Comments on: A Response to the Baptism Oversight Debate http://sbcvoices.com/a-response-to-the-baptism-oversight-debate/ Southern Baptist News & Opinion Thu, 17 May 2012 05:42:08 +0000 hourly 1 By: Dr. James Willingham http://sbcvoices.com/a-response-to-the-baptism-oversight-debate/#comment-7139 Dr. James Willingham Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:06:41 +0000 http://sbcvoices.com/?p=1891#comment-7139 A pattern is just that - a pattern, but in looking at examples in Acts one finds the administrators performing baptisms without a vote of a church. For example, the Ethiopian Eunuch was baptized by Phillip without a vote of the church. Landmark doctrine would have required a church vote. Phillip was one of the Seven and he was called an evangelist, but did he have the required ordination? Spurgeon did not. I know of at least one leading Southern Baptist theologian who was baptized by a friend and who he baptized, but which one baptized the other first I do not recall oeven know if I heard which. Linked chains break under such stresses. Let it suffice that one baptizes another by immersion on profession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as an act of identification and obedience, and that is sufficient. Back in the 1700s one person came to his church and requested baptism again as he wasn't sure about his salvation then. They refused him on the two grounds, namely, one baptism and how did he know? He could not answer the question and they would not accept a second baptism. A pattern is just that – a pattern, but in looking at examples in Acts one finds the administrators performing baptisms without a vote of a church. For example, the Ethiopian Eunuch was baptized by Phillip without a vote of the church. Landmark doctrine would have required a church vote. Phillip was one of the Seven and he was called an evangelist, but did he have the required ordination? Spurgeon did not. I know of at least one leading Southern Baptist theologian who was baptized by a friend and who he baptized, but which one baptized the other first I do not recall oeven know if I heard which. Linked chains break under such stresses. Let it suffice that one baptizes another by immersion on profession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as an act of identification and obedience, and that is sufficient. Back in the 1700s one person came to his church and requested baptism again as he wasn’t sure about his salvation then. They refused him on the two grounds, namely, one baptism and how did he know? He could not answer the question and they would not accept a second baptism.

]]> By: Steve Shelton http://sbcvoices.com/a-response-to-the-baptism-oversight-debate/#comment-7138 Steve Shelton Mon, 30 Nov 2009 01:35:43 +0000 http://sbcvoices.com/?p=1891#comment-7138 I do not believe that one can establish a line of succession for baptism. I still believe that as we look at the NT which is our only basis for faith, there is a pattern. The pattern being ministers of the Gospel connected with the Lord's church doing the baptism. In Matthew 28, you have the Lord giving the commisison to the Apostles who made up the ministry of the first church. In Acts, you have the apostles and the 70 who were sent out by the Lord Jesus Christ which most likely were part of the 120. Many believed and were baptized in Acts 2 and were added to the church Acts 8 you have Philip and the Ethiopian Eunch. Later on we have Philip described as an evangelist - minister of the gospel. You see in the book of Acts a pattern of folks believing the gospel message being baptized and added to the church. We don't have all the details but we have enough information by grouping everything together to see a pattern. I do not believe that one can establish a line of succession for baptism. I still believe that as we look at the NT which is our only basis for faith, there is a pattern. The pattern being ministers of the Gospel connected with the Lord’s church doing the baptism. In Matthew 28, you have the Lord giving the commisison to the Apostles who made up the ministry of the first church. In Acts, you have the apostles and the 70 who were sent out by the Lord Jesus Christ which most likely were part of the 120. Many believed and were baptized in Acts 2 and were added to the church Acts 8 you have Philip and the Ethiopian Eunch. Later on we have Philip described as an evangelist – minister of the gospel. You see in the book of Acts a pattern of folks believing the gospel message being baptized and added to the church. We don’t have all the details but we have enough information by grouping everything together to see a pattern.

