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 because:
A. The same greek word [i.e., en] is used in 1 Corinthians 12:13 in relation to Spirit baptism as are all the other texts mentioning Spirit baptism in the gospels. And in the gospels it is clear that Christ is the Administrator, not the Spirit.
B. If the Spirit is the Administrator in 1 Corinthians 12:13, then it is the “only” text in all of the Bible that would teach this.
Therefore, I do not know of any text that supports the idea that one is baptized into the church. From a theological standpoint, I think to argue that one cannot be baptized into the head [Christ] without being baptized into the body [church] is to engage in over systematizing the Scriptures because:
A. The imagery of being baptized into Christ does not bring in the imagery of being baptized into the head. It concerns being baptized with Christ into death and then being raised up. While Paul mentions baptism and the headship of Christ in Romans and Colossians, he never combines that imagery. in other words, Paul does not even seem to think along the lines of being “baptized into the head”, but “baptized into death”.
B. If one takes a step back and asks “what is Paul getting at in the thrust of his theological argument for baptism?”, then I do not see how anyone can arrive at the conclusion that Paul is intending his readers to draw the “inference” that believers are baptized into the church.
2. When you bring up confessions I think the First London Baptist confession combined with the thought of Thomas Patient [a signer of that confession] is key. What I see in those statements is a “low” Baptist ecclesiology that flows nicely from the theology of the New Testament. And since the first generation of particular Baptists play a key role in Baptist history, then I think one could possibly make the argument that a return to the low ecclesiology of the 1646 Baptist confession would be a return to Baptist roots [in some sense].
Of course, if one does not like their ecclesiology, then one could try and argue that Baptists became “more refined” in their understanding of ecclesiology. However, I don’t think some Baptists became more refined, but engaged in bad systematic theology [i.e., over systematizing the Scriptures].
Again, I appreciate the tenor of your post.
God Bless,
Benji
.-= Benji Ramsaur´s last blog ..Principles of Faith of The Sandy Creek Association-1816 =-.
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 in the comment section of “Diverse Baptists Debate: Is Church Oversight…”
.-= Benji Ramsaur´s last blog ..Principles of Faith of The Sandy Creek Association-1816 =-.
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 we are baptized “with” the Spirit, then that conflicts with water baptism imagery–immersion.
B. If the image is that we are baptized “in” the Spirit, then we would have to say that we “come out” of the Spirit like we come out of the water. I don’t think that is right.
God Bless,
Benji
.-= Benji Ramsaur´s last blog ..Principles of Faith of The Sandy Creek Association-1816 =-.
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 “YE are mad?”
God Bless,
Benji
.-= Benji Ramsaur´s last blog ..Principles of Faith of The Sandy Creek Association-1816 =-.
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 of Johnson’s Book “She Who Is” =-.
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
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?