This rebuttal is only my attempt to challenge Dave Miller’s thoughts and theological understanding concerning the church’s responsibility to oversee baptism. I appreciate what he has written and hope that further debates over essential doctrines in the Southern Baptist Convention can be as cordial as ours.
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 beg to differ in that to argue against church oversight of Baptism is to make scripture say what it is not addressing or revealing, especially in the narrative portions Dave addresses. In his recounting of the narrative book of Acts, support for a lack of church oversight is argued from silence. Concerning Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch, as argued in my original essay, the point of the story was not a theological treatise concerning baptismal oversight by the church. It was to tell the story of how the church began to expand outside of Jerusalem. What is to say that Philip was not commissioned by the church to evangelize? He was known as an evangelist and was part of the original seven who served as an early form of deacons. It is hard to think that Philip left Jerusalem without being blessed by the church concerning his plans. But that too is not in the text. So to argue from either vantage point using these texts is to argue from silence even though there is a slight whisper of Philip being commissioned to do so as revealed in him being part of the original seven deacons and his position as an evangelist.
In Acts 9, addition to scripture happens again as Dave declares that Saul was “immediately” baptized. It only states that Saul was baptized. If it were immediately, as Dave notes, would the house Saul was staying at have a pool in which to do so (an unlikely item for a first century Damascus house)? The time frame is not given leaving open the possibility that the Damascus church (probably small at this time) could have gathered for the witnessing of Saul’s baptism. Every detail was not recorded as evidenced in Acts 22:16 with further dialog of Ananias given by Paul as he testified before the Jews. Could it be that Saul’s connection to the church in baptism was not recorded because it was not necessary to the story? Once again, to press this narrative into denying church oversight is to make it address something that it was not intended to do. The same is true with Paul, Lydia, and the Philippian jailer. Paul, being commissioned by the church in Antioch had the responsibility to carry out baptism on behalf of the church in Antioch. To use a hermeneutic on these scriptures that injects a denial of church authority in baptism is the same as supposing that Lydia and Paul engaged in an affair since it is not specifically denied. Again, while narratives can and do provide theological insights, they are not meant to press every theological underpinning.
Concerning being baptized into the church, Dave makes a grave error when he says the Bible never says someone is, “baptized into the church.” Actually it does in a round about way. The church is the temple of God (1 Cor. 3:16) in which God’s Spirit dwells and the Spirit baptizes the believer into the body (1 Cor. 12:13), which is the church (Col. 1:18). Therefore it is appropriate and necessary for the church to do her part in administering baptism, as she is God’s physical temple representing the spiritual activity of the Spirit baptizing a believer into the church (body). While the church universal is implied as “one body” in 1 Cor. 12:13 (in the next verses context returns to the church local 1 Cor 2:14-27), this spiritual reality of a believer being baptized into the body can only be displayed and is only correctly symbolized under the local church context since the church universal will not gather until Jesus returns.
Another point is Dave’s explanation to who the Great Commission was given for its accomplishment. Again, I disagree with his analysis that it is a “hermeneutical stretch” to connect the Great Commission to the church’s oversight of baptism and discipleship. First, in interpreting this, we don’t just rely on Matt. 28:16-20, but on complimentary accounts of the Great Commission. In Acts 1, the disciples were told to wait for the “promise of the Father,” which is the power behind accomplishing the Great Commission. The Matthew 28 instructions weren’t given with the expectation that all the individuals there would just immediately go to begin this work (as they did not); they waited until the church was constituted to begin her work (Acts 2).
One thing that I agree with Dave on is that we have a vast library of historical confessions and beliefs that witness to the doctrine of the local church as overseer of the ordinance of baptism. I have not used this in my argumentation since we are to look first to the scriptures for doctrinal guidance. But since Dave broached the subject it is necessary to point out that nearly all doctrinal affirmations through out history have viewed baptism as an ordinance of the church. It is not my paper that Dave and others need to address, for my writing is only a paltry effort in light of the great theological arguments of the past. No, the challenge is to argue against the overwhelming witness of nearly 1900 years of theological thought and practice that has addressed this issue time and time again, affirming the church’s oversight of Baptism.
I pray that while neither Dave’s nor my defense was exhaustive (1000 words or less), that our debate will spark further theological investigation providing a clearer picture of what our Lord demands. In this way the body will be the winner of this Internet debate among brothers in Christ.
Robin Foster
While I (obviously) do not agree with all the points you made here, Robin, its been, as you said, a good debate. My impression (previewing my rebuttal which will appear later) is that our practice is probably closer than our rhetoric.
