Thanks to Robin Foster and all who have participated in this debate – especially those who agreed with me! I have been disappointed only by the cruel comments that Doug Hibbard made about the New York Yankees, but I am trying to work through my feelings against him. Other than that ugly episode, it has been an encouraging inauguration of this debate series.
Observations
1) Blogging has a tendency to magnify our differences. I am convinced that we are not as far apart on this issue as our rhetoric might make it appear. I do not say that church oversight is never appropriate and those arguing for church oversight have not advocated a draconic authoritarianism. As I said to Scott Gordon in the comment stream, I think that our practice may conform more similar than our rhetoric.
2) Our disagreements seem to be based on our assumptions and conclusions on different passages. It is hard to know if our assumptions on these passages color our view of baptism, or our view of baptism colors our assumptions on these passages.
3) I practice a strong measure of influence and oversight over those I baptize. When they come to me, I question them about their understanding of salvation by grace and the meaning of baptism. The issue is, I believe, which baptisms would you reject? When would you tell someone that their baptism was not valid and demand that they be rebaptized to be a part of your fellowship?
Imagine the scenario I presented in the comment stream. A man leads his best friend to faith in Christ. He is a member of your church but is not involved in leadership (staff, deacons, etc). Moments after he led his friend to faith in Christ, they went to the local pool where he publicly testified to his faith in baptism. Now, the newly converted (and still damp) man wants to present himself for membership in your church.
Do you accept him, or do you demand he be baptized again in front of the church? Are all Christians authorized to baptize converts, or only those appointed and authorized by the church?
I remained convinced that the baptism above was a valid baptism. To me, there are three essentials for a valid baptism: time (after salvation), method (by immersion) and meaning (symbolic, not salvific). The other issues (who did the baptism and that person’s theology, for instance) are not insignificant, but they are not determinative of a valid baptism.
4) It is undeniable that interpreting Acts can be tricky. But to simply say, “Acts is transitional” and by that ignore its teachings seems to be a very convenient hermeneutic. I can negate any teachings I don’t like by dismissing them as transitional. Robin did not do this, but this reasoning did appear in the comment stream.
Robin’s Post
I would make the following observations of Robin’s original post.
1) I admit and agree that the Great Commission to make disciples is a plural command. However, I still think it is a leap hermeneutically to base local church oversight on that fact. I see the command as addressed to the universal church, not a particular local church, since Jesus addressed those who were apostles for all Christians. The command to make disciples is addressed to all believers – the entire Body of Christ. This may be one of those where our view of baptism tends to determine our interpretation of this passage. But to me, it is more faithful to the text to assign this command to the universal Body rather than a local church.
2) Robin claimed that Philip and Paul were authorized by their local churches to perform baptisms. I would say two things to this. One, I do not think that answers the issue. They still did not get individual approval or oversight for the individual baptism. But, most important, there are instances in which there is a local church and yet no oversight is mentioned. Ananias did not seek church approval before Paul’s baptism (from the evidence we have). Peter convinced the skeptical church only after baptizing Cornelius. There was a nascent local church when the Philippian jailer was baptized, but Paul did not take time to seek their approval to baptize.
3) Robin may be drawing more from 1 Timothy 3:15 than exegesis would authorize. He uses the translation which says that the church is “the pillar and ground of the truth.” However, the ESV translates this clause as “a pillar and buttress of the truth.” I believe that the Greek would support the ESV reading, as both nouns here are anarthrous. In other words, Paul is not claiming that the church is the exclusive “pillar and ground” of all truth – that is an over-interpretation.
4) Robin says, “Finally, while each of us individually has the Spirit, the mission of Christ and the life of a believer were never meant to be expressed in independent isolation apart from the accountability and encouragement of His body.” I heartily agree with that. We may differ on exactly how that accountability and encouragement is expressed, but not on the significance of the local church.
Historical Theology
Jeff Straub, an associate professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Seminary in suburban Minneapolis suggested I get remedial theological training. Some who have sat under my preaching through the years might make the same request. I am not qualified to debate Dr. Straub on the finer points of historical theology, but I would point out that while my view is a minority view among Baptists historically, there has never been complete unanimity among Baptists on these issues (which he admitted). Second, we are people of the Book, not of the history books. We can learn from the greats of the Baptist faith, but our truth is formed from the interpretation of scripture.
I appreciate Robin for his participation and all who have joined the debate.
