Comments on: Diverse Baptists Debate: Church Oversight of Baptism- Foster’s Rebuttal of Miller http://sbcvoices.com/diverse-baptists-debate-church-oversight-of-baptism-fosters-rebuttal-of-miller/ Southern Baptist News & Opinion Wed, 08 Feb 2012 20:16:09 +0000 hourly 1 By: Dr. James Willingham http://sbcvoices.com/diverse-baptists-debate-church-oversight-of-baptism-fosters-rebuttal-of-miller/#comment-7140 Dr. James Willingham Mon, 30 Nov 2009 03:22:40 +0000 http://sbcvoices.com/?p=1893#comment-7140 Thee are two parts to the doctrine or concept of the church, namely, the local visible body of immersed believers (immersed on their profession of faith) and the spiritual, invisible, universal body of Christ into which believers are placed by the Holy Spirit's baptism. When I was a Landmarker, I kept running into the problem that every Landmarker seem to have his own explanation of I Cors.12:13. Graves, Carroll, and John R. Gilpin (a Landmarker leader in Ky in the 50s,60s, and 70s) disagreed among temselves as to how they would interpret that verse. Of course, except for Graves and Carroll, they were not contemporaries, so no one could suggest that they needed to work out their understanding to the point of agreement. For me, taking my cues from John Thornbury's work on the Church (which was based on E.C. Dargan's work (among others))(Thornbury is the father of Dr. Greg Thornbury of Union University), I came to the conclusion that if Paul and the believers of Corinth and "all that call upon the name of Jesus in every place" (I Cors.1) which includes all of us who believe today, then this body is the spiritual invisible body of Christ. The two-sided doctrine of the Church (along with other doctrines of the same nature) is what enables a believer to become balanced, flexible, creative, and magnetic. Our need in the chuch today is for people to get an understanding of the intellectual nature of the truths of the NT, truths designed to fit a twofold brain (right side and left side), setting up a tension in the mind, a tension that one finds beneficial and helpful, so that one can be objective (as in counseling) and assess the facts and subjective or warm and supporting when affirmation is called for. Over forty years ago I made out a list of two-sided truths in the Bible, e.g., Salvation as it involves Divine Sovereignty and human responsibility, worship as it involves formal and informal aspects, God as trinity and unity, God as immutable (unmoved) and changing (self moved) (I wrote a paper in Philosophy on the issue at the Univ. of South Carolina entitled, "Aristotle's Unmoved Mover and the Calvinistic Concept of God" and a paper at SEBTS under the historian, Dr. George Shriver, on the subject, "Aristotle's Unmoved Mover and the Augustinian Concept of Deity"). My answer in both papers was aimed at the accusation that Calvin and Sugustine borrowed their concept of God from Aristotle; they did not: they got their ideas from the Bible. It was an amazement to me to find out that the doctrines of the Bible were two-sided, apparently contradictory (they cannot be reconciled and were not intended to be reconciled). Such two-sided ideas fit our brains which are also two-sided, and thus they provide a tension in the mind, a tension whch one does not want to jettison, but a tension that gives one a sense of freedom to be flexible, to be able to see a truth in all of its fullness, to be able to think outside the box, when such thinking is necessary, and to arrive at a conclusion that better addresses a problem than a one-sided application of a truth would. It is the incongruity between the application and the expected result and the actual result that produces the anomalies which help us to make corrections, if we are willing to learn from such. Permit a contrast. Before the Primitive/Missioanry Baptist split, circa 1830, Baptists called other Protestants tei pedobaptist brethren. After the split they came to a point where they called one another the Antichrist!!!! The interesting thing about the period from 1740-1820 is that Baptists were committed to the Sovereign Grace theology in which all the doctrines were apparently two-sided an contradictory, and yet they implemented both sides of the teachings with the consequence that they could be balanced, flexible, creative and magnetic. That is why they were able to persuade General Baptists to become Particular Baptists, unite Separate and Regular Baptists, work with political leaders like Washington, Madison, Jefferson, and others in order to win the priceless jewel of religious liberty, call other protestant their pedobaptist brethren, evangelize in quantity and quality, esablish educational institutions, start one of the early antislavery movements (Friends of Humanity), employ educated and uneducated ministers together (their doctrine of ministerial qualifications was two-sided, involving education &/or illumination (a direct spiritual gift), initiate the Great Century of Missions and organize and work together to that end, establishing what is admittedly the largest Protestant Missionary force in the world. And they did all of this while in the ferment of debate, arguments over every thing they did. Dr. Leonard's paper about the ferment which cites an Episcopalian observer was right on target in describing the reality that existed. Howver, what the obsever missed was that this was a creative ferment, and the same might be the case today. Baptists might well be the true heirs of the NT church ad the proof might lie precisely in the ferment. After all, that was the situation in the first century as the letters of Paul and others indicate. Also ferment is indicative of the presence of leaven. Perhaps our situation today might be the precursor of a Third Great Awakening as the ferment described by Dr. Leonard certainly preceded the Second Great Awakening, while it followed the First Great Awakening. Such thoughts fill me with hope and trust that what the Lord has done before, He might well do again. The minister who spoke in our church today read David's Psalm in I Chronicles 16:8-36, where referene is made to "The word which He commanded, for a thousand generations."(vs.15 -NKJV), "the word which he commanded to a thouand generations."