But thank you for joining in this and the continuing debate.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Playing the Race Card to Stifle Debate =-.
Dave
Thanks. I look forward to reading your rebuttal. No one is perfect, so I pray that like iron, we have sharpened each other a little more to be conformed to His image.
Robin
.-= Robin Foster´s last blog ..Podcast Episode 9 =-.
Robin and Dave, Yes, both of you have been good troopers. Robin, I do like that you are not “equating” the gathering of the disciples with the local church, but that the church had her birthday in Acts 2. I think that “goes with the flow” of redemptive history and with a straightforward reading of the Apostles being the foundation of the church instead of being the church herself [Ephesians 2:20]. Here are some other thoughts in relation to your post: 1. I agree with B.H. Carroll that the Spirit is not the administrator of Baptism in 1 Cor. 12:13… Read more »
I stand corrected on one point above. Paul does not mention the headship of Christ in Romans.
.-= Benji Ramsaur´s last blog ..Principles of Faith of The Sandy Creek Association-1816 =-.
“Therefore, I do not know of any text that supports the idea that one is baptized into the church.” Let me add a little bit to this statement of mine. When it comes to the idea that “water baptism” is the “doorway” into the church in relation to Acts 2:41, I think it is important to point something out. There is nothing in the text that communicates “through” baptism they were added. Or they were baptized “and thus” they were added. The text itself simply says “and” [kai] added. Accordingly, I think this harmonizes with the view of Gill quoted… Read more »
Benji, are you still in school? You really seem to know your stuff.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Three Big Outs =-.
Benji
Are you saying that the body is not the church thereby contradicting Col 1:18?
.-= Robin Foster´s last blog ..Podcast Episode 9 =-.
Dave,
I graduated from Southeastern and need to update my website. Thank you for the compliment.
.-= Benji Ramsaur´s last blog ..Principles of Faith of The Sandy Creek Association-1816 =-.
Robin,
Yes, the body is the church and Christ is the head. However, I think we need to stick with the imagery Paul uses concerning baptism instead of “making up” our own imagery and thus basing our doctrine of baptism on our made up imagery.
Paul never says anything like “Baptized into the Head”.
.-= Benji Ramsaur´s last blog ..Principles of Faith of The Sandy Creek Association-1816 =-.
Benji
You are right in that Paul never said we were “Baptized into the Head,” yet he did say we were baptized into the body 1 Cor. 12:13. He also described the body as the church Col. 1:18. If we are not baptized into the body, then the body ceases to be when someone is baptized into it. Yet we are baptized into the body which is the church.
In your argument, the body ceases to be the church during baptism.
.-= Robin Foster´s last blog ..Podcast Episode 9 =-.
Benji
Just read your last comment, I am not making up imagery. I only use what Paul gives.
Theological truth #1: The body is the church
Theological truth #2: Believers are baptized into the body
Therefore, believers are baptized into the church spiritually.
.-= Robin Foster´s last blog ..Podcast Episode 9 =-.
Robin, “Theological truth #1: The body is the church Theological truth #2: Believers are baptized into the body Therefore, believers are baptized into the church spiritually.” On the surface I agree with you. 1 Corinthians 12:13 does communicate we are baptized into the body. However, the baptism in view there is not “water baptism”, but only Spirit baptism in my opinion. The idea is that we are baptized “in/with” the Spirit, not “by” the Spirit [I have already given my arguments above concerning that]. I don’t think water baptism can reflect Spirit baptism because: A. If the image is that… Read more »
Robin, I also think we need to take into consideration that Paul says in 1 Cor. 12:13 “…WE all baptized into one body…”. However, Paul was “not” a member of the local church in Corinth according to 1 Cor. 14:23: “If therefore the WHOLE CHURCH be COME TOGETHER into ONE PLACE, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that YE are mad? Paul here speaks absolutely of the local church at Corinth assembling–WHOLE church–and separates himself from the complete local church by not saying “WE are mad”, but… Read more »
I would think that most commentators would agree that water baptism is not the focus of 1 Corinthians 12:13, but that Spirit baptism is.
Do you agree or disagree with that, Robin? It seems like you are tying 1 Corinthans 12:13 to water baptism. Are we misunderstanding you?
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Three Big Outs =-.
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 =-.
Just wanted to clarify that I was understanding you properly.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Three Big Outs =-.
Gotcha bro.
.-= Robin Foster´s last blog ..Podcast Episode 9 =-.
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.
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?
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.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »