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 disciples around the world is not valid.
In contrast to this, I think Dave is saying that Christ’s words do apply to the scattered universal church.
Do you guys think this is a fair way of looking at the difference in your understanding?
God Bless,
Benji
.-= Benji Ramsaur´s last blog ..Principles of Faith of The Sandy Creek Association-1816 =-.
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 of that one church. There is also the local church (house fellowships in the NT) where most of the actual Christian work was done.
As I see it (and Robin, I’m not trying to put words in your mouth – open to correction), I see the GC being given essentially to all these entities; universal, city and local. Robin sees the GC as being given to the local church only.
Ecclesiology is a difficult task.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..An ANGELic Series =-.
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 500 or more persons involved, there was just one local church present when the GC was given. That one local church was, at that moment, comprised of the same human beings as constituted the Church Universal.
The Church Universal and the one and only Church Local in existence (at the time) received the GC at the very same and exact moment.
After Pentecost and later the Diaspora local churches sprang up like weeds. (all in God’s design) The City Church paradigm may very well have been part of the growth structure of local churches.
cb
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” or “I am building [up] my church”. However, He did not say that.
3. John’s completed set of works [John, 1-2-3 John, Revelation] says nothing about the ekklesia until after Pentecost took place in history.
4. One of the images of the church is that the church is the Sanctuary of God where the Spirit dwells. If the Spirit had not come yet, then there is no Sanctuary of God where the Spirit dwells.
Grace to you,
Benji
.-= Benji Ramsaur´s last blog ..Principles of Faith of The Sandy Creek Association-1816 =-.
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 different ecclesiological paradigm than would I and (I think) Robin or Dave. Naturally, your position here will be different than any of the three of us. We would have to debate the essence of ecclesiology in general before we could ever debate the authority of baptism in particular. At the moment, the debate is on biblical positions of authority for baptism, if I am not mistaken. David Rogers and I kept our dialogue strictly to that topic over at SBC TODAY on Podcast 3. I think we made some “yardage” relating to the authority for baptism from a biblical perspective by doing as we did.
Therefore, please know I am not avoiding you. I am just wanting to debate the one subject of baptism in particular without discussing various paradigms of ecclesiology in general, at this juncture because, I think, this post/posts are related only to baptism. Naturally, I could be wrong. (as often is the case).
cb
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 her birthday in Acts 2.
For example, Millard Erickson holds the same position and I have never heard anyone say he held to New Covenant Theology [even though that does not necessarily mean that he doesn’t].
So, I guess what I am saying is that my position is a part of NCT, but one does not necessarily have to hold to NCT in order to hold to my position.
Anyway, I hope that helps. I might not comment anymore today anyway. Sunday is coming :). Again, thank you for your kind comment.
God Bless,
Benji
.-= Benji Ramsaur´s last blog ..Principles of Faith of The Sandy Creek Association-1816 =-.
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 to share a common cup. The way we do LS today may not be ideal, but that does not make it invalid. Just because we do not do things according to the ideal does not make them invalid.
It would seem to me that the norm is probably that baptism takes place in the Christian community. But a baptism like the one in the scenario I mentioned above, is not invalidated just because the circumstances are not ideal. I think jugulum’s analogy is worth some examination.
2) My second thought has to do with the hermeneutics and scriptural evidence in this debate. I am convinced that my view is completely in line with the clear teachings of the GC, of the book of Acts and the epistolary teachings on baptism. Robin has the same assurance.
On some things, we Baptists all agree. Baptism follows conversion, it is done by immersion and it must be a symbol and testimony of salvation, not a saving act itself. These are crucial to our view and these should not be compromised by Baptists.
However, issues like the one we have been discussing are important, but it is clear that even Bible-believing Baptists have sharp disagreements on these issues.
I do not think we should divide or break fellowship on these issues. Perhaps I am laying the groundwork for our next debate (over eternal security and baptism – maybe I should keep my powder dry, Robin). I do not think anyone should be excluded from fellowship or service in the SBC because of disagreements over the kind of issue we are discussing today.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..An ANGELic Series =-.