]]> By: Dr. James Willingham http://sbcvoices.com/a-response-to-the-baptism-oversight-debate/#comment-7122 Dr. James Willingham Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:12:39 +0000 http://sbcvoices.com/?p=1891#comment-7122 One can build a case for the administrator out of what the Bible says, but the problem is how does one establish a justification for an individual administrator that can be traced back to the NT times without interruption? The answer is in another question: Does God establish visible and external links of transmission or is He more concerned with the spiritual and internal that truly reflect the eternal? One landmark situation I know finally led to that group ofchurches requiring that a persn had to be immersed only by a landmark minister in order for the baptism to be valid. One of the leading landmarkers of that day was in utter distress over that problem. I have heard of too many cases of head bashing (figuratively speaking) to care much for that approach. One of the acute elements in the process of transmission is that of humility, of humble lines of authority. Again, since baptism does not save, the administrator is not necessary to provide a delivery system for salvation. The difficulty with the demand is that we cannot prove it, and our principles of hermeneutics are too analytical like our scientific method to truly render us an absolute discernment. When you go back in Baptist history, you run smack into this trouble. Some people will baptize othrs without being immersed and authorized by some church first. There is some indicationsthat a few churches did try to achieve his, but there is not proof that that any one actually succeeded in establishing that their immersion went back to the first Church and to the Apostles. And Paul himself did not make much of who he had baptized (I Cors.1) and Peter said the main thing was the answer of a good conscience (I Pet.3). Landmarkism is an expression of desire for external security, ad it is doomed to frustrate the holder who sahll forever wonder if his or her baptism was always truly transmitted. Did you all know that Mr. Spurgeon baptized thousands, and he was never ordained? .-= Dr. James Willingham´s last blog ..<a href="http://thirdgreatawakeningcom.blogspot.com/2009/02/climax-of-reformation.html" rel="nofollow">The Climax of the Reformation</a> =-. One can build a case for the administrator out of what the Bible says, but the problem is how does one establish a justification for an individual administrator that can be traced back to the NT times without interruption? The answer is in another question: Does God establish visible and external links of transmission or is He more concerned with the spiritual and internal that truly reflect the eternal? One landmark situation I know finally led to that group ofchurches requiring that a persn had to be immersed only by a landmark minister in order for the baptism to be valid. One of the leading landmarkers of that day was in utter distress over that problem. I have heard of too many cases of head bashing (figuratively speaking) to care much for that approach. One of the acute elements in the process of transmission is that of humility, of humble lines of authority. Again, since baptism does not save, the administrator is not necessary to provide a delivery system for salvation. The difficulty with the demand is that we cannot prove it, and our principles of hermeneutics are too analytical like our scientific method to truly render us an absolute discernment. When you go back in Baptist history, you run smack into this trouble. Some people will baptize othrs without being immersed and authorized by some church first. There is some indicationsthat a few churches did try to achieve his, but there is not proof that that any one actually succeeded in establishing that their immersion went back to the first Church and to the Apostles. And Paul himself did not make much of who he had baptized (I Cors.1) and Peter said the main thing was the answer of a good conscience (I Pet.3). Landmarkism is an expression of desire for external security, ad it is doomed to frustrate the holder who sahll forever wonder if his or her baptism was always truly transmitted. Did you all know that Mr. Spurgeon baptized thousands, and he was never ordained?
.-= Dr. James Willingham´s last blog ..The Climax of the Reformation =-.

]]> By: Steve Shelton http://sbcvoices.com/a-response-to-the-baptism-oversight-debate/#comment-7103 Steve Shelton Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:58:06 +0000 http://sbcvoices.com/?p=1891#comment-7103 I have read over a few of your comments here on the issue of baptism. I just want to ask one question and it has to do with the issue of a right adminstrator. What about John the Baptist? The scriptures tell us John was a man sent from God (John 1:6) Later on in John 1 verse 36 we have these words: And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. Note the phrase in verse 36 "I knew him not but he that sent me to baptize with water" Do we not have authority here? John was sent by God to baptize. Jesus went to John to be baptized? Could Jesus have gone to someone else? I don't believe so. I believe we see here that the administrator is important. In Matthew 28:18 we have the apostles and Jesus says to them: "All power(right, authority) is given unto me, go ye and preached the gospel, baptize and teach to observe all things which I have commanded you.) Jesus told the Apostles to go and gave them authority. He goes on to says: I am with you until the end of the world or age. Was he speaking to them as individuals or as the first ministers of the first church. The Apostles died so it would seem that he was not speaking to them individually but rather as the ministers of the first church. Just some food for thought. I have read over a few of your comments here on the issue of baptism. I just want to ask one question and it has to do with the issue of a right adminstrator. What about John the Baptist? The scriptures tell us John was a man sent from God (John 1:6) Later on in John 1 verse 36 we have these words: And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
Note the phrase in verse 36 “I knew him not but he that sent me to baptize with water” Do we not have authority here? John was sent by God to baptize. Jesus went to John to be baptized? Could Jesus have gone to someone else? I don’t believe so. I believe we see here that the administrator is important. In Matthew 28:18 we have the apostles and Jesus says to them: “All power(right, authority) is given unto me, go ye and preached the gospel, baptize and teach to observe all things which I have commanded you.) Jesus told the Apostles to go and gave them authority. He goes on to says: I am with you until the end of the world or age. Was he speaking to them as individuals or as the first ministers of the first church. The Apostles died so it would seem that he was not speaking to them individually but rather as the ministers of the first church. Just some food for thought.

]]> By: Dr. James Willingham http://sbcvoices.com/a-response-to-the-baptism-oversight-debate/#comment-6433 Dr. James Willingham Fri, 02 Oct 2009 01:17:49 +0000 http://sbcvoices.com/?p=1891#comment-6433 The debate really needs to go back and reconsider how Baptists viewed the issue of baptism in the past. I have found many instances in Baptist History where ministers baptized people on their profession faith in Christ. A church in the 1600s and 1700s might decide to accept or reject a baptism, but usually that had to do with whether it was symbolic or salvific, The former was usually accepted; the latter was not. A few pel in the 16 & 1700s were concerned about the issue of the administrator (one of these was apparently Roger Williams), but generally the Baptists then thought anyone could immerse another on profession of faith. The concer with the administrator came into focus with J.R. Graves and the Landmark movement. .-= Dr. James Willingham´s last blog ..<a href="http://thirdgreatawakeningcom.blogspot.com/2009/02/climax-of-reformation.html" rel="nofollow">The Climax of the Reformation</a> =-. The debate really needs to go back and reconsider how Baptists viewed the issue of baptism in the past. I have found many instances in Baptist History where ministers baptized people on their profession faith in Christ. A church in the 1600s and 1700s might decide to accept or reject a baptism, but usually that had to do with whether it was symbolic or salvific, The former was usually accepted; the latter was not. A few pel in the 16 & 1700s were concerned about the issue of the administrator (one of these was apparently Roger Williams), but generally the Baptists then thought anyone could immerse another on profession of faith. The concer with the administrator came into focus with J.R. Graves and the Landmark movement.
.-= Dr. James Willingham´s last blog ..The Climax of the Reformation =-.

]]> By: Benji Ramsaur http://sbcvoices.com/a-response-to-the-baptism-oversight-debate/#comment-6381 Benji Ramsaur Mon, 28 Sep 2009 00:38:15 +0000 http://sbcvoices.com/?p=1891#comment-6381 Jugulum, "I would read 'baptized into the body' as 'inducted into the body by baptism'" That's seems to make sense to me. I guess my main concern is just taking the word "baptism" and then concluding that water baptism must be in view in some sense. I think there needs to be more evidence than that. I think that if we are going to say that water baptism is in view [in some sense] with the imagery in some Scripture, then the imagery of water baptim and the image in Scripture need to be consistent with one another. But I don't see how 1 Corinthians 12:13 contains imagery that is consistent with water baptism. .-= Benji Ramsaur´s last blog ..<a href="http://ncter.blogspot.com/2007/01/principles-of-faith-of-sandy-creek.html" rel="nofollow">Principles of Faith of The Sandy Creek Association-1816</a> =-. Jugulum,

“I would read ‘baptized into the body’ as ‘inducted into the body by baptism’”

That’s seems to make sense to me. I guess my main concern is just taking the word “baptism” and then concluding that water baptism must be in view in some sense.

I think there needs to be more evidence than that. I think that if we are going to say that water baptism is in view [in some sense] with the imagery in some Scripture, then the imagery of water baptim and the image in Scripture need to be consistent with one another.

But I don’t see how 1 Corinthians 12:13 contains imagery that is consistent with water baptism.
.-= Benji Ramsaur´s last blog ..Principles of Faith of The Sandy Creek Association-1816 =-.

]]> By: Jugulum http://sbcvoices.com/a-response-to-the-baptism-oversight-debate/#comment-6380 Jugulum Sun, 27 Sep 2009 21:29:37 +0000 http://sbcvoices.com/?p=1891#comment-6380 So you're reading "baptized into the body" like one would read "baptized in water" or "baptized with the Spirit"? As though "the body" is part of the immersion imagery? As though it's the medium we're baptized in? That seems questionable. You're not "immersed into" something. You're immersed <i>in or with or by</i> something, but not "into" something. I would read "baptized into the body" as "inducted into the body by baptism"--just like "married into the family" means "inducted into the family by marriage." So, Paul is either saying "we all joined the body by Spirit-baptism," or "we all joined the body by water-baptism, through the Spirit". But we don't have to force the two metaphors (baptism and "the body") together into one, just because they're next to each other in the sentence. But that's in English. I have no idea whether things would sound the same in Greek. .-= Jugulum´s last blog ..<a href="http://www.aglassdimly.com/2009/09/25/was-i-really-baptized-and-other-quibbling-questions/" rel="nofollow">“Was I Really Baptized?”, and Other (Quibbling?) Questions</a> =-. So you’re reading “baptized into the body” like one would read “baptized in water” or “baptized with the Spirit”? As though “the body” is part of the immersion imagery? As though it’s the medium we’re baptized in?

That seems questionable. You’re not “immersed into” something. You’re immersed in or with or by something, but not “into” something. I would read “baptized into the body” as “inducted into the body by baptism”–just like “married into the family” means “inducted into the family by marriage.”

So, Paul is either saying “we all joined the body by Spirit-baptism,” or “we all joined the body by water-baptism, through the Spirit”. But we don’t have to force the two metaphors (baptism and “the body”) together into one, just because they’re next to each other in the sentence.

But that’s in English. I have no idea whether things would sound the same in Greek.
.-= Jugulum´s last blog ..“Was I Really Baptized?”, and Other (Quibbling?) Questions =-.

]]> By: Matt Svoboda http://sbcvoices.com/a-response-to-the-baptism-oversight-debate/#comment-6377 Matt Svoboda Sun, 27 Sep 2009 16:44:29 +0000 http://sbcvoices.com/?p=1891#comment-6377 Just so you know... We were up 34-0 at halftime. Last week, LSU only beat them 31-3. lol-and LSU is in the top 5? WHAT! They barely beat Miss. St. Just so you know… We were up 34-0 at halftime. Last week, LSU only beat them 31-3. lol-and LSU is in the top 5? WHAT! They barely beat Miss. St.

]]> By: Dave Miller http://sbcvoices.com/a-response-to-the-baptism-oversight-debate/#comment-6375 Dave Miller Sun, 27 Sep 2009 12:13:09 +0000 http://sbcvoices.com/?p=1891#comment-6375 Against Louisiana-Lafayette School for Wayward Girls, right? .-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..<a href="http://iowayankees.blogspot.com/2009/09/yankees-tiethe-e-e-e-yankees-tie.html" rel="nofollow">Yankees Tie...The-e-e-e Yankees Tie!</a> =-. Against Louisiana-Lafayette School for Wayward Girls, right?
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Yankees Tie…The-e-e-e Yankees Tie! =-.

]]> By: Matt Svoboda http://sbcvoices.com/a-response-to-the-baptism-oversight-debate/#comment-6373 Matt Svoboda Sun, 27 Sep 2009 04:29:05 +0000 http://sbcvoices.com/?p=1891#comment-6373 This is the right place... BECAUSE the Huskers were also awesome tonight! This is the right place… BECAUSE the Huskers were also awesome tonight!

]]>