With one month to go on the Executive Committee’s fiscal year, it’s good to see that the national CP receipts are running about one million ahead of the same period last year. That’s only about one half of one percent but up is up. This is the national portion of the CP. It remains to be seen if the total CP, including the bulk of revenues which stay with state conventions, will be up for 2019.
The same Executive Committee report shows designated giving for the period as being $2.67 million behind last year which means that Lottie and Annie didn’t do quite as well this year as in 2018. Almost certainly the IMB will have less revenues for 2019 than 2018 even though the CP will be up a bit. Since IMB receives only about twenty cents on every CP dollar, those changes aren’t as critical as an increase or decrease in direct giving, almost all of that Lottie Moon offerings. It’s all important but if your church wants to prioritize international missions, don’t forget about the CP but put more dollars into Lottie Moon. The math is unassailable on this.
So why are we being lectured by some prominent people on baptizing people immediately? I’m all for having a big day of baptisms across the convention this coming Sunday. I would do my best to schedule any for this date. Pastors and churches may for a variety of reasons delay a baptism following a profession of faith. The idea that we fail to follow the New Testament if baptism is not immediate is not a well-founded idea. Not every pattern is a principle.
Thank God in this instance for the Calvinists who seems to value a serious and genuine conversion more than some. My practice was to be sure there was comprehension. Children were always a challenge in this regard. I think we are not far from spontaneous baptisms if we find a principle of immediate baptisms. Had an evangelist once who asked that the baptistry be filled with water so we could dunk on the spot. I refused. It was his stunt, not my pastoral decision. But, it’s your church’s decision, not mine.
But I’d be willing to amend the Baptist Faith and Message Statement to specify that eunuchs should be baptized immediately (As they were traveling down the road, they came to some water. The eunuch said, “Look, there’s water. What would keep me from being baptized?”). I’m a cooperative kind of pastor. I’d even expand the concept to include not just literal eunuchs but metaphorical eunuchs. We could put the CMBW in charge of identifying and seeing if they could get some of the latter saved and baptized. There are a multitude of these.
The SBC beats the Red Cross into disaster areas. This point made by a talk show host yesterday. About the only folks we are behind in this is Waffle House.
No Eunuchs but a handful of Ethiopians will be in church tomorrow.
You’ve missed the point entirely. It’s not that baptism must follow within minutes of conversion. The real point is that baptism should mark conversion and not it’s anniversary date. While baptism doesn’t save, it is, biblically, part of the conversion experience, and not left to be done when conversion is a distant memory. Baptism is a picture of the deep spiritual reality of our conversion that speaks to us by the experience far more powerfully than mere words can convey. But it was meant to be experienced when those spiritual realities to which it refers are still fresh in our minds. The intended impact is lessened if months go by in between.
Who is talking about months? We baptize the next week. But we certainly want to be sure there is understanding of what they are professing to believe
Jeff, a week seems reasonable.
“A week seems reasonable.”
Did they wait a week in the New T?
Are you the one who put conversion and immediate baptism together in the NT?
But now you appoint yourself a judge over your brothers?
If you advocate for doing like the NT church in Acts did, why is a week reasonable?
Is two weeks reasonable?
What isn’t reasonable?
On what grounds is a week reasonable?
Wow, Mike. Lay off the coffee for a while.
I don’t know that we can be dogmatic about this either way. Sometimes circumstances dictate the possibilities. Where we’ve lived, winter is long and harsh. We seem to see more conversions during this time of year, due to various circumstances. We have to wait until at least July or August before the local water hole is warm enough to stand. Also, baptism tends to mark the beginning of real persecution. We use the meantime to prepare new believers for this as well as we can. We’ve seen people back down from baptism at the last minute for fear of the repercussions. Sadly, these usually fall away and it’s probably better that they hadn’t passed through the waters on an emotional high, rather than a real commitment to follow Jesus. Those that do go through with it, though, are living stones, and having counted the cost, never look back. The time in between does nothing to lessen the impact. In this context, that is. Just wanted to add another perspective here. Thanks
I appreciate the perspective from a dominant non-Christian culture.
Baptized three people in the ocean in March one year. Water temp was probably upper 50’s. You dont realize how cold that is until you’re in it. When a kids lips turned blue, I learned my lesson, lol
Ken,
Baptism is a part of conversion, or as you put it, the conversion experience.
In fact, every time a person at my church gets baptized, I am reminded of my conversion experience.
Likewise the Gospel isnt just for sinners.