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. But who among us does not stand on someone else’s shoulders. I for one am glad of the robust tradition on the deity of Christ, the Trinity and the whole Reformation. These men made my way easier, though I must still measure what they have said but the Word.
Whether Dave needs a remedial course in systematic theology, I will leave for others to decide. My point was then and remains, do not be so quick to dismiss our brethren of the past. They thought long and hard and wrote abundantly about our ordinances. We are not plowing new ground here. We have at least some obligation to consider why our honored brethren thought the way they did. As I said, they were also “people of the Book.”
Blessings
Jeff Straub
P.S. For what its worth, the Baptist movement wrestled with baptismal authority from the very beginning. John Smyth at first baptized himself and then recanted that baptism over precisely this issue. Among the Particulars, John Spilsbury argued that authority could not be established while others sent Richard Blount to Holland the receive an authorized baptism. As I said, this is not new ground here. In this case, putting our hands to the plow and looking back might actually be a good thing! Before we start plowing, we might consider whether the field has already been plowed by someone else!
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 observe all that I have commanded) thereby negating church autonomy to elect their own teachers? If there is no distinction in this then you should be willing to allow anyone to come in your church, without church approval, to teach, baptize or go on behalf of your church. Under your idea of who the great commission is addressed, there is no need for membership approval in the local context since anyone can teach, baptize, and go without a local church’s blessing.
In your second comment, I did not claim biblically that Philip had gotten approval to baptize. I said it was an open matter not dealt with in scripture. Second, the text does not say Ananias baptized Paul. There is no evidence of that. In my rebuttal, I explain that we are adding to scripture, even though it may be true, that Ananias baptized Paul. This is similar to me saying that the church gathered for the baptism since they probably had to go where there was water. Either way we are arguing from silence. One thing that isn’t silent is the fact that Paul was commissioned to do the work the Lord had for him.
In your third item concerning the Greek of 1 Timothy 3:15, I give an example from Ray Summers, “Essentials of New Testament Greek Revised” concerning the absence of an article. If I was to translate 1 Thess. 4:15 in the manner in which you translated 1 Tim. 3:15, it would read, “For this we say to you by “a” word of “a” Lord,” instead of how it does read, “For this we say to you by the word of the Lord.” Summers goes on to say, “A good guide in translating is: Whenever the article is present the object is definite; when it is absent, it may be definite or indefinite.”(153) If I was to use your reasoning for concluding that the word “the” was wrongly inserted and an “a” should have been, the second half of 1 Tim 3:15 would go like this, “which is “a” church of “a” living God, a pillar and foundation of the truth.” I may not know you very well Dave, but I would guess that you would not want to use that translation even if the ESV used it. ? But this is not what my argument was about. The fact of the matter is that the church is “the (a) pillar and support of truth.” In other words, the church cannot negate its responsibility in matters of defending and practicing truth. She must uphold the truth in word and practice.
Concerning your fourth point, thanks for clarifying that I did not say that Acts was transitional. While in some ways I would have to agree with that statement (for example: pastors and deacons did not come around till much later as the church was growing and needed to accommodate that growth), I prefer to think of the book of Acts as a narrative telling the big picture on how the church was birthed, grew out of infancy, and later came to infiltrate the world. Every detail cannot be expounded.
I look forward to our next debate and have thoroughly enjoyed this one. Again, I hope that the Lord is glorified in what you and I have done. God Bless!
.-= Robin Foster´s last blog ..Podcast Episode 9 =-.
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 past president of a (small) state convention. I consider myself a faithful Southern Baptist. We practice open communion and accept baptism by immersion of believers from other denominations, even those who have some theology we disagree on. I don’t have to convince anyone to accept my viewpoint as long as you do not force me to adopt yours to be a Southern Baptist in good standing.
That’s my concern. Oh, I’m a dogmatic cuss and I am competitive about my arguments (duh?). But my fundamental concern is that the SBC would not move to push folks with these views to the fringe.