Dave and Robin, I have a question for both of you. Do you think it would be fair to say that the difference in your understanding of Matthew 28:19-20 is not so much related to “plural vs. singular”, but “gathered vs. scattered”? In other words, both of you agree that Christ spoke His words to disciples [plural]. However, I think Robin would say that since these apostles were gathered and since the apostles are connected to the local church, then Christ’s words apply to gathered disciples [i.e., the local church] today. Hence, the idea of Christ’s words applying to scatteredd… Read more »
I guess that sums it up pretty well. I think that the Apostles did not just represent the Jerusalem church. They were the foundation for all churches. At sbcIMPACT I wrote an article called “My Three Churches” examining the way I see the word ekklesia used in the NT. It is used to describe the “universal” church – all God’s people of all the world. It is also used to describe the whole church of a city, what is often called the “city-church.” Sioux City has one church and all of us in this city who are saved are part… Read more »
Dave, The City Church paradigm is interesting. David Rogers has written of this. Yet, you go beyond the day and time of the Great Commission when it was given by Christ in using it (City Church paradigm) to develop your argument. There were no “city churches” at the time of Christ giving the GC. Yet, there was one Church Universal (and forever will be). And obviously, because local churches are composed of human beings, as is/was the Church Universal, there was, at the time of the giving of the GC, one local church. Be the number 11 or up to… Read more »
Dave,
As to the City Church paradigm and David’s article; I read it with a scornful eye at first. Later it became more and more interesting. After having looked at it more, I have come to the conclusion that it strengthens the idea of the Church Local receiving the GC at the same time as the Church Universal. The City Church paradigm seems, to me, to be part of the development of the early Church Universal as it was manifested on earth as “living organisms” (local churches) to fulfill the GC.
cb
Dave,
Are you sure that Robin sees the GC as being given to the Church Local only?
If so, I want to declare a Black Flag position and fight with “both of you” to the death. 🙂
cb
CB, I believe I am in agreement with both Dave and Robin on the following point. I don’t think any Christian ekklesia [in any sense] was in existence when Christ spoke His words in Matthew 28:19-10. Here are my reasons why: 1. Luke’s two volume work [Luke & Acts] says nothing about ekklesia until after Pentecost. 2. Matthew mentions ekklesia three times and one of those times communicates that the ekklesia would be future–”I WILL build my church” Jesus said. Jesus sent His disciples out to preach during His earthly ministry. He could have said “I am building my church”… Read more »
That is my understanding, though I am open to clarification. As I understand it, this is the root of the entire discussion of church oversight.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Pass in the Song Books =-.
Benji, I have great respect for you as a brother in the faith. I have read many of your comments and often agree with you, especially when you make an appeal for us to love one another as directed by Christ in the NT. I must confess, I struggle with loving my brother as I ought. I make the above qualifying statement in hope that you will understand my next comment and know that I am not speaking with animosity or ridicule toward you. Benji, you are a proponent of New Covenant Theology. Therefore, you hold to almost a completely… Read more »
I guess I’ve got to figure out what New Covenant Theology is. Not sure what that means.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Pass in the Song Books =-.
After all, according to Jeff, I’m a moron!
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Pass in the Song Books =-.
Dave,
Then, I must also wait for clarification from Robin as to my question.
Also, I am about to witness the skinning of Hogs at the capable hands of the SABANATION. Pork B-B-Q is on the grill. Therefore, catch you guys later. Victory is at hand. Dave, what I am talking about is “football.” I realize that you are a t a disadvantage in such a conversation, being as you are not a dweller within the SEC KINGDOM and know nothing of our beloved sport. 🙂
cb
I’m not as confident as my Hawkeyes make their way into Happy Valley tonight.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Pass in the Song Books =-.
CB, I appreciate your gentle and loving comment. I know that I comment on the new commandment [John 13:34-35], but I hope that I will not just talk the talk, but walk the walk. Please pray that I will. This is the idea I was commenting off of when you said ” Be the number 11 or up to 500 or more persons involved, there was just one local church present when the GC was given.” I don’t think one necessarily has to hold to New Covenant Theology [though I do] to hold the position that the Christian church had… Read more »
There are a couple of thoughts I had that derived from comments made on our original debate. 1) Jugulum made an interesting analogy from the practice of the Lord’s Supper. It is clear that one of the key symbols of the practice of the Lord’s supper is the common cup and common loaf. Everyone took from one loaf and drank from one cup – signifying the unity of the Body of Christ. Today, a common loaf is not too practical in a church of any size and in the day of H1N1 it might be very difficult to get anyone… Read more »
While I would certainly stand by my statements regarding the Evil Empire, I certainly wouldn’t break fellowship with someone over it.
I figure if we’re going to fight, let’s fight over trivialities. Of course, this coming from a guy whose team hasn’t made the playoffs in a few years, and won’t make it this year either. At least when Fruitcake Turner own the Braves, he paid for a winner.
.-= Doug Hibbard´s last blog ..Thoughts today, September 23 =-.
Dave wrote: “Second, we are people of the Book, not of the history books. We can learn from the greats of the Baptist faith, but our truth is formed from the interpretation of scripture.” Yes this is true. But I would remind you and all the readers of this blog that our Baptist forebearers were also “people of the Book.” Unlike us, they had no history books from which to draw their conclusions . . . they used their Bibles. Should we not at least consider what they had to say and why? Certainly the Bible is our final authority.… Read more »
Jeff,
While certainly understand your point and agree with you to a degree. We need to also realize that every Presbyterian could use the argument you just used to support infant Baptism. Yes, listen to what the saints of old had to say because they did think and study over these things… But we are also thinknig and studying over these things and while Luther, Calvin, etc had a lot right it is our belief they were dead wrong on Baptism. Same could be with the Baptists of old that held to church oversight.