(KJV). Could that speak to the future? My prayer for a Third Great Awakening these past 36 years has in the past five years has been for an awakening for a thousand and one generations. After all the number of the saved in Heaven is a number no man can number, and who but for God could number the stars of Heaven or the sand by the sea shores of the world? Where are those bold enough to ask God for such an outcome? Thee are two parts to the doctrine or concept of the church, namely, the local visible body of immersed believers (immersed on their profession of faith) and the spiritual, invisible, universal body of Christ into which believers are placed by the Holy Spirit’s baptism. When I was a Landmarker, I kept running into the problem that every Landmarker seem to have his own explanation of I Cors.12:13. Graves, Carroll, and John R. Gilpin (a Landmarker leader in Ky in the 50s,60s, and 70s) disagreed among temselves as to how they would interpret that verse. Of course, except for Graves and Carroll, they were not contemporaries, so no one could suggest that they needed to work out their understanding to the point of agreement. For me, taking my cues from John Thornbury’s work on the Church (which was based on E.C. Dargan’s work (among others))(Thornbury is the father of Dr. Greg Thornbury of Union University), I came to the conclusion that if Paul and the believers of Corinth and “all that call upon the name of Jesus in every place” (I Cors.1) which includes all of us who believe today, then this body is the spiritual invisible body of Christ. The two-sided doctrine of the Church (along with other doctrines of the same nature) is what enables a believer to become balanced, flexible, creative, and magnetic. Our need in the chuch today is for people to get an understanding of the intellectual nature of the truths of the NT, truths designed to fit a twofold brain (right side and left side), setting up a tension in the mind, a tension that one finds beneficial and helpful, so that one can be objective (as in counseling) and assess the facts and subjective or warm and supporting when affirmation is called for. Over forty years ago I made out a list of two-sided truths in the Bible, e.g., Salvation as it involves Divine Sovereignty and human responsibility, worship as it involves formal and informal aspects, God as trinity and unity, God as immutable (unmoved) and changing (self moved) (I wrote a paper in Philosophy on the issue at the Univ. of South Carolina entitled, “Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover and the Calvinistic Concept of God” and a paper at SEBTS under the historian, Dr. George Shriver, on the subject, “Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover and the Augustinian Concept of Deity”). My answer in both papers was aimed at the accusation that Calvin and Sugustine borrowed their concept of God from Aristotle; they did not: they got their ideas from the Bible. It was an amazement to me to find out that the doctrines of the Bible were two-sided, apparently contradictory (they cannot be reconciled and were not intended to be reconciled). Such two-sided ideas fit our brains which are also two-sided, and thus they provide a tension in the mind, a tension whch one does not want to jettison, but a tension that gives one a sense of freedom to be flexible, to be able to see a truth in all of its fullness, to be able to think outside the box, when such thinking is necessary, and to arrive at a conclusion that better addresses a problem than a one-sided application of a truth would. It is the incongruity between the application and the expected result and the actual result that produces the anomalies which help us to make corrections, if we are willing to learn from such. Permit a contrast. Before the Primitive/Missioanry Baptist split, circa 1830, Baptists called other Protestants tei pedobaptist brethren. After the split they came to a point where they called one another the Antichrist!!!! The interesting thing about the period from 1740-1820 is that Baptists were committed to the Sovereign Grace theology in which all the doctrines were apparently two-sided an contradictory, and yet they implemented both sides of the teachings with the consequence that they could be balanced, flexible, creative and magnetic. That is why they were able to persuade General Baptists to become Particular Baptists, unite Separate and Regular Baptists, work with political leaders like Washington, Madison, Jefferson, and others in order to win the priceless jewel of religious liberty, call other protestant their pedobaptist brethren, evangelize in quantity and quality, esablish educational institutions, start one of the early antislavery movements (Friends of Humanity), employ educated and uneducated ministers together (their doctrine of ministerial qualifications was two-sided, involving education &/or illumination (a direct spiritual gift), initiate the Great Century of Missions and organize and work together to that end, establishing what is admittedly the largest Protestant Missionary force in the world. And they did all of this while in the ferment of debate, arguments over every thing they did. Dr. Leonard’s paper about the ferment which cites an Episcopalian observer was right on target in describing the reality that existed. Howver, what the obsever missed was that this was a creative ferment, and the same might be the case today. Baptists might well be the true heirs of the NT church ad the proof might lie precisely in the ferment. After all, that was the situation in the first century as the letters of Paul and others indicate. Also ferment is indicative of the presence of leaven. Perhaps our situation today might be the precursor of a Third Great Awakening as the ferment described by Dr. Leonard certainly preceded the Second Great Awakening, while it followed the First Great Awakening. Such thoughts fill me with hope and trust that what the Lord has done before, He might well do again. The minister who spoke in our church today read David’s Psalm in I Chronicles 16:8-36, where referene is made to “The word which He commanded, for a thousand generations.”(vs.15 -NKJV), “the word which he commanded to a thouand generations.”(KJV). Could that speak to the future? My prayer for a Third Great Awakening these past 36 years has in the past five years has been for an awakening for a thousand and one generations. After all the number of the saved in Heaven is a number no man can number, and who but for God could number the stars of Heaven or the sand by the sea shores of the world? Where are those bold enough to ask God for such an outcome?