From conversion until going home to glory, we believers need the Gospel, as a reminder of what we once were, and as a pointer to te hope of our future bodily resurrection.
And baptism, even other’s baptisms, also do these things, since the Gospel accompanies each dunking.
As believers we need to be reminded that we are saved by grace and not by our works, That we were once enemies of Christ who have been brought near by His mercy.
And that we are to willing and eager to walk in obedience to God.
Baptism does not lose its power nor weaken in its purpose because one had to wait more than a week or two or three or even 6 months, etc.
Its impact is not determined by its timing but by the moving of the Spirit in the heart of the believer.
Yes, I think that all who can should be baptized sooner than later, yet sometimes sooner for some is much later than it is for others,
Let us walk in the freedom we have been graced with from God.
Mike,
I’m not the One who put conversion and baptism together as if they belonged together chronologically, not just soteriologically. Many baptisms are prescribed and recorded in the New Testament–and not one “candidate” had to wait very long.
Ken,
There is a difference between a historical narrative and written prescription for the church to act.
Many on various subjects desire to use Acts as a how to book for church life.
But it is not.
Note was it meant to be.
There are truths and principles to be gleaned of course to aid us but to copy exactly how they did something hamstrings the freedom of the Word itself. For we are told that we are not bound by law but in our freedom not to sin against others.
Since there is no direct command on when to baptize there is freedom.
I’m sure you can many other practices they did in Acts we don’t- for the most part – do now.
In fact weren’t even replicated by other NT churches.
Like selling all they had and evenly distributing it. They didn’t do that in Corinth.
No direct command then freedom.
There can be valid reasons to wait in some cases that weren’t so in the 1st century.
Not just understanding of salvation is needed but we need to have time to watch for genuine evidence of repentance. Otherwise we will have more false converts who think they are saved because they have been baptized.
Gordon, I’m confused about what you just said. Are you preaching that people are saved by baptism? If not, then where would they get that idea? Sounds like we need to change the teaching of the doctrine, not change the practice. Perhaps, then, we shouldn’t permit them to come forward and confess Christ, either, since people do get saved by that (if genuine), and we wouldn’t want false converts who think they are saved because they came forward and confessed Christ…
John the B told some who came to him to be baptized to first go and bring fruits of repentance.
Excellent point, Mike—the best point from the other side. But the difference between the pre-Christ baptism of repentance offered by John and the Christian baptism of rebirth-conversion—both in nature and in immediacy—weighs heavily against your application. It would be like putting new wine in old wine skins.
Question … how many wet lost people are running around out there for the sake of padding stats?
Noooobody knows. A considerable proportion of our members have undergone more than one baptism, though, I’d speculate.
Some years ago I received a study by the Home Mission Board’s Research Department. They studied baptisms in the SBC, and 60% were re-baptisms. These included church members who asked to be re-baptized and folks coming from other denominations.I don’t know if the research has been done again recently.
I’m torn on the whole immediate vs. prolonged examination period, but either way, I much prefer public baptisms to private ones, and to ones in the cozy confines of the heated sanctuary hot tub/pool.
I had the privilege of baptizing my second child in the local river this spring, and not only was the whole congregation in attendance, but numerous others who happened to be indulging in the water for recreational purposes. The coolest thing was the four Muslim men from Jordan were there, having a picnic on the bank, international students doing jpint training at Fort Leonard Wood. They actually knew one of the women from our church, as she runs a ministry for the international students to introduce them to rural American customs and culture, so they laid their lamb aside, and participated by watching the work of the True Lamb as my daughter professed her faith in the one Living and Triune God.
Immediate baptism or no, I’m thankful that the work of the Holy Spirit is what really performs our spiritual cleansing, and while the Didache prescribes a baptism in living or moving water, cold rather than warm (we were in a spring, so we met both accounts), I see the most important aspect of baptism is that the baptizan truly understands the action of being “now saved by baptism” to be purely a working of the Spirit within their soul. Quibbling over the immediacy or delay of water applied may have some merit, but the truest and purest of doctrine is that we understand WHY we doing it.
Ken,
I was wondering if you saw my post:
“A week seems reasonable.”
Did they wait a week in the New T?
Are you the one who put conversion and immediate baptism together in the NT?
But now you appoint yourself a judge over your brothers?
If you advocate for doing like the NT church in Acts did, why is a week reasonable?
Is two weeks reasonable?
What isn’t reasonable?
On what grounds is a week reasonable?”
See my reply above (and my last in this discussion).