Membership then is not hereditary but experiential, tied to regeneration and confession.

5. Historical continuity among Baptists

Old School (Primitive) Baptists, Particular Baptists, and early General Baptists all required baptism upon a profession of faith before receiving someone into fellowship. Their church covenants routinely stated that members were “such as have given evidence of regeneration and been baptized upon profession of their faith.”

This kept the church a spiritual society rather than a civic or hereditary one — a gathered body, not a parish.

So, biblically speaking, the chain looks like this:

Faith → Baptism → Church Membership → Fellowship (Communion & Discipline)

Break that chain, and you lose the visible structure of the New Testament church.

Historical Connection Between Baptism And Church Membership

Let’s trace that line through history so you can see the continuity of how credo-baptism and church membership were treated as inseparable—from the seventeenth-century English Baptists down through the Primitive or Old School line.

1. English Particular Baptists (1640s–1680s)

The 1644 London Confession of Faith, Article 39, declared:

“That baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, given by Christ, to be dispensed upon persons professing faith, that is, such as do actually profess repentance towards God, and faith in and obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Article 40 adds:

“The persons designed by Christ to dispense this ordinance, the Scripture holds forth to be the disciples...and the same persons who were before baptized, being joined to the Church, partake of all the privileges of the same.”

In other words, baptism was the door of entrance. The early Particular Baptists called their congregations “visible saints gathered by baptism.”Hanserd Knollys’
Constitution of a Church (1649) listed baptism as the first act by which believers were “received into communion.”

2. The 1689 Second London Confession

Chapter 26, “Of the Church,” paragraph 2:

“All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.”

And paragraph 6 explicitly links baptism and membership:

“The members of these churches are saints by calling, visibly manifesting and evidencing (in and by their profession and walking) their obedience unto that call of Christ; and do willingly consent to walk together according to the appointment of Christ, giving up themselves to the Lord, and one to another, by the will of God, in professed subjection to the ordinances of the gospel.”

“Subjection to the ordinances” was shorthand for baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and discipline—all membership privileges.

3. Early American Baptists (1700s–1800s)

When English Particular Baptist immigrants and Separate Baptists formed churches in America, they carried the same pattern.

The Philadelphia Baptist Confession of Faith (1742) simply reissued the 1689 Confession. The Philadelphia Association repeatedly ruled that baptism must precede reception into fellowship. Their 1749 minutes state:

“We judge that none ought to be admitted into the communion of the church but such as have been baptized upon a profession of their faith in Christ Jesus.”

In colonial practice, one’s name was not entered on the church roll until after immersion. Unbaptized believers could attend worship, but they had no voice in church business and were not regarded as members.

4. Nineteenth-Century Old School Baptists

The Old School or Primitive Baptists, arising from the anti-mission movement of the 1820s–30s, did not change this pattern. They tightened it.

Elder Gilbert Beebe wrote in Signs of the Times (1833):

“The ordinance of baptism is the appointed way by which believers are brought into visible fellowship with the church of Christ…none can rightfully claim a seat at the Lord’s table until they have entered by that door.”

Church covenants from associations like Kehukee (North Carolina) and Baltimore (Maryland) open with words nearly identical:

“Having been baptized on profession of our faith, we do now in the fear of God enter into covenant with one another as members of a gospel church.”

Thus, for Old School Baptists, baptism was both a confession of faith and an admission ticket to the church’s covenantal fellowship. Refusal or delay in baptism meant one remained outside the visible body, even if spiritually converted.

5. The Principle Summed Up

From the seventeenth to the nineteenth century, across every Baptist stream that held to believer’s baptism, the sequence was consistent:

Conversion – faith and repentance.

Baptism – immersion as confession of faith.

Membership – covenantal joining to a local body.

Communion – participation in the Supper and discipline.

This order distinguished Baptists from paedobaptists (who baptized infants before faith) and from revivalist Protestants (who often separated conversion from church membership).

For the Baptists, especially the Old School line, baptism was not merely a symbol of inner grace but the visible boundary of the Church Militant on earth. To be baptized was to be joined; to be joined was to be accountable within the body of Christ.

A Sampling of Real Baptist Churches & Associations

Let’s make the connection concrete by sampling how real Baptist churches and associations—spanning two centuries—worded their relationship between baptism and membership. The language shows how inseparable these acts were in practice.

1. Kehukee Association Declaration (North Carolina, 1827)

This document, foundational to the Primitive (Old School) Baptists, opens with the principle:

“We believe that none are fit subjects of baptism but those who are believers in Christ, and that baptism and the Lord’s Supper are ordinances belonging only to the Church of Christ; and that it is the duty and privilege of such believers to be baptized and to be joined to some regular Church of Christ, and to continue steadfast in their fellowship.”

In Kehukee usage, baptism and church membership were so intertwined that ministers were forbidden to baptize unless the candidate was being received into fellowship immediately afterward.

2. Philadelphia Association Circular Letter (1765)

The letter on “Church Membership and Discipline” instructed:

“Admission into the visible church of Christ is by baptism upon a profession of faith; and those so received are under the care and watch of the congregation, subject to her discipline and entitled to her communion.”

This practical order—profession, baptism, membership—governed American Baptist life for generations.

3. Baltimore Association Constitution (1773)

Article 4:

“That the members of this Association shall consist of regular baptized churches, that is, such as have been baptized upon a profession of their faith, and continue steadfast in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship.”

A “regular baptized church” meant a church whose members had entered by believer’s baptism. Without it, the church itself was not considered in gospel order.

4. Welsh Tract Church Covenant (Delaware, 1701; revised 1746)

“We whose names are hereunto subscribed, being called of God and baptized upon profession of faith, do solemnly covenant together to walk in the commandments of the Lord blameless.”

This is the earliest known Baptist covenant in America, and it begins with baptism as the basis of membership. That same Welsh Tract lineage influenced the Philadelphia Association and through it the entire American Baptist structure.

5. Primitive Baptist Church Covenants (19th century)

Nearly every Old School Baptist church constitution began with a similar clause. For example, the South River Old School Baptist Church (Maryland) covenant stated:

“Having been baptized upon a profession of our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, we do now in the fear of God covenant together as members of His Church, to walk in brotherly love and maintain His ordinances as delivered.”

Another, from Black Rock Particular Baptist Church (Maryland), reads:

“We, being baptized believers in Christ, do agree to walk together in gospel order, observing the ordinances of His house and submitting ourselves one to another in the fear of God.”

Every covenant defined the church not by geography or birth but by baptism and covenantal fellowship.

6. Elder Gilbert Beebe, Signs of the Times (1850s)

Beebe summarized the principle with his usual sharp clarity:

“The visible church is composed of such only as have been baptized upon a profession of their faith. This ordinance is the visible door into the militant kingdom of Christ; none can enter by any other way without being thieves and robbers.”

This image of the “door” comes from John 10:1–9, and became standard Baptist language—baptism is the door, membership the house.

7. Summary of the Pattern

Across English and American Baptist history, the consistent structure was:

Faith precedes baptism.

Baptism precedes church membership.

Membership precedes communion and discipline.

To invert or separate these steps was to violate the New Testament pattern and Baptist covenant theology.

Baptism is Never a FREE-Floating Act

Paul’s epistles actually form the deep scriptural foundation for the historic Baptist view that baptism marks the believer’s entrance into the visible church. He never treats baptism as a free-floating personal act, but as the moment a person becomes publicly identified with Christ and His body.

Let’s trace it through the Pauline writings.

1. Romans 6:3–5 — Baptism as Union with Christ

“Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?Therefore
, we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead…so we also should walk in newness of life.”

Paul assumes that those baptized are believers who understand what their baptism signifies—death to sin, life in Christ. This is not ritual washing; it’s covenant identification.In the Baptist framework, that identification naturally places one among the people who share that same confession—the church.

2. 1 Corinthians 12:12–13 — Baptism and the One Body

“For as the body is one, and hath many members…so also is Christ.For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, bond or free.”

This is Paul’s most direct theological statement linking baptism and church membership.The “one body” is the
visible, organized community of believers gathered by the Spirit.Baptism is the act that publicly expresses that unity.
To the primitive Baptists, this verse was the definitive scriptural warrant that “baptism is the door of the church.”

3. Galatians 3:26–28 — Baptism and Incorporation into Christ’s People

“For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
There is neither Jew nor Greek…for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Faith makes one a child of God; baptism publicly “puts on” that identity—like a uniform marking belonging to a new community. The early church didn’t separate personal faith from corporate belonging. Baptism was both the confession of faith and the enrollment among the saints.

4. Ephesians 4:4–6 — One Body, One Baptism

“There is one body, and one Spirit…one Lord, one faith, one baptism.”

Paul counts baptism alongside faith and Lordship as defining marks of Christian unity.It’s not an optional rite but the unifying sign of the “one body.”
For Baptists, this means baptism and membership are parallel—since “one baptism” brings believers into “one body.”

5. Colossians 2:11–12 — Circumcision Replaced by Baptism

“Ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands…buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God.”

Paul spiritualizes circumcision: not outward flesh, but inward faith symbolized by baptism.Where the old covenant used physical descent to mark entry, the new covenant uses spiritual regeneration and its public sign—baptism.
Thus, baptism serves as the
new covenant initiatory rite, and church membership is the community expression of that covenant.

6. Acts as the Narrative Confirmation

Although not a Pauline epistle, Luke’s account of Paul’s mission work repeatedly mirrors this pattern.

In Acts 2:41, converts were “baptized…and added unto them about three thousand souls.”

In Acts 16:14–15, Lydia believes, is baptized, and her household joins the fellowship.

In Acts 18:8, “many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.”Every Pauline church arises from that sequence: belief
→ baptism → fellowship.

7. Covenantal and Disciplinary Implications

Paul’s letters presuppose that the church consists of those who have entered by faith and baptism:

He writes to the “church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints” (1 Cor. 1:2).

When he enacts church discipline (1 Cor. 5), it’s against a member—one inside the fellowship.The boundary between “those within” and “those without” (1 Cor. 5:12–13) depends on that visible act of initiation—baptism.

8. Summary

Paul’s theology of baptism consistently includes three intertwined realities:

Faith unites a person spiritually to Christ.

Baptism publicly identifies that person with Christ and His people.

Church membership expresses that identification in a local, accountable body.

So the apostolic order is not cultural custom—it’s doctrinal logic: baptism and membership are two faces of the same confession.

This Connection Between Baptism And A Particular Church Membership Did Not Always Hold

Yes, there were — though they were always in the minority among historic Baptists, and their reasoning varied depending on time and context.

The dominant Baptist conviction from the seventeenth century onward was that baptism and membership are normally united — baptism is “the door into the visible church.” But a few dissenting voices questioned whether that door should always lead directly into a particular congregation.

Here’s how those exceptions developed.

1. English General Baptists (17th century)

Some early General Baptists (those leaning toward Arminian theology) occasionally treated baptism as entrance into the universal visible church, not necessarily a local body.They viewed baptism as identifying a person with the global Christian community rather than automatically binding them to a single congregation.

Thomas Grantham, for example, in Christianismus Primitivus (1678), wrote that baptism introduces believers “into the visible Kingdom of Christ,” but he allowed that such baptized believers might later “associate themselves to some particular congregation” — implying a conceptual gap between baptism and formal membership.