]]> By: francis http://sbcvoices.com/diverse-baptists-debate-church-oversight-of-baptism-fosters-rebuttal-of-miller/#comment-6811 francis Fri, 30 Oct 2009 04:06:39 +0000 http://sbcvoices.com/?p=1893#comment-6811 In Dave’s paper he proposes that, “…the view that all valid baptisms must be performed under local church oversight may be argued from historic confessions, but not from scripture I agree with dave, and if my comments missrepresent what dave says i do appolagize. A beliver, like the ethiopian treasurer could be baptized by any qualified person, at any qualified site ( enough water to emerse) He or she is then free to joing any local congregation, or to move from one congregation to another. In The church, beliefs are not confined to a local group. The church must be a worldwide body of believers. If one is baptized into the church, he or she shold be able to attend any church service anywhere in the world, and here the truith. The "local church" concept is indeed traditional not scriptural. local congregation: YES local church: NO the church is one worldwide body In Dave’s paper he proposes that, “…the view that all valid baptisms must be performed under local church oversight may be argued from historic confessions, but not from scripture

I agree with dave, and if my comments missrepresent what dave says i do appolagize.

A beliver, like the ethiopian treasurer could be baptized by any qualified person, at any qualified site ( enough water to emerse)
He or she is then free to joing any local congregation, or to move from one congregation to another.
In The church, beliefs are not confined to a local group. The church must be a worldwide body of believers. If one is baptized into the church, he or she shold be able to attend any church service anywhere in the world, and here the truith.

The “local church” concept is indeed traditional not scriptural.
local congregation: YES
local church: NO
the church is one worldwide body

]]> By: “Was I Really Baptized?”, and Other (Quibbling?) Questions | Through A Glass, Dimly http://sbcvoices.com/diverse-baptists-debate-church-oversight-of-baptism-fosters-rebuttal-of-miller/#comment-6342 “Was I Really Baptized?”, and Other (Quibbling?) Questions | Through A Glass, Dimly Fri, 25 Sep 2009 21:16:36 +0000 http://sbcvoices.com/?p=1893#comment-6342 [...] Diverse Baptists Debate: Church Oversight of Baptism- Foster’s Rebuttal of Miller [...] [...] Diverse Baptists Debate: Church Oversight of Baptism- Foster’s Rebuttal of Miller [...]

]]> By: Bradley http://sbcvoices.com/diverse-baptists-debate-church-oversight-of-baptism-fosters-rebuttal-of-miller/#comment-6330 Bradley Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:21:39 +0000 http://sbcvoices.com/?p=1893#comment-6330 I have a question for those engaged in this debate (and anyone who wants to answer): How many people have you seen in your lifetime baptized *without* church oversight? Also ... I think that perhaps a more productive question to "debate" or have a meaningful dialogue over is this: If we assumed that this was a matter not addressed sufficiently by scripture, What would be the pro's and con's of baptizing with church oversight vs. baptizing without church oversight? In other words: Which Would Be Most Beneficial? Thoughts? .-= Bradley´s last blog ..<a href="http://theophilogue.wordpress.com/2009/09/24/feminist-theology-is-alive-and-well-a-critique-of-johnsons-book-she-who-is/" rel="nofollow">Feminist Theology is Alive and Well: A Critique of Johnson’s Book “She Who Is”</a> =-. I have a question for those engaged in this debate (and anyone who wants to answer): How many people have you seen in your lifetime baptized *without* church oversight?

