Baptism- No Need For Church Oversight
Baptist churches observe two ordinances – baptism and the Lord’s supper; ordered by Christ. We reject the term “sacrament” because we believe that no saving grace is imparted by these observances, but that they are important because they symbolize the death of Jesus Christ in one way or another. We believe that only those who have professed faith in Christ may be baptized, and that by immersion.
And we all agree that that the primary venue for the observance of these ordinances is the local church. The question at hand is whether the local church is the only appropriate place for a valid, biblically-correct baptism to take place. Is a baptism that is performed outside the authority of a local church to be considered valid or invalid? I will not argue that baptism should never be performed under the direction of a local church. I will argue that local church oversight, while normal, is not necessary to the performance of a valid baptism.
Baptists have use “confessions” to describe our doctrine through the years. I will admit that those confessions support church oversight, in general. But we Baptists honor history; we are not bound by it. We are guided by what the Bible says. And I will argue that the Bible does not support the idea that baptism is only valid under local church supervision.
The Narratives of Acts
Acts has eight instances of baptism. In Acts 2:41, 3000 converts are baptized after Peter’s sermon. There was no established church at that moment. In fact, this event was the establishment of the church, so there is little evidence here. In Acts 8:12-13, Philip preaches in Samaria after fleeing Jerusalem’s persecution. He baptizes those who believe. He sought approval of no local church to perform those baptisms. Again, in Acts 8:37-40, Philip meets the Ethiopian Eunuch and leads him to Christ. The eunuch asks, “What prevents me from being baptized?” If local church authority was essential, Philip should have responded, “I’ve got to get approval from the church.”
The evidence gets stronger in Acts 9:18, because there was an established church in Damascus. Ananias is directed to go and speak to Saul, who is converted. Saul is baptized immediately, without any approval of the disciples of Damascus. Acts 10 is even clearer. Peter is directed by God to visit Cornelius, a gentile. He is baptized immediately upon his conversion. There is no local church for him to be baptized into. In fact, Peter had to defend the decision in the Jerusalem church after the fact. He only sought approval after the fact. He baptized first, then got approval later.
In Acts 16:14-15, Paul baptizes Lydia soon after his arrival in Philippi. There is no local church into which to baptize her. Later, when Paul leads the Philippian jailer to faith, there is a local church, but Paul does not get their approval before baptizing him. The baptism of John’s disciples in Acts 19:3-5 gives little evidence in this argument.
It is tricky making points from narrative. However, the eight instances of baptism in Acts consistently demonstrate no local oversight. That is evidence that must be explained by those who demand church oversight as essential. Dismissing the evidence as “narrative” is not enough.
Evidence from the Epistles
Epistolary evidence explains narrative experiences. So, what do the epistles say? There are six references in the epistles about baptism (it can be tricky to differentiate water baptism from Spirit baptism). None of them give any support to local church oversight. In fact, they argue against it.
Romans 6:1-4 tells us that those who were “baptized into Christ” were buried with him into death and raised to walk a new life. In 1 Corinthians 1:10-17 uses baptism to discuss the divisions in the Corinthian church. 1 Corinthians 12:12-13 states that Christians were all baptized into one body. Paul and his associates were not baptized into the Corinthian church, so it can hardly be argued that he is speaking of their baptism into the local Corinthian church. Galatians 3:27 says that those who were “baptized into Christ” have put on Christ. Ephesians 4:7 says that there is “one baptism” as there is one Lord and one faith. 1 Peter 3:21 refers to the meaning of baptism as an expression of cleared conscience through the resurrection of Christ.
The key point is the phrase that is used in Romans 6 and Galatians 3, and in similar form in 1 Corinthians 12. We are “baptized into Christ.” Never does it say, “baptized into the church” or describe baptism as an initiation into a local church. It seems that baptism was an expression of a person’s salvation experience in Christ which immediately followed conversion. Local church oversight and involvement began immediately after baptism in the New Testament.
The Great Commission
Those who argue for local church oversight often base their argument in Matthew 28:18-20, the Great Commission. Jesus said that we were to “make disciples” by both baptizing them and teaching them to obey everything Christ spoke. They maintain that the Great Commission gives oversight of baptism and discipleship to the local church. However, that is a hermeneutical stretch. This passage is given to the apostles and all the disciples – the universal Body of Christ (another debate topic entirely). No local church existed yet when the passage was spoken.
In conclusion, the view that all valid baptisms must be performed under local church oversight may be argued from historic confessions, but not from scripture. There is no support for it in the narratives of Acts. The epistles describe baptism as “into Christ” and do not support it either. Only a forced reading of the Great Commission supports the idea. It is clear to me that baptism is an expression of faith in Christ that is properly experienced under the guidance of the body of Christ, but local church oversight is not essential to the performance of a valid baptism.
David Miller
Baptism- Church Oversight is a Necessity
In this essay, I am defending the position that the church is to practice oversight in the administration of the ordinance of Baptism.
In the Great Commission (Matt 28:16-20), Jesus commands to “go and make disciples.” Jesus also assures the disciples that He is with them (“you all” plural) “always, even to the end of the age.” The command is connected with the assurance of Jesus’ presence. Jesus directed this command and promise, not to each one individually, but to all of them collectively. The command and assurance was for the group that would eventually become the church. It is the church that experiences the presence of Jesus, as she is the temple of the living God (1 Cor. 3:13; 2 Cor. 6:15) where Jesus dwells (Rev. 1:12-20).
This is not to deny that God’s Spirit indwells each believer and that each believer has a personal relationship with Jesus. There is tremendous value in that, but for the indwelling to be rightly lived in the life of the believer, it must be done in a covenant relationship with other believers. Someone may argue that disciples, apart from the church, can do the commission (go, baptize, teach), but if this is the case, then all the disciples were in rebellion in Acts 1, as they did not begin pursuing this command until they were constituted as the church at Pentecost. The Great Commission was given to the Apostles and intended for the church to accomplish which she did when she was birthed.
Another scripture that points to the church’s oversight of baptism is 1 Tim. 3:15 where Paul calls the church “the pillar and support of the truth.” In this context Paul identifies the church as having the responsibility to uphold the truth in word and practice. The physical should represent the spiritual. Baptism, as rightly practiced, is a physical outward display of salvation in the life of the believer. The Spirit is the one that baptizes us into the body in the spiritual sense (1 Cor. 12:13) and yet, the temple of the Spirit is the church that performs baptism in the physical realm. When this is done apart from the oversight and blessings of a local church where Christ’s Spirit resides, it distorts the spiritual reality that has occurred.