Uh-oh, did I bring up the “narrowing-of-parameters” issue? Oops. Sorry.
Going back to the Yankees/Red Sox game!
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..An ANGELic Series =-.
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 live in a post-modern world where everything is up for grabs.”
“Whether Dave needs a remedial course in systematic theology, I will leave for others to decide.”
“Yikes! Dave needs a good course in theology. ”
Grace to you,
Benji
.-= Benji Ramsaur´s last blog ..Principles of Faith of The Sandy Creek Association-1816 =-.
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 J. Clyde Turner
11. “A Church Organized and Functioning” by W.L. Howse and W.O. Thomason
12. “What Baptists Believe” by O.C.S. Wallace
13. “Baptist Distinctives” by W.R. White
14. “The Baptist Faith” by E.Y. Mullins & H.W. Tribble
15. “What We Believe” by William Cooke Boone
16. “Our Baptist Heritage” by J. Clyde Turner
17. “The Nature And Functions Of A Church” by Harold K. Graves
18. “A Short Treatise Concerning a True and Orderly Gospel Church” by Benjamin Griffith
19. Access to the internet which contains first generation Particular Baptist works [praise the Lord!], John Gill, J.R. Graves, etc.
Do any of these works contain the systematic theology that you agree with?
.-= Benji Ramsaur´s last blog ..Principles of Faith of The Sandy Creek Association-1816 =-.
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 the body [1 Corinthians 12:13].
.-= Benji Ramsaur´s last blog ..Principles of Faith of The Sandy Creek Association-1816 =-.
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 =-.
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 =-.
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 immersions” and were evidently rejected by most Southern Baptists in the 19th century and into the 20th. Of course many today will likewise reject these immersions, although it is rarer than in the past, just as with the related issue of close communion.
But what about churches today that don’t practice infant baptism but which are not dogmatic when it comes to the mode of baptism? Are immersions by those churches invalid? Examples would be the Church of the Nazarene, the Wesleyan Church (where I was baptized, personally holding to eternal security at that time) the Assembly of God, the Evangelical Free churches, etc. Quite often congregations in these churches are quite baptistic in their practice, although latitude is sometimes granted by the denomination to allow for other modes of baptism or even for paedobaptism. One might also include independent Bible churches that like the Ev Free do not tie baptism to church membership the way that Baptists do.
All of the above churches with the exception of the EV Free and the Bible churches are descended from Methodism historically and do not hold to eternal security, which is why I thought it fit in with the next debate as much or moreso than this one.
When I give the facts of my case to Southern Baptists, most will tell me that they would not require me to be rebaptized, but I have read some recent writings that suggest that immersions by churches like those I note above ought to be rejected because the church doesn’t believe in eternal security, or perhaps because similar churches will accept sprinkling or often will not require those who were sprinkled as infants to be baptized as a prerequisite for membership. The issue in that case is the authority of the baptizer, which relates to this post as well. Even if the baptism is done under church oversight, is it invalid because of the views of the church–conditional security and/or not being dogmatic on baptism? In that case, would this not be viewed as a true church? It seems to me that the latter conclusion would be inescapable if the immersions are rejected.
To think a bit ahead, it seems that the requirement that the church hold to eternal security (which I think is a very important doctrine) for their immersions to be considered valid appears to me (and to many others) to be novel. But as I note in my most recent blog post, just because something appears to be new doesn’t mean that it is necessarily invalid. But it should definitely be subjected to scrutiny.
.-= Chris Poe´s last blog ..Dismissing Dispensationalism for the Wrong Reasons =-.
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 believe there is a valid baptism.
Others would say that the theology of the church or the administrator of baptism is important. I do not believe that.
That is what drew me into blogging several years ago – those policies at the IMB which I still disagree with. I shouldn’t speak for Robin, but I think that he believes that the policies are a good thing.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Yankees Tie…The-e-e-e Yankees Tie! =-.
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 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 =-.
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.
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 =-.
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.
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.