2. Certain “Free” or “Independent” Baptists (18th–19th centuries)

In rural frontier America, particularly among unaffiliated or loosely connected churches, baptism sometimes functioned more as a public profession than as a legal act of joining.Traveling preachers or evangelists might baptize converts while passing through, leaving them to join a local church later.

This was not a doctrinal denial but a practical irregularity — common in scattered settlements where no organized church existed. The baptized person was regarded as a Christian, but not necessarily a member until received by vote or covenant.

Old School Baptists later condemned this practice as “disorderly baptism,” because it separated the sign from the church’s authority.

3. Landmark Baptists and Church-Successionists (mid–19th century)

Interestingly, some Landmarkers (like J.R. Graves and J.M. Pendleton) tried to maintain strict church order by asserting that a church — not an individual minister — possesses the authority to baptize.Thus, baptism performed by a non-authorized minister might not automatically place a person in membership because it lacked proper church authority.
Graves’
Old Landmarkism: What Is It? (1880) argues that baptism “qualifies” a believer for membership but does not constitute membership until the church formally receives them.

This view insisted that membership requires a congregational act (a vote or covenant), not merely the physical rite.

4. Primitive Baptist Internal Debates

Even within Old School ranks, you find nuance.Elder Gilbert Beebe strongly held that baptism
ordinarily constitutes membership — the baptized are “added unto the church.”But Elder Samuel Trott and a few others noted rare circumstances (for instance, if someone were baptized by a minister traveling through an area without a church) where baptism might be valid but membership deferred until the person could unite with a local body.

So while baptism was the “door,” the door might open onto a threshold — not yet into a specific room, if no house stood nearby.

5. Twentieth-Century Evangelical Baptists

Modern evangelical Baptists (especially those influenced by revivalism) often separate baptism from membership administratively.For example, a convert may be baptized at a rally and later “join” a church by letter or statement.
This reflects the shift from
covenantal ecclesiology (the church as a visible covenant body) to individualistic evangelicalism (the church as a voluntary association).

Traditional Baptists regarded this as a departure from New Testament order.

Summary

Period / Group	View on Baptism & Membership	Theological Rationale
17th-century General Baptists	Baptism into the universal visible church	Arminian ecclesiology
Early frontier Baptists	Baptism precedes later church joining	Practical isolation
Landmark Baptists	Baptism qualifies, but church reception constitutes membership	Strict local church authority
Primitive Baptists	Baptism is the door to membership, though rare exceptions exist	Covenantal unity with practical flexibility
20th-century Evangelicals	Baptism as a personal symbol; membership optional or separate	Individualistic Protestantism

The overwhelming current of Baptist thought has always been:
faith → baptism → immediate fellowship in a local church.But where that ideal could not be observed — due to geography, disorder, or theology — you find these exceptions.

Did Some Baptists Not Connect The Two Always?

Let’s bring the record itself to the table. What follows are primary-source excerpts showing how leading Baptists across the centuries spoke to the link (or slight separation) between baptism and church membership. Each quote is dated, contextualized, and annotated so you can see how the reasoning developed.

1. Thomas Grantham (General Baptist, 1678) — Baptism as entrance into the universal visible church

From Christianismus Primitivus (London, 1678), Book V, ch. 5:

“Baptism is that ordinance whereby believers are solemnly admitted into the visible Kingdom of Christ. Yet the baptized may afterward voluntarily associate themselves with some particular congregation, for mutual edification and observance of Christ’s commands.”

Comment:Grantham’s theology emphasized a
universal visible church rather than strictly local membership. Baptism made one a visible Christian, but local membership was an additional step. This was typical of General (Arminian) Baptists, less so among Particular (Calvinistic) Baptists.

2. Benjamin Keach (Particular Baptist, 1697) — Baptism as entrance into the local church

From The Glory of a True Church and Its Discipline Display’d (London, 1697), p. 12:

“Baptism is the solemn admission of a believer into the visible Church of Christ; therefore, none are rightly esteemed Church-members until they are baptized upon a profession of faith.”

Comment:Keach codified what would become the mainstream Baptist view: baptism and membership are simultaneous, not sequential. His influence carried directly into the 1689 London Confession tradition.

3. Philadelphia Baptist Association, Circular Letter (1765) — Baptism and formal admission

“Admission into the visible church of Christ is by baptism upon profession of faith; and being so received, the baptized are entitled to communion, under the discipline of the congregation.”

Comment:Here
, baptism is explicitly the “admission” into the local body. This association framed most colonial American Baptist polity.

4. J. M. Pendleton (Landmark Baptist, 1867) — Baptism qualifies but does not itself constitute membership

From Church Manual Designed for the Use of Baptist Churches (Nashville, 1867), p. 30:

“Baptism gives one the right to be received into the church, but it does not, of itself, make him a member. There must be an act of the body in receiving him.”

Comment:Pendleton (along with J. R. Graves) introduced this distinction within Landmark circles. They feared independent baptisms by “unauthorized” ministers and therefore required an official
vote of reception to make membership valid. Baptism was thus a prerequisite, not the constituting act.

5. Elder Gilbert Beebe (Primitive Baptist, Signs of the Times, 1844) — Baptism as the door of the church

“The ordinance of baptism is the appointed door of entrance into the visible church of Christ. None can rightfully claim a place in her communion who has not entered by that door.”

Comment:Beebe reflects the classic Old School formulation: no separation between baptism and membership. Baptism is both the sign of regeneration and the act of joining the visible fellowship.

6. Elder Samuel Trott (Primitive Baptist, Signs of the Times, 1834) — Practical allowance for delay

“A believer baptized by a traveling elder where no organized church exists may, when providence so orders, afterward unite with a body walking in gospel order. The baptism is valid, yet membership awaits the orderly reception.”

Comment:Trott agrees with Beebe’s theology but allows for
geographical exceptions. Baptism itself remains valid, but visible fellowship still requires a covenant act when a church is available.

7. J. R. Graves (Landmark Baptist, Old Landmarkism: What Is It?, 1880) — Membership requires congregational action

“The act of baptism alone does not make a man a member of a church; the church must receive him into its fellowship. Baptism is a prerequisite, but not the act of induction.”

Comment:Graves follows Pendleton’s line, turning the distinction into Landmark doctrine. His emphasis on
local church authority created a more formalized membership process.

8. Summary Table

Author / Group	Date	View of Baptism & Membership	Key Phrase
Thomas Grantham (General Baptist)	1678	Baptism into the universal visible church; later local joining	“Afterward, voluntarily associate themselves”
Benjamin Keach (Particular Baptist)	1697	Baptism admits a believer directly into the local church	“Solemn admission…into the visible Church”
Philadelphia Association	1765	Baptism is admission upon profession of faith	“Admission…is by baptism”
Samuel Trott (Primitive Baptist)	1834	Baptism is valid even before joining; membership later	“Baptized…may afterward unite with a body”
Gilbert Beebe (Primitive Baptist)	1844	Baptism itself constitutes entry	“The appointed door of entrance”
J. M. Pendleton (Landmark Baptist)	1867	Baptism qualifies but does not constitute membership	“There must be an act of the body”
J. R. Graves (Landmark Baptist)	1880	Same as Pendleton; emphasizes congregational vote	“Prerequisite, but not the act of induction”

Interpretive Thread

The Particular and Primitive Baptists adhered to Paul's principle of “one baptism into one body” (1 Cor. 12:13), which serves as a guiding line: baptism unites the believer visibly with Christ’s body.The
General and Landmark strands diverged — one spiritualizing, the other formalizing — but both moved the moment of “membership” slightly away from baptism itself.

In short:

For most Baptists, baptism is membership.

For a few, baptism leads to membership (by later act or association).

For some modern evangelicals, baptism merely symbolizes membership (without covenant binding).