Symbolically, when one is lowered and rises out of the water, the testimony is that the individual that once was, lives no more and he is not only a new creation, but part of a new body distinct from the world. The church, whether being physically present or present through a missionary commissioned by them, now testifies to the truth of the spiritual reality that has occurred not only in the believer, but also in the church herself. To baptize anyone without church oversight, whether locally or through an independent missionary, is to supplant the church’s responsibility of being the “pillar and support of the truth.”
Baptism, within the context of church oversight allows the church to renew and reapply truths from the gospel thereby fulfilling its responsibility of being the “pillar and support” of truth. Baptism should be a doctrinally motivated ordinance from the scriptures and a witness of the church concerning the “manifold wisdom of God” (Eph 3:10). When individuals, outside of the context of local church oversight, independently perform this ordinance, it loses its true doctrinal proclamation and the truth of the ordinance is ultimately weakened, leading to a misguided understanding of salvation and the gospel.
Finally, the question of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:25-40) remains. One thing that must be understood when interpreting narrative literature is that the person is telling God’s story to express a point, therefore, all doctrinal elements may not be included as they may be assumed. The focus of interpretation should be to let scripture drive the meaning of the story without demanding to answer questions that were never intended to be asked or answered. In Philip’s case, he was an evangelist (Acts 21:8). The focus of this section of Acts (8:25-40) was to show God’s expansion to people outside of Jerusalem. Philip was preaching in Samaria and was called to a desert road where he found the eunuch. He led the eunuch to Christ, baptized him, and the eunuch went on his way. Two questions we could ask is, “Where was the church’s oversight of this baptism?” and “Was Philip commissioned to baptize in order to start churches?”
Unfortunately, because of this being narrative in nature, neither side of the debate can definitively answer any of these questions from this scripture or else it would be an argument from silence. Other scriptures must be explored because the thrust of the story was not ecclesiological oversight of baptism, but the expansion of God’s Kingdom. To view this scripture, as a theological treatise rejecting the churches oversight of baptism is to add what is absent in the text and to negate the church’s responsibility of oversight in matters of doctrine and practice as attested to in other scriptures (e. g., 1 Tim 3:15).
Missionary activities and their baptisms should not be viewed as the norm once churches are established, but missionaries who are commissioned by the church should baptize if no church is physically present to witness. It would be ridiculous for a missionary to drag a baptismal candidate hundreds of miles to his home church for baptism. While the story of Philip is truly inspiring, it was never meant to press ecclesiological matters that are not addressed.
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. It is up to each believer to live their Christian existence in a covenant fellowship with and recognizing the authority and responsibility of what Paul has called the “pillar and support of the truth.”
Robin Foster
http://sbctoday.com/
Kudos to both of you. You guys were substantive and expressed yourselves in ways that I believe please Christ. Good job.
.-= Benji Ramsaur´s last blog ..Principles of Faith of The Sandy Creek Association-1816 =-.
Matt,
For some reason I am no longer seeing Robin’s post–just Dave’s. Do I need to click on something else?
.-= Benji Ramsaur´s last blog ..Principles of Faith of The Sandy Creek Association-1816 =-.
Dave,
You said: “….baptism is an expression of faith in Christ that is properly experienced under the guidance of the body of Christ….”
Dave if I understand you to mean the Body of Christ is synonymous with the Church Universal when you make the above assumption I have a question. Naturally, if you do not see the Body of Christ as synonymous with the Church Universal, my question with have no merit and I ask you to simply ignore it.
Here is my question: If a person is baptized under the guidance of the Body of Christ, how does the body of Christ give guidance to a credible witness to the baptism and to whom does it give the witness?
BTW, My understanding was that Robin Foster had a post here. I, like Benji, cannot find it.
cb
You are correct. The term “Body of Christ” is used (as I see it) to refer to what is sometimes called the Universal church.
I perform most baptisms under the auspices of the local church. I just do not think it is a requirement.
In the NT, baptism was perform almost immediately after the person’s conversion experience. Philip witnessed the Ethiopian’s baptism. Ananias both performed and witnessed Paul’s baptism.
Are you saying that a baptism somehow has to be witnessed to be valid? I’m not really sure what you are getting after here, CB.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Playing the Race Card to Stifle Debate =-.
I proclaim Dave the winner of this debate – since his is the only one posted and Robin’s post has disappeared :-).
David R. Brumbelow
.-= David R. Brumbelow´s last blog ..Differences Between the 1963 and 2000 Baptist Faith and Message =-.
I’ve found that is the best way to win a debate – delete the opposition. His post is back up now.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Playing the Race Card to Stifle Debate =-.
Dave’s view is the same as John Gill’s. He has at least that much history on his side. Gill argued that the only thing that a local church has to do with baptism is to see that the requirement is filled before the person becomes a member.
.-= Jerad File´s last blog ..More Gill Audio from Allen Mickle! =-.
I agree with John Gill and myself! I require baptism for membership, but do not require membership to do a baptism.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Playing the Race Card to Stifle Debate =-.
I’m going to declare Dave the winner, not only because I share his view of baptismal authority, but because I’m going to pre-declare him the loser of the eschatology debate and of course he is wrong about the Yankees.
I’d also like to offer a debate idea: Christian Bookstores: Wonderful resource, or prime example of all that is amiss with Western Christianity?
I’d love to get in on the Bookstore one!
My apologies….
Dave and I weren’t sure whether or not to put both of the posts at the same time or to spread them out. Originally I put them at the same time, then I took off Robin’s in order to post it tomorrow, but we have decided to post them at the same time. So from here on out both original arguments will be posted at the same time and then the responses posts will be posted separately. I apologize for the confusion.
It is hard to declare someone the winner of the debate when the debate is only half over! Both Dave and Robin are writing response posts to one another.
Matt: I think we’ve demonstrated that it isn’t hard at all. 😉
I would like to make a procedural comment here. We’ve had a little fun with the “Dave won” or “Robin won” jokes. But the purpose of this series is not to declare a winner or a loser.
I have engaged in and read a lot of debates over baptism and some of those have become pretty heated. I want to try to understand Robin’s position better and hope that we can come closer to understanding one another.
Ask questions. Make comments. The only winner we need is the New York Yankees. What we need in this is a deep, extensive, intense, collegial debate.
We all win if we can discuss hard issues with Christian grace.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Playing the Race Card to Stifle Debate =-.
Dave
I concur with you whole heartily. Especially about the Yankees! A fan since 78 when I was 10.
🙂
.-= Robin Foster´s last blog ..Dr. Morris Chapman Announces Retirement =-.
My esteem for you just rose dramatically.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Playing the Race Card to Stifle Debate =-.
Robin,
Do you believe the church’s role as “the pillar and support of the truth” implies local church supervision of every single aspect of an individual’s spiritual life and discipleship? Also, do you believe this implies that all parachurch ministries are illegitimate?
David
I would not use the word “supervision,” but the church does have a responsibility to help a disciple grow in Christ.
I do not believe parachurch ministries are illegitimate as long as those who work in them are in covenant fellowship with a N. T. church of their choosing.
.-= Robin Foster´s last blog ..Dr. Morris Chapman Announces Retirement =-.
Oh, and that the church blesses their work in this parachurch ministry.
Since I am trying to be nice here I won’t go to the question I have asked you before, but as I understand it, you do not believe that a church needs to have any kind of oversight over baptism whether locally or through a missionary. Is that right and is there any baptism you would reject even though the person who was baptized was truly a believer at the time of their baptism?
Robin,
I believe the legitimacy of baptism depends on the repentant state of the one being baptized, faith in Christ alone for salvation, and a correct understanding that they are being baptized into Christ, identifying with Him in His death, burial, and resurrection. Also, the proper mode, immersion in water.
This would preclude a baptism in which the one being baptized understood they were identifying with an organization that teaches a false gospel. The important thing, however, is the understanding of the one being baptized, not the flesh of the person physically immersing them in water, or the physical place the baptism takes place.
To be even more specific, I cannot see why someone wishing to identify with Christ in baptism, who is truly trusting in Christ, and repenting of their sin, would ever want to be baptized by a Mormon or in a Mormon place of worship. Hypothetically, they may be misled about who is baptizing them, and why. The important thing, however, is the intention of the person being baptized to be obedient to Christ’s command, and their understanding they are identifying with Christ, not with some organization or another.
If the great commission is for all believers, then shouldn’t it be the same believers that baptize those they lead to Christ and make disciples of?
.-= Jason Smathers´s last blog ..Words from the Fire, win a free copy of Al Mohler’s new book. =-.
Would you mind expanding on that a little? I’m not sure exactly what you are trying to say.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Playing the Race Card to Stifle Debate =-.
Jason,
I like what you are saying here… I agree that whoever leads a person to Christ ought to baptize them. If my wife leads the girl she is mentoring to Christ I will encourage my wife to baptize her. I think a lot of Baptists abandon the “priesthood of believers” when it comes to Baptism.
The Great Commission is for everyone, therefore, everyone should partake-which includes baptism.
If that is what Jason was saying, then I think it is an interesting idea – whomever leads someone to Christ leads them to baptism immediately. However, in an Iowa winter that might get to be a little bit difficult.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Three Big Outs =-.
That was in fact my point. If the great commission is a directive to all believers, then baptizing is also a directive to all believers.
That being said, the only example we have in the Bible is baptisms by ordained men. In practice, I submit to the authority of my pastor on this issue, who welcomes you to join him in the baptismal when you lead a person to Christ.
.-= Jason Smathers´s last blog ..Prayer in Business =-.
Jason, I’m not sure that Ananias was ordained. I’m not sure the evidence is clear on that one.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Three Big Outs =-.
Dave,
My question relates to Robin’s position as stated here:
“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. It is up to each believer to live their Christian existence in a covenant fellowship with and recognizing the authority and responsibility of what Paul has called the “pillar and support of the truth.”
Dave, my use of the word witness rests in the venue of accountability.
How does the Body of Christ give actual guidance (represent accountability) to a baptism outside of the witness of a local church? (And I am sure you understand that I am not talking about “brick and mortar” meaning being baptized “inside” a local church building with the entire congregation looking on.)
I am talking about guidance or supervision as in “…. how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.” (1 Timothy 3:15, NASV)
Dave, I hope that clears up my question and I apologize for the poor manner I constructed it the first time. And I thank you for responding to it even so.
cb
I’m headed to bed after watching the Yankees beat the Angels. But let me give a brief answer. To me, the oversight and accountability of the local church follows baptism in the New Testament. A convert was baptized immediately upon conversion, THEN began a relationship with the church.
That is what I observe from the biblical evidence.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Playing the Race Card to Stifle Debate =-.
Dave, I agree strongly with this. How is a church supposed to have oversight when the person isn’t even a part of that church until after Baptism?
Scriptures certainly seems to imply that local church fellowship follows Baptism. Baptism is the public declaration of the new life and when that declaration is made the accountability begins.
Yikes! Dave needs a good course in theology. Talk about missing the the point here and failing to grasp the role of the church – local – in the plan of Christ. This is not to deny the universal church. Of course not. But the ordinance are not simply Christian ordinances, they are church ordinances. The Baptist literature is replete on this issue. I suggest Dave read some of it. This misses the point of what baptism is — it is a public profession of faith. Acts is transitional. To miss this is to miss the point of the local body. It is not simply a club.
Jeff: While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, your comment really misses the point of the debates, which is civil discourse. To suggest that Dave hasn’t had any good courses in theology or hasn’t read any Baptist literature is obviously false and most likely insulting. We all need to get past the “if you were as smart as me you’d see things the way I do” phase in SBC life and discourse or we’ll never get anywhere.
Great response to Jeff.
Just because we disagree with someone doesnt mean they have not studied/struggled with these particular truths.
Bill:
Don’t miss the point in the rhetoric here. David has handled his question as if there is no body of literature that addresses this issue. His statement is very simplistic and one that makes me wonder if he really has thought through the issues involved.
For instance, would he accept into membership of his church someone who has been “baptized” while on vacation at grandma’s farm pond by grandma? Is she a suitable administrator of the ordinance simply because she is a Christian? Baptists have wrestled long and hard over the issue of what constitutes valid baptism. The discussion started with John Smyth BEFORE Thomas Helwys went back to England to plant the first Baptist church on British soil. Dave simply ignores the body of literature. This makes me wonder if in fact he actually has had a good course in Baptist theology. This is a Baptist blog here is it not. There is a vast body of literature on baptism.
Regards,
Jeff
Jeff,
It’s simplistic because I only allowed them 1,000 words for the debate. Also, did you miss when David said this:
“Baptists have used “confessions” to describe our doctrine through the years. I will admit that those confessions support church oversight, in general. But we Baptists honor history; we are not bound by it. We are guided by what the Bible says. And I will argue that the Bible does not support the idea that baptism is only valid under local church supervision.”
And, Jeff, while the preponderance of historical theology and confessional statements by Baptists would argue the church-oversight position, are you arguing that Baptists have historically been unanimous in their positions?
The fact that this has been debated would seem to indicate that there is something to debate, that not everyone has unanimously conformed to one position.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Playing the Race Card to Stifle Debate =-.
Unanimous no . . . but what would they majority view be? I think I can safely say that the overwhelming majority have seen this as a church ordinance. FWIW, I have a Phd in Baptist Studies from Southern. I have done extensive work in this area. My concern is that you ignored this large body of material.
Jeff, the topic of the debate is not whether the norm for baptism is that it would take place within the context of a local church, but whether a baptism that took place outside the context of the local church would by definition be invalid.
I do not have a PhD in baptist history, but I have no problem accepting the premise that my view is not the majority view in Baptist history. I would posit that the majority view in the church has not always been correct.
Can you show me where my treatment of the scriptures is flawed? To simply dismiss it all because “Acts is transitional does not seem to me to give full weight to the biblical evidence. I would love to engage on the basis of exposition, if you are willing.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Playing the Race Card to Stifle Debate =-.
“Acts is transitional.”
While I don’t think anyone here would disagree entirely with that statement, I wonder what the hermeneutical grid for determining at which point the events in Acts move from transitional to what should be now normative for the Church. It seems like one would have to base their ecclesiology on the dating of the rest of the New Testament if Acts can only be regarded as transitional.
For example, any NT epistle written during the time of Acts would have to also be considered “transitional”. Those later perhaps then would be normative? Obviously that’s an impossible hermeneutic to completely apply without losing or doubting the entire NT.
Now if one could argue the “transitional” nature of certain events in Acts from factors in the text itself (primarily the Luke-Acts corpus), then we have a ballgame perhaps.
.-= Josh C´s last blog ..Rest Reflects Relationship =-.
Josh C,
I agree that the “Acts is transitional” makes for a difficult hermeneutic. It is difficult trying to determine what was “transitional” and what wasn’t. But, we certainly cant throw out arguments that include “Acts is transitional” because there are some clear “Acts is transitional” arguments that a majority of people accept.. i.e. Spirit Baptist being separate of salvation.
I agree, Matt. I was trying to push the previous commenter for those arguments about what is transitional to actually be present rather than just a blanket statement of “Acts is transitional.”
I think good Biblical theology (as a discipline, not as in our normal Baptist use of “Biblical theology” as “my particular beliefs, which I know are righter than others”) would then make us look within Acts (and its sibling Luke) to see how it guides us to determine what is transitional within its own material. Of course, then one can move wider to systematize within the NT.
I hope that makes sense.
.-= Josh C´s last blog ..Reading Spurgeon’s “Lectures to My Students” Part 10-11 =-.
I think you have made a lot of sense.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Three Big Outs =-.
Jeff, I would encourage you to try a little harder to honor the spirit of these posts .
As to your points, there are some who do deny the present significance of the universal church, deeming it as something that will only be a reality in the future – a heavenly reality.
While there is much to be learned from history and historical theology, we are governed by what is biblical. How did my treatment of the scriptures in the passage err?
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Playing the Race Card to Stifle Debate =-.
I’m always puzzled by the use of Philip the evangelist to make the case that church authorization is not necessary. It seems to me that, if anything, he is an example of one whom the early church authorizes to do what needs to be done (Acts 6:5-6).
Can “church oversight” not include baptism by one who has been authorized by the church to perform baptism and thereby establish new churches?
Michael,
I think church oversight could include that, but when most people talk of church oversight they usually mean the entire local body, not just one person. I think Philip is a great example of not needing a local church body overseeing the Baptism in order for it to be valid.
I’m not sure about that. Certainly most folks who stress “local church oversight” mean that. But isn’t there a mediating position between a baptism having to be performed under the authority of the assembled local church and Joe Christian baptizing somebody in his pool, and don’t most Baptists hold to it?
.-= Michael DeBusk´s last blog ..lessons from our electronic binge =-.
Michael,
Again, the issue is not whether Philip was authorized by the church to establish churches, but whether he should have sought the authority of a local congregation to perform a valid baptism.
As I understand it (and Robin, I am open to correction here) Robin is arguing that all individual baptisms must be performed under local church authority. My point is that Philip led a man to Christ and then baptized him immediately.
That is in line with every one of the instances of baptism in Acts. Conversion – immediate baptism – THEN church involvement.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Three Big Outs =-.
Right, but my point is that Philip baptizing without first seeking permission does not necessarily mean that the church had no authoritative oversight. Perhaps Philip had already been vested with that authority, in which he case was baptizing not on his own authority but under the authority of the Jerusalem church. This is not simply an argument from silence, because he had been clearly charged by that church with other responsibilities.
.-= Michael DeBusk´s last blog ..lessons from our electronic binge =-.
Gentlemen, if I may…
Accountability to the local church regarding baptism does not require the entire church gathered for ‘pre-approval’ of each baptism. I do believe it involves the intentional decision of the local church prior to the Great Commission work happening.
For instance, we have recently commissioned from our church a missionary family who will be serving with the IMB in South America. We understand that as God has called them to serve in the spread of the Gospel they will be involved in establishing new churches and baptizing new believers where no biblical, local churches currently exist. They will not be calling us every time they lead someone to repent of sin and submit to Jesus as Lord, yet they have been commissioned by a church which has said that we agree and believe that God has called you to this specific ministry. Now go and fulfill that calling. THAT is accountability for ministry, including baptism, to the local church.
The same level of intentionality is also applied to our local churches ‘back here’ in the states. Without there being some accountability and relationship established with a local church, we will see increased doctrinal error and a lack of understanding of the significance of this ordinance as well as many other scriptural principles. The church should be involved on all ends of this issue–not just after. Consistent affirmation of orthodoxy and orthopraxy is that to which I believe Robin was referring when he included 1 Timothy 3:15 in this discussion.
Sola Gratia.
.-= Scott A Gordon´s last blog .."It Ain’t Over ‘Til It’s Over" =-.
Okay, Scott. Here’s a question. Imagine I am one of your church members, not a minister or deacon or any official church representative.
I bring someone into your office and say, “Pastor, I was sharing with my co-worker, Mortimer and he came under conviction and trusted Jesus Christ as his Savior and Lord. I took him over to the local pool. We went in, and in front of a group of people who were completely baffled, he publicly testified to his new faith and I baptized him, by immersion, in front of them all.”
Do you accept Mortimer’s baptism or do you require that he be rebaptized in front of the church?
I know this is an unlikely occurrence today, but I suspect it is likely how things were done in NT days.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Three Big Outs =-.
David,
I guess I opened the hypothetical door, so…
One, if the church had previously voted to affirm these types of baptisms, then fine.
Two, if the church had not voted in such a way, then it would be up to the church to decide together how they would proceed in such a situation. They could choose to affirm this case and then continue such practice on a case by case basis into the future, or decide to establish a policy regarding such at this first such instance.
Three, I believe that what you may have presented here in this scenario and the context of other comments would fit within my framework as well. Salvation, baptism, and ‘immediate’ (as soon as is possible) affirmation and accountability to the local church and submission to the covenant accountability of that body. That to which I most definitively object would be someone newly saved, baptized, and then not connected to a local body (whether through indifference or intentionally rejecting the local church).
It’s meeting time. I’ll need to return later.
Sola Gratia.
.-= Scott A Gordon´s last blog .."It Ain’t Over ‘Til It’s Over" =-.
I often wonder if many of disagreements are in the way we word things. I would guess that you and I, Scott, would describe ourselves as on different sides of this baptism debate. Yet, I am guessing that the way we do baptisms at church would not be very different at all.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Three Big Outs =-.
Here are two pieces of *very old* Baptist literature that I think harmonizes with/supports Dave’s position:
“Who is a Lawful Minister of Baptism? Where you may observe that the persons bid to go are Disciples enabled to teach the doctrine of the Gospel for the conversion of souls to faith, and repentance. For it is clear That they who are bid to teach are bid to baptize also. So from this Commission I gather that a disciple enabled to bring down God to a soul, and to bring a soul again up to God, is a lawful Minister of Baptism. For that is the tenor of the New Covenant, Heb. 8:10. ‘I will be to them a God, and they shalt be to me a people; and I am my beloved’s and my beloved is mine,’ Canticles 6:3? [The Doctrine of Baptism And the Distinction of the COVENANTS by Thomas Patient–1654]
“XLI THE person designed by Christ to dispense baptism, the Scripture holds forth to be a disciple; it being no where tied to a particular church officer, or person extraordinarily sent the commission enjoining the administration, being given to them as considered disciples, being men able to preach the gospel.” [The First London Confession, 1646]
.-= Benji Ramsaur´s last blog ..Principles of Faith of The Sandy Creek Association-1816 =-.
Gill has already been mentioned and I think this quote from him also harmonizes with/supports Dave’s position:
“As the first covenant, or testament, had ordinances of divine service, which are shaken, removed, and abolished; so the New Testament, or gospel dispensation, has ordinances of divine worship, which cannot be shaken, but will remain until the second coming of Christ: these, as Austin says,[1] are few; and easy to be observed, and of a very expressive signification. Among which, baptism must be reckoned one, and is proper to be treated of in the first place; for though it is not a church ordinance, it is an ordinance of God, and a part and branch of public worship. When I say it is not a church ordinance, I mean it is not an ordinance administered in the church, but out of it, and in order to admission into it, and communion with it; it is preparatory to it, and a qualification for it; it does not make a person a member of a church, or admit him into a visible church; persons must first be baptized, and then added to the church, as the three thousand converts were; a church has nothing to do with the baptism of any, but to be satisfied they are baptized before they are admitted into communion with it. Admission to baptism lies solely in the breast of the administrator, who is the only judge of qualifications for it, and has the sole power of receiving to it, and of rejecting from it; if nor satisfied, he may reject a person thought fit by a church, and admit a person to baptism not thought fit by a church; but a disagreement is not desirable nor advisable: the orderly, regular, scriptural rule of proceeding seems to be this: a person inclined to submit to baptism, and to join in communion with a church, should first apply to an administrator; and upon giving him satisfaction, be baptized by him; and then should propose to the church for communion…” [Baptism: A Public Ordinance]
.-= Benji Ramsaur´s last blog ..Principles of Faith of The Sandy Creek Association-1816 =-.
Thank you, Benji. Perhaps the historical data is not so completely one-sided as I have believed.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Three Big Outs =-.
I realize space is limited with only 1000 words, but Robin Foster’s application of the church’s role as “pillar and support of the truth.” (1 Tim. 3:15) needs more exposition. It seems glossed over & assumed.
Robin said,
My reaction is, “Why?” Why make that application, but not others?
1.) How do you move from the general responsibility to your application? Why should we think that Paul envisioned that kind of application of his words? Why should we think that “baptism must be supervised by a local church” was the kind of thing he meant? (Especially since “validity of practices” wasn’t at all in view in 1 Tim 3.)
2.) More to the point, what would be the flaw if someone applied your argument elsewhere? What if someone said, “Evangelism is only valid if done under the supervision of a local church”? What could be closer to the heart of “the truth” than preaching the gospel?
Why would that argument be any less valid than yours?
In general:
The narratives suggest oversight is not essential, though deriving theology from narratives is indeed slippery. But when you try to derive strong theology assertions from general Biblical principles, without any hint of that kind of application in Scripture itself, you’re on even more slippery ground.
.-= Jugulum´s last blog ..Bible Study, Community, and Orthodoxy =-.
Jugulum
You said, “My reaction is, “Why?” Why make that application, but not others?”
Because there is a truth that is being proclaimed when someone is baptized. There is meaning behind the symbol for not only the believer, but the Church. The believer is speaking of his salvation, but the church is representing the Holy Spirit baptizing that person into the body (1 Cor. 12:13) which is the (Col. 1:18)church. I have this better explained in my rebuttal.
When I baptize someone, it is not necessarily me alone doing the baptism, but me as a representative of the church. I act on behalf of the church. The church elects me as their representative since everyone cannot jump into the water and do it together. That way the whole church participates in the baptism. I read earlier that it would not be good if someone led another to Christ and they couldn’t baptize them. That is not true, as a member of the church, they participate along with everyone else as God’s temple where His Spirit dwells. A church baptism represents the church symbolizing the Spirit baptizing the believer into the body (1 Cor. 12:13). The whole church participate, not just the one doing the baptizing.
.-= Robin Foster´s last blog ..Dr. Morris Chapman Announces Retirement =-.
If I understand you rightly, the meat of your argument isn’t in the church’s role “the pillar and support of the truth”–it’s the nature of baptism. It’s not simply about the church protecting the truths of Christianity in general–it’s the particular truth in baptism that requires official church representatives.
If so, I follow you better.
I also see the Biblical strength in what you say about the symbolism of baptism. And I appreciate your exegetical effort to reinforce that.
The difficulty is following you to your application–that baptism isn’t valid without local church oversight. (I agree with David Miller–that our normal practice should be baptism in a local church context, but that it isn’t required for a baptism to be valid.)
I don’t see how you’re bridging the gap between “the symbolism is baptism into the body” to “an official local church representative is required”.
As a parallel: In the Lord’s Supper, the symbolism includes the Body of Christ all partaking of one bread. (1 Cor 10:17) Not individual crackers–a loaf broken and shared. One body, partaking of one bread.
Actually using one loaf preserves more of the symbolism. I understand saying, “Therefore, it should be the normal practice.” But can we really say, “Therefore, we have not actually participated in the Lord’s Supper if we use individual crackers”?
Perhaps you would say that. But if not, why? Why do you go from symbolism to application in one case, but not the other?
.-= Jugulum´s last blog ..Bible Study, Community, and Orthodoxy =-.
I think that is an excellent point – I tried to say something like that, but you hit the nail on the head.
I have never felt that we should completely divorce the church from baptism. To the contrary – the church is the place in which baptism most often will occur. But like your “one loaf” argument, a baptism would not be nullified because it was performed outside the jurisdiction of the church. It might not be normal, but it would not be disqualifying.
I like the analogy.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Three Big Outs =-.
First, favorite quote by Jeff.
Dave, would you be okay with baptizing someone and then sending them out into your community with instructions to share the Gospel and baptize anyone who proclaims belief?
Acts 8:26 has an angel of the Lord speaking to and leading Philip. Would you give credence to someone today who went around evangelizing and baptizing explaining that an angel of the Lord was instructing them as such? Why or why not?
Curious. 🙂
.-= Mark Lamprecht´s last blog ..Tullian Tchividjian to Stay at Coral Ridge: Lessons? =-.
Mark, where did the angel (or the Spirit) tell Philip to baptize the eunuch?
For that matter, neither of them actually told Philip to evangelize–they just told him where to go. Obviously evangelism was the point of sending him there–but if Philip needed authorization for either activity, he didn’t get it here. (Jeff’s argument from Acts 6 would answer this, though.)
.-= Jugulum´s last blog ..Bible Study, Community, and Orthodoxy =-.
That is an interesting point, Mark. Jeff Straub is arguing that Philip was sent off by the church and “preauthorized” to do baptisms. Yet, it was the angel of the Lord and not the church who sent him. Not sure exactly what that means, but it is an intersting observation.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Three Big Outs =-.
Hmm… Looking at this more deeply…
The timeline is:
1.) In Acts 6, Philip & Stephen & others are appointed to “serve tables” to free up others for the ministry of the Word. The practical service of deacons is established. (It isn’t a preaching position.)
2.) Acts 6-7, Stephen is performing signs & wonders, and preaching. He speaks to the high priest, and then is stoned.
3.) Acts 8:1, the church is scattered.
4.) Acts 8:4, “those who were scattered went about preaching the word.” (That includes, but isn’t limited to, Philip–who went to Samaria to preach.)
That’s the context of the angel sending Philip to the eunuch. The scattered church is going about preaching the word. (That sounds like everyone is doing it, not just appointed representatives–but it’s not explicit.)
.-= Jugulum´s last blog ..Bible Study, Community, and Orthodoxy =-.
Dave:
To simply walk through the text of Scripture as you have done and say “See . . here is an example where no local church was asked for authority” as you did with Philip and the eunuch, your first example misses the point. The baptism of the eunuch took place after Philip had been chosen by the church as its representative. He was an evangelist operating on whose authority? His own? The Lord’s? or the church at Jerusalem? I really doubt that after the church chose him in Acts 6, he said, well, when I am done “deacing,” I will moonlight as an evangelist and baptize whomever I win. Nor does it seem likely that he was commissioned by the Lord to moonlight. It is more likely that he was recognized and authorized by the Jerusalem church to act accordingly. Nevertheless, this is an argument from silence. So let’s take other baptisms in Acts. Clearly Paul is “authorized” by the church at Antioch to act (Acts 13). This means he could carry out his ministry as he traveled and win and baptize accordingly. He had their authority to act. He did not need to get individual authority. He was preauthorized.
Ordinarily, baptism occurs within the context of a local body as an identification with that body of union with Christ. Water baptism symbolizes spirit baptism. Spirit baptism places one in the Body of Christ (universal) and water baptism does the same with a local assembly. In Acts 2, how did the infant Jerusalem church know who was “in” and who was “out”? It was water baptism. Its pretty hard to see “spirit baptism.” So water baptism was given as a public witness to spirit baptism.
Is it the case that NO baptisms are valid unless done with local church authorization . . . Well, you did not answer my question. Could you children be baptized by their grandmother and that constitute biblical baptism? To argue that it does, you must do more than produce a string of texts like you have. You don’t like my “Acts is transitional” argument. Ok, so what do I say? Acts is transitional and we must be careful to assume that what was being done was normative. Clearly there were baptisms done where their was no local church immediately at hand. But this does not mean that there was no authority behind the baptisms or simply that they had Jesus authority. Does Christ give to individual Christian the right to baptize? If not then to whom is it give? Where does baptism fit in the plan of the NT? I really think you miss the point and a good systematic presentation of doctrine would be helpful.
Of course there are Baptists who believed all kinds of things and I doubt not that there are Baptists who would aceept your grandmother’s baptism as valid . . . but not many. Grandmothers have a role to play in the lives of our children, but not as baptizers.
Your final comment in the discussion of the Acts material is as follows “It is tricky making points from narrative. However, the eight instances of baptism in Acts consistently demonstrate no local oversight. That is evidence that must be explained by those who demand church oversight as essential. Dismissing the evidence as ‘narrative’ is not enough.” This is an absurd conclusion. That assumes your postion but has not been demonstrated. How do you know that Philip had no such authorization and why should we doubt that Paul did. Moreover, why didn’t God simply separate Paul and Barnabas apart from the action of the church at Antioch if church authority was of no importance? Seems like the text says that the church was to separate and validate their ministry. That sounds a bit like authorize to me.
Jeff
I’m a little lost.
I’m very aware of the story of Philip and the Eunoch, yet I’m seeing both sides use that as an example of either an extension of church oversight through a missionary or as an example of immediate baptism after confession of faith without consulting the local church.
Now off to find more readings….
That’s because it’s an argument that starts to involve what’s not there, and both sides are basing it on their understanding of what the rest of Scripture teaches.
Which is, basically, what you do with Biblical studies. It seems obvious that there might be more to Philip’s story as a whole, but it’s not written.
So, if you believe Philip had to have church authority to baptize, you assume he had, but that it’s not written down. Probably wasn’t written because the Holy Spirit was inspiring the rest of Scripture to instruct on that point, and didn’t want Luke bogging down the narrative.
If you think he didn’t need it, you say “it’s not there” and go on. Except you don’t know that the church didn’t send him and authorize him. But even if a church did, the Holy Spirit would have directed Luke not to write it down, so that we wouldn’t think it was necessary.
Logically, the latter is a stronger argument, since it assumes the silence means nothing critical happened, but stronger argument and absolutely right are not the same thing. And you can see the circle. You get out what you put in.
As with some of the other subjects in the debate, it gets a little difficult to declare a normal practice based on narrative. Nowhere does an Acts narrative declare “And thus it shall always be done,” but instead the narratives just tell what happened then.
Are those events to be seen as the pattern? Should we copy exactly what we see or extract principles from it?
Your being “a little lost,” Jonathan, is actually common to most of us. Single passages can often be found to support various opinions, and not even direct context always helps. That’s the importance of having these kinds of discussions, because if it is a crucial issue, the rest of Scripture will provide the guidance to understand what really happened.
Doug
.-= Doug Hibbard´s last blog ..A brief ranting =-.
Worded very well, Doug.
.-= Josh C´s last blog ..Reading Spurgeon’s “Lectures to My Students” Part 10-11 =-.
Thank you, Doug. Your answer was very much appreciated.
Jeff,
You said to Dave “That assumes your postion but has not been demonstrated.”
I think you have assumed some things in your comment that you have not demonstrated:
“I really doubt that after the church chose him in Acts 6, he said, well, when I am done ‘deacing,’ I will moonlight as an evangelist and baptize whomever I win. Nor does it seem likely that he was commissioned by the Lord to moonlight. It is more likely that he was recognized and authorized by the Jerusalem church to act accordingly. Nevertheless, this is an argument from silence. ”
I think you are arguing from silence as well. I understand that you “really doubt” and say things like “seem likely…more likely”. However, I don’t think this is “demonstrating” what you are asserting.
“Water baptism symbolizes spirit baptism.” [Proof?]
I disagree. Water baptism symbolizes dying and rising with Christ. Believers don’t go “into” the Spirit and then “come out” of the Spirit. However, believers do go “into” death [but don’t stay there] and “come out” alive.
You said “Could you children be baptized by their grandmother and that constitute biblical baptism?”
I understand that you addressed Dave, but I would ask you “upon what biblical grounds would a child’s baptism by their grandmother *not* constitute biblical baptism?”
You said “Grandmothers have a role to play in the lives of our children, but not as baptizers. ”
This is just an assertion without any reason given to back it up. Do you have *any* chapter and verse to back this up?
God Bless,
Benji
.-= Benji Ramsaur´s last blog ..Principles of Faith of The Sandy Creek Association-1816 =-.
Benji:
I am afraid I cannot help you here. This discussion would take longer than I have to invest. I see you are a student at SEBTS. Perhaps your ST class will address this.
I do not have a text that says that grandmothers cannot baptize their grandchildren. Neither do I have a text that says a lot of things . . . like Christians cannot own slaves. Both are wrong and require theological arguments to demonstrate their wrongness. Simple proof-texting will not do.
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. The point of systematic theology to grapple with issues that the Scripture imply via principle, not simply via directive precept.
I guess I could turn this back to you and ask your for a text that incontrovertibly suggests that grandmothers can baptize their grandchildren.
1.) There are NO examples of women doing the baptizing . . . none. So I could argue just on that point alone that at the very least it would be highly irregular for ANY woman to baptize.
2.) Moreover, baptism is a public ceremony meant to show something to someone. How can grandma at a private baptism demonstrate that? If so how?
3.) Those who do officiate at baptism had some formal church position – apostle, evangelist, something. There are no examples of random (male or female) Christians baptizing anyone — none. Sure this is an argument from silence. But the silence is deafening!
So, what gives grandma the right to baptize? Should she serve the Lord’s Table at Thanksgiving dinner? 1 Cor 11:20 says that believers at Corinth observed the Lord’s Table “when they came together.” What does this imply? There are no verses that say you can have communion privately–none.
Theological arguments must be made, not simple proof-texting
Jeff
What about John the Baptist? He wasn’t exactly part of the local church… And if he’s a “special” or as you call it, “random” Christian… then why is he different from me?
Other than the fact, of course, that I am a woman, which is not my point. I shall rephrase: Why is JTB different from a random male Christian?
You know, Jeff, I do not claim to have your level of edumacation, but I am not a novice either. I have a post-graduate degree that focused on theology and biblical studies. That does not make my arguments right, but neither does your PhD make you right. It is not just a product of ignorance or post-modernity to disagree with you.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Three Big Outs =-.
Would Ananias not qualify as a “random Christian”? Or, do we assume, because of silence, that he must have had some official position in the church or another, or else, the Lord wouldn’t have used him to help Saul/Paul in his initial steps of discipleship?
David,
I think Ananias is a good example to bring up because he is simply called a “disciple” [Acts 9:10]. Jon Zens, I believe, pointed this out to me in a video he was in [just trying to give due credit].
.-= Benji Ramsaur´s last blog ..Principles of Faith of The Sandy Creek Association-1816 =-.
David
My point is that we don’t assume anything, but allow the narratives to speak where they speak and remain silent where they are silent. BTW, no time frame is given in the story of Paul’s conversion and baptism. I explain more in my rebuttal that I believe will post soon.
.-= Robin Foster´s last blog ..Dr. Morris Chapman Announces Retirement =-.
And upon further reflection, I don’t see where scripture says Ananias was the one who baptized Paul.
All I am saying is that it is speculation to say that the church was not present just as it is speculation to say that as they were getting Paul to the water, Anamias got the church together. This is why we should not add where scripture is silent. Accept the story as is, an enemy of Christ was saved and baptized. Praise Him for his grace!!!
.-= Robin Foster´s last blog ..Dr. Morris Chapman Announces Retirement =-.
Robin,
Touché. You´re using a little of my own medicine on me there. You are correct. The text does not actually say that Ananias did the baptizing, nor what else may or may not have happened behind the scenes. I think it is likely, given what I read, that Ananias baptized him. You think it is likely that Jesus, in the Great Commission, implied local church supervision. Which leaves us back at square one. The Bible doesn’t tell us for sure, one way or another, on these questions. Though, in my fallible opinion, the evidence is more probable in the case of Ananias than in the Great Commission. I guess we need a pope, or some church magisterium, to decide on this one. 🙂
I am thinking of running for pope once the position comes open.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Three Big Outs =-.
David
Actually I am using what I have been taught at Southwestern, letting the text drive the point. 🙂
Which brings us back to the GC. In my original post and my recently posted rebuttal, I give two explanations where the text drives us to church oversight. The command given to the group as a whole and Jesus presence in connection to the command through the church which was constituted at Pentecost. Yet, nothing shows Ananias baptizing Paul.
I have also given other evidences also: 1Tim 3:15; 1 Cor 12:13.
I saw how you and CB carried on at SBCToday. While good, it was quite taxing. I don’t want to carry on here like that as I am enjoying time with my mom and dad. So you can have the last word and we can let others decide. Thanks.
.-= Robin Foster´s last blog ..Podcast Episode 9 =-.
Out of curiosity, why would a church need membership?
primarily, in my view, for the purposes of discipline and accountability.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Three Big Outs =-.
Meaning it’s not “membership roles are a fundamental theological necessity”, but rather, they’re a good way of carrying out some aspects of what the local church is supposed to do?
.-= Jugulum´s last blog ..Bible Study, Community, and Orthodoxy =-.
What makes a church, a church then?
Is it an official church plant through the IMB or NAMB? Is it a group that splintered through a church split and someone wants to be baptized? At what point is a church, a church?
I’m curious about the concept of church oversight, but what constitutes a church? Are there number limits? What about a house church of 5 or a large church of 5000?
Thank you in advance for anyone who helps me out here.
Jugulum – I agree precisely with what is said in your statement. Membership is not a fundamental, but it is one way of carrying out fundamental concepts of authority, accountability and discipline.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Three Big Outs =-.
In view of keeping alive the tradition of any discussion degenerating into useless ad hominen attacks, I say Dave Miller is wrong because he’s a Yankees fan, and there’s no way someone can love Jesus, read the Bible, and be a Yankees fan.
Real thoughts:
The Great Commission could be also seen as the Lord Jesus Christ authorizing all those who heard Him speaking to baptize. And, as head of the church, His authorization would be equal to the church approving, wouldn’t it? Don’t we generally call ourselves seeking His will when we make church decisions?
One could argue, though, that the Commission applies to us all. I would agree. However, that doesn’t mean we all do every part of it. We see certain aspects of “teaching” being limited by qualifications given by the apostles. So, would those restrictions apply to “baptizing” as well?
I think there is a need for local church involvement, even if it’s an after the fact statement. To borrow Grandma from earlier, Grandma’s baptism would be acceptable, provided she was baptizing a truly saved individual. However, for church membership, the church would need to accept that Grandma had truly baptized a believer, and not just held her grandkids under the water. Then, part of the public confessional nature would be to present the newly saved and nearly Grandma-drowned believers to the church and announce they had been baptized.
I think there’s got to be some restriction, but I don’t think restricting baptizing to only those pre-approved by the local church is Biblically sustainable. I’m not quite sure how to resolve that.
Although trial lawyers might be inclined to sue us if we let people baptize without proper practical training. Lift with your legs, not your back.
Tongue-back-in-cheek: But if Yankees fans think one way, I’ve got to think the other. Go Braves! Oh, well, go home and watch the playoffs, but go anyway.
Doug
.-= Doug Hibbard´s last blog ..Thoughts today, September 23 =-.
Opening paragraph was general Baptist tradition, not an SBCVoices tradition. Sorry. Felt need to clarify.
.-= Doug Hibbard´s last blog ..Thoughts today, September 23 =-.
Doug Hibbard is obvious a liberal, quite possibly post-modern, and several other horrible things. No one talks about my Yankees and gets away with it!
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Three Big Outs =-.
To all
I am in Arkansas taking some vacation time to be with my parents. I will try to respond the best I can, but I don’t promise promptness. I look forward to the discussion on the rebuttals.
Thanks
Robin
.-= Robin Foster´s last blog ..Dr. Morris Chapman Announces Retirement =-.
You get vacation?
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Three Big Outs =-.
At least you came to the right place. It sounds more like a need than a want, but Arkansas is a great place to vacation!
Good place to live, too, but I’m biased.
.-= Doug Hibbard´s last blog ..Thoughts today, September 23 =-.
Jeff,
“I guess I could turn this back to you and ask your for a text that incontrovertibly suggests that grandmothers can baptize their grandchildren.”
Well, I think some people would still argue against my interpretation of this text–Matthew 28:19-20. However, there it is anyway.
“Grandmothers have a role to play in the lives of our children, but not as baptizers. ”
You can erase my reference to “chapter and verse” if you would like. If you want to show how your assertion is true from your systematic theology, then that is fine. Personally, I lean towards the idea that one can only arrive at your position by “over systematizing” the Scriptures.
Sorry that my website is not updated:)
.-= Benji Ramsaur´s last blog ..Principles of Faith of The Sandy Creek Association-1816 =-.
Jeff,
In looking at your #’s 1, 2 and 3, it seems to me that two of your arguments are arguments from silence while the other argument would invalidate the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch.
If you are getting #2 from the ministry of John the Baptist, then I think that is erroneous since John’s baptism is distinguished from Christian baptism in the book of Acts [in my view].
God Bless,
Benji
.-= Benji Ramsaur´s last blog ..Principles of Faith of The Sandy Creek Association-1816 =-.
Not to overly side-track this, but I’ve been reading back on Philip and his involvement in these areas.
How do we know that Philip in Acts 8 isn’t Philip the Apostle? Am I reading past the verse that says it isn’t?
Because if he’s Philip the Apostle, then it’s easy to assume he’s ‘approved’ to baptize.
Just wondering on that. Can’t find definite statements either way. Eusebius says that there is only one Philip, and someone simply says Eusebius is wrong. So I was just wondering…
.-= Doug Hibbard´s last blog ..Thoughts today, September 23 =-.
From a “theological” standpoint concerning baptism, I do think it is key what Thomas Patient said above about the “tenor” of the New Covenant:
“I gather that a disciple enabled to bring down God to a soul, and to bring a soul again up to God, is a lawful Minister of Baptism. For that is the tenor of the New Covenant, Heb. 8:10. ‘I will be to them a God, and they shalt be to me a people…”
Think about the contrast between the tenor of the New Covenant and the tenor of the Old Covenant:
O.C.
1. “Ordained” Levitical male priests.
2. Unbelieving covenant community [with a believing remnant].
3. High ecclesiology with only priests doing ministry.
N.C.
1. Everyone (including grandmothers) are priests [1 Peter 2:9].
2. Believing covenant community [Hebrews 8:11].
3. Low ecclesiology with all the priests doing ministry [Matt. 23:1-11, 1 Peter 2:5].
Personally, when the tenor of the New Covenant is seen as the theological backdrop of Matthew 28:19-20, then I think this shifts the evidence towards elect grandmothers being legitimate administrators of baptism.
.-= Benji Ramsaur´s last blog ..Principles of Faith of The Sandy Creek Association-1816 =-.