Also … I think that perhaps a more productive question to “debate” or have a meaningful dialogue over is this: If we assumed that this was a matter not addressed sufficiently by scripture, What would be the pro’s and con’s of baptizing with church oversight vs. baptizing without church oversight? In other words: Which Would Be Most Beneficial?

Thoughts?
.-= Bradley´s last blog ..Feminist Theology is Alive and Well: A Critique of Johnson’s Book “She Who Is” =-.

]]> By: David Rogers http://sbcvoices.com/diverse-baptists-debate-church-oversight-of-baptism-fosters-rebuttal-of-miller/#comment-6329 David Rogers Thu, 24 Sep 2009 21:45:30 +0000 http://sbcvoices.com/?p=1893#comment-6329 No, I don't see "self-baptism" as being a good solution. All of the examples of baptism in the NT are of one person baptizing another. Also, the Great Commission uses "baptizing" in a transitive, not reflexive sense. No, I don’t see “self-baptism” as being a good solution. All of the examples of baptism in the NT are of one person baptizing another. Also, the Great Commission uses “baptizing” in a transitive, not reflexive sense.

]]> By: Robin Foster http://sbcvoices.com/diverse-baptists-debate-church-oversight-of-baptism-fosters-rebuttal-of-miller/#comment-6328 Robin Foster Thu, 24 Sep 2009 21:36:49 +0000 http://sbcvoices.com/?p=1893#comment-6328 David Please reread my post. The point is driven by the text. So, would you believe that if someone was saved in his house watching Billy Graham and baptized himsilf in the backyard pool, then that baptism should be accepted? David

Please reread my post. The point is driven by the text.

So, would you believe that if someone was saved in his house watching Billy Graham and baptized himsilf in the backyard pool, then that baptism should be accepted?

]]> By: David Rogers http://sbcvoices.com/diverse-baptists-debate-church-oversight-of-baptism-fosters-rebuttal-of-miller/#comment-6327 David Rogers Thu, 24 Sep 2009 21:08:46 +0000 http://sbcvoices.com/?p=1893#comment-6327 Robin, Though there is evidently a correlation between Spirit baptism and water baptism of some sort, I do not think, "letting the text drive the point," the fact that we are all baptized spiritually into the Universal Church necessarily means we are also baptized in water into a local church. Robin,

Though there is evidently a correlation between Spirit baptism and water baptism of some sort, I do not think, “letting the text drive the point,” the fact that we are all baptized spiritually into the Universal Church necessarily means we are also baptized in water into a local church.

]]> By: Robin Foster http://sbcvoices.com/diverse-baptists-debate-church-oversight-of-baptism-fosters-rebuttal-of-miller/#comment-6325 Robin Foster Thu, 24 Sep 2009 20:49:36 +0000 http://sbcvoices.com/?p=1893#comment-6325 Gotcha bro. .-= Robin Foster´s last blog ..<a href="http://sbctoday.com/2009/09/23/podcast-episode-9/" rel="nofollow">Podcast Episode 9</a> =-. Gotcha bro.
.-= Robin Foster´s last blog ..Podcast Episode 9 =-.

]]> By: Dave Miller http://sbcvoices.com/diverse-baptists-debate-church-oversight-of-baptism-fosters-rebuttal-of-miller/#comment-6324 Dave Miller Thu, 24 Sep 2009 20:37:25 +0000 http://sbcvoices.com/?p=1893#comment-6324 Just wanted to clarify that I was understanding you properly. .-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..<a href="http://iowayankees.blogspot.com/2009/09/three-big-outs.html" rel="nofollow">Three Big Outs</a> =-. Just wanted to clarify that I was understanding you properly.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Three Big Outs =-.

]]> By: Robin Foster http://sbcvoices.com/diverse-baptists-debate-church-oversight-of-baptism-fosters-rebuttal-of-miller/#comment-6323 Robin Foster Thu, 24 Sep 2009 20:24:42 +0000 http://sbcvoices.com/?p=1893#comment-6323 Dave I feel I am rehashing what I have already stated. Whether spiritual or water, shouldn't the water ordinance represent the spiritual reality? .-= Robin Foster´s last blog ..<a href="http://sbctoday.com/2009/09/23/podcast-episode-9/" rel="nofollow">Podcast Episode 9</a> =-. Dave

I feel I am rehashing what I have already stated. Whether spiritual or water, shouldn’t the water ordinance represent the spiritual reality?
.-= Robin Foster´s last blog ..Podcast Episode 9 =-.

]]>