My concern Jeff, is that some, in discussing matters like these, act as if the testimony of history is definitive. My understanding of church history would lead me to say that no segment of the church in history has had a monopoly on truth, that each segment had its need for correction. We can learn from those who wrestled with these issues in history, but we must wrestle with them ourselves as well.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..An ANGELic Series =-.
Dave Thanks for the response. I would like to address some issues you have presented about my response. In your first comment you said, “…it is more faithful to the text to assign this command to the universal Body rather than a local church.” It would help me if you tell me what you mean by “universal Body.” I am assuming you mean the universal church. But if it is the universal body, are you allowing for others outside the local church to come in and tell another local church what to do or what to observe (teaching them to… Read more »
At some point, I guess we have to leave it at that – we read certain scriptures differently, and thereby view baptism differently (or view baptism differently therefore read certain scriptures differently – who knows?) I think my ultimate purpose in all this goes back to why I got into blogging in the first place. I don’t think the scriptures are clear enough on these issues to make them a point of mandatory doctrine for those who would be Baptists. I am a lifelong Southern Baptist, grad of an SBC college and seminary, pastor of four SBC churches, and a… Read more »
Jeff Straub, Personally, I think it would have been more helpful to the conversation for you to have provided out of the over “1,500” words of yours in the two comment streams either: A. This systematic theology you agree with [you informed me that “This discussion would take longer than I have to invest.”]. or B. Some references where folks might read what you are talking about for themselves. Instead of making comments like this in relation to Dave: “I got chided for suggesting that Dave needs a course in Baptist theology . . . What can I say. We… Read more »
Jeff, I have: 1. “Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches” by John S. Hammett [my former systematic theology professor]. 2. “Restoring Integrity in Baptist Churches” by Thomas White, Jason G. Duesing, and Malcolm B. Yarnell III. 3. “A Treatise on Church Order” by John L. Dagg 4. “Christian Theology” by Millard J. Erickson 5. “Import of Ekklesia (church)” by James P. Boyce 6. “The B.H. Carroll Collection” 7. “The New Testament Doctrine of the Church” by J. Clyde Turner 8. “Our Doctrines” by Harold W. Tribble 9. “The Doctrines of our Faith” by E.C. Dargan 10. “These Things We Believe” by… Read more »
Of course! Several . . . but you must realize that I don’t even agree with myself all the time 😎
JS
I just read Grudem for my devotionals!
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Pass in the Song Books =-.
I wanted to give this reason for why I do not believe water baptism is in view [in any sense] in 1 Corinthians 12:13. Water baptism is immersion through which someone comes up out of the water. The text cited above says we are baptized *into* the body. However, there is nothing in that text that says we are to “come up out of” the body. Of course not. Once we are in the body of Christ, then we do not come out. We stay in. We come out of death [Romans 6; Colossians 2]. We don’t come out of… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
I have a question about so-called alien immersion i.e. immersions performed in non-Baptist churches like the Church of the Nazarene, etc. While it has some application here (i.e. the argument that churches that aren’t fully baptistic aren’t churches at all and thus baptisms there would be without proper oversight) I’m guessing that it might be better to raise it during the next debate over baptism and eternal security.
.-= Chris Poe´s last blog ..Note on Baptist Why and Why Not =-.
You are probably right that it will fit in with the next debate, but go ahead and ask it now.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Yankees Tie…The-e-e-e Yankees Tie! =-.
Well, let’s see if I can come up with something coherent without chasing too many rabbit trails. I’ll try to come up with a specific question as well. 🙂 My question relates to the IMB guidelines of a few years ago. It seems to me that with the diversity and number of different evangelical churches and denominations today, the situation that confronts Baptists certainly has more variables than what you had in the 19th century, when you would have had Catholics, various paedobaptist Protestant churches, and then newer groups like Campbellites, Mormons, etc. Immersions by paedobaptist churches were called “alien… Read more »
Obviously, this is one where we are going to have some serious disagreements amongst us – I think that Robin and I would give opposing answers here. That is the kind of thing we are going to be debating next. To me, there are three issues that matter that make a baptism valid. First, it must follow conversion. Second, it must be by immersion. Third, it must symbolize the death and resurrection of Christ (romans 6:4) . It cannot be seen as a saving act or a requirement for salvation (Church of Christ, etc). If these are in place, I… Read more »
Ultimately, I believe that whether to receive baptisms such as you mentioned should be a local church decision and should not be codified in the BF&M and should not be codified as they were at the IMB.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Yankees Tie…The-e-e-e Yankees Tie! =-.
I know this is the wrong place to say this, but HOW ‘BOUT THEM HAWKEYES!!
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Yankees Tie…The-e-e-e Yankees Tie! =-.
This is the right place… BECAUSE the Huskers were also awesome tonight!
Against Louisiana-Lafayette School for Wayward Girls, right?
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Yankees Tie…The-e-e-e Yankees Tie! =-.
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.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »