Is the belief in eternal security necessary to perform a valid, biblical baptism? Do the doctrinal beliefs of the church or administrator of baptism contribute to the validity of that baptism? Should a person who wishes to join a Baptist church and was baptized by immersion in a church that believes salvation can be lost be re-baptized in a Baptist church? This debate has raged in blogs for years, often creating as much heat as light. In our last debate we focused on church oversight of baptism. Now, we tackle this thorny issue in hopes that we can take one step toward greater understanding on the issue.
Defining the Debate
It is dangerous to speak for Robin, but I believe I am on safe ground as I make these assertions. I am open to correction if I have erred.
1) Robin and I agree on the key markers of valid biblical baptism. Dr. Thomas White has identified six key markers of valid baptism. He admitted that they were of vary importance. A valid baptism has a proper subject (a believer), mode (immersion only), meaning (symbolic, not saving or sanctifying), and a Trinitarian formula. I believe that Robin and I are in full agreement on these primary issues. A valid baptism must be of a believer by immersion, in the name of our God symbolizing, but not procuring salvation. Our only disagreements are over the last two markers. White says a valid baptism must be connected to a local church (which we debated last time) and have a proper administrator (the subject of this debate). White admits that the administrator of baptism does not hold the same level of importance as the other issues.
2) Robin and I agree that baptisms that do not meet one of these four key standards are invalid. If one was baptized before conversion, it is not valid. If one was baptized as a requisite for salvation, that is not biblical. We both understand that the Greek word baptism implies immersion, and therefore sprinkling and pouring are not valid methods of baptism. We disagree whether the administrator’s belief on security matters for a valid baptism.
3) Robin and I agree that salvation once given is never rescinded by God. We both believe in the perseverance of believers in God’s grace.
4) Robin and I agree that the belief that one can lose his salvation is a false interpretation of scripture and a serious error of doctrine. I will not be arguing that this interpretation is correct, only that it does not nullify an otherwise valid baptism.
Does Security Matter in Baptism?
1) I believe that the only theology essential to a valid baptism is that which is essential to the symbolism of baptism. Baptism symbolizes the death of Christ for our sins and his resurrection to bring us new life. So, as long as one is baptizing by immersion a professing believer and believes in salvation by grace through faith alone, recognizing that baptism symbolizes but does not provide salvation, the baptism is valid. The nature and meaning of baptism determines which doctrines are essential. How does a belief in losing one’s salvation invalidate the symbolism of baptism? Water baptism can symbolize these key truths regardless of one’s view of security.
2) If we designate security as a validating doctrinal belief for baptism, what other doctrines do we include as invalidating? Should we make issues of other soteriological doctrines (particular atonement, election, etc.)? Why make a big issue of security?
3) There is little biblical evidence regarding the issue of the administrator of baptism. 1 Corinthians 1:10-17 is weak evidence, but at least it indicates that Paul thought that the administrator of baptism was a minor issue at best. He argued that there should be no division in the church based on who performed a baptism.
4) Can we not accept that there are practices that are not ideal, but are also not invalidating? It seems pretty clear that the ideal for communion would be one loaf and one common cup. Few of us use those anymore. We may not fulfill the ideal completely, but do not, by that, declare that the communion is invalid. I would prefer people be baptized in fellowship with churches of clear Baptist doctrine. But, the fact that a baptism is not ideal does not necessarily negate the baptism.
5) When we demand rebaptism, we risk demanding that which we believe scripture prohibits. A person is saved once and baptized once. If the first baptism was valid, we are demanding that someone be baptized twice, in opposition to scripture. That should only be done if the original baptism was clearly invalid (of a believer by immersion to symbolize salvation). Since there is no direct biblical evidence on this issue, we are on shaky ground to invalidate such baptisms. We could actually be demanding disobedience to Christ by doing so. It should only be done on strong, direct evidence, which simply does not exist here.
At best, this should be an issue decided church by church based on local convictions, and should not be encoded in our confessions. There is just not enough biblical evidence, in my opinion, to invalidate baptisms on this basis or re-baptize previously baptized believers.
Again, let me emphasize that I believe in security and think it is a crucial doctrine. But, I also believe that someone can perform a baptism by immersion of a believer that fully and properly symbolizes the death and resurrection of Christ, while holding the belief that one can lose salvation. It is a false doctrine, but not one that would invalidate a baptism.
If the baptism meets the four key criteria, I do not believe it is biblically justified to make an issue of doctrines such as eternal security when determining the validity of a baptism.
Dave Miller
Eternal Security is a Must for Valid Baptisms
Should a church that holds to eternal security/perseverance accept baptisms done in churches that do not hold to this doctrine? My answer is no and one area I will explore is Paul’s understanding of baptism in Romans 6:3-11. To hold to a “conditional” salvation perverts the gospel itself and the complete totality of Christ’s vicarious death on the cross. To also hold that one can lose their salvation contradicts the symbolic meaning of baptism as explicitly taught in these aforementioned scriptures.
The first question that comes up in this scripture is whether Paul is talking about spiritual or water baptism? Yet this question is unnecessary as Dr. Thomas Schreiner rightly comments, “…. any attempt to distinguish between Spirit baptism and water baptism in the Pauline writings goes beyond what Paul himself wrote.”[1] So, since the physical represents the spiritual, what does baptism represent?
First, we are united with Christ in not only His death, but also His resurrection (6:5). The word, “united” (NASB) is the Greek word ????????. While this word has various meanings (planted together, united, at one with, fused), as used in this scripture it means that we identify ourselves with Christ’s death and resurrection. When believers experience salvation, not only does uniting with Christ mean we die to our sins in that sin is no longer our master, but also we also now live (because of our uniting with Christ) never to die again (6:9). Dr. Akin provides an accurate understanding of our uniting with Christ’s resurrection as symbolized in baptism:
“In other words, is there within the act of baptism, a declaration of my eternal security, of my preservation in this resurrection life? I believe the answer is yes. United with Christ in baptism, I too died to sin once for all. United with Christ in baptism, I too emerge from the realm of death unto a new life both in quality and quantity, a new life that will not and cannot end!”[2]
Schreiner also states:
“The presupposition for the whole argument is that believers are already incorporated into Christ. Thus what is true of Christ as their representative is also true of them. Believers will live together with Christ, because now that Christ has been raised from the dead, he cannot die again. Those who belong to Christ will share in his triumph over death.”[3]
Therefore, in these scriptures, Paul declares that our uniting with Christ that is represented in our physical baptism shows our eternal security or perseverance in Christ; that no matter what, Christ is the author and finisher of our faith (Heb 12:2). Notice one other item. Paul does not speak of the individual believer uniting with Christ, even though that is true, but he speaks of the collective “we” being planted or fused together with Christ. While I don’t believe this should be pressed too far as to negate the salvation each one receives individually, there is an understanding that baptism is not done in isolation, but with others who have preceded them. There is a connection in not only mode, but doctrine also as the individual comes together with the church uniting themselves to Christ. This, of course, is symbolized in the ordinance of baptism by the local New Testament church.
In the past, I have heard objections that this argumentation requires one to also deny baptisms done in churches that do not hold to other doctrines of grace like the doctrine of total depravity. Yet, this is illogical for the simple fact that the doctrine of total depravity speaks of humanity’s condition, not the condition of Christ. Remember, Paul was talking about believers uniting with Christ and the benefits of His atonement, not Christ uniting with our depravity and us. When believers are raised out of the water, they are not raised to conditional life, dependent upon their ability to stay saved, they are raised to eternal life based on the truth that Christ was raised, never to die again. Believers identify with Christ in the act of baptism.
So, what if the individual believer held to the conviction of their eternal security (without conditions, never to lose it) when they were baptized and the church they were baptized in did not? Does that mean his baptism should be accepted by a church holding to eternal security even though he was baptized in a church that held to “conditional” salvation/security? Before I answer, let me ask the question in this manner. Should a church accept a baptism that is done in another church that believes in baptismal regeneration even though the believer may not have held to that view when they were baptized? Some may say yes on both accounts, as they believe that baptism is only between the believer and God and the church’s role is minimal to non-existent. Yet, that logic will accept baptism on those who truly believed even though they were baptized in a Jehovah Witness or Mormon assembly. This relates to the last debate of church oversight I had with Bro. Dave. To remain consistent, those who deny church oversight must accept baptism done anywhere regardless of belief. After all, what does it matter who sanctions the baptism (Baptist, Assembly of God, Mormon, Jehovah Witness) if the one being baptized is truly a believer?
Yet, it does matter for Paul because during our spiritual baptism certain doctrinal truths happened to us that are proclaimed in the physical manifestation of baptism as performed by the church. These doctrinal truths are so important that Paul related them to the Roman Church, by illustration of baptism, in his effort to curb any accusation of antinomianism against his view that we are saved, not by works but by God’s declaration of us as righteous upon our profession of faith. As I have previously stated, the church is the “pillar and ground” of truth. To affirm by accepting the baptism of another church that holds to “conditional” salvation or baptismal regeneration is to simultaneously pervert the gospel.
[1] Schreiner, Romans, 307. In the quotes I use I am not declaring that anyone agrees or disagrees with the premise of my paper other than that which they affirm in their statements.
[2] Akin, Restoring Integrity in Baptist Churches, 77.
[3] Schreiner, 320.
Robin Foster
Essentially I see two points of difference between the two sides here.
1) The question of whether local church oversight is necessary for valid baptism. (Although I could conceive of a belief that holds local church oversight is not necessary, while simultaneously holding that BAD church oversight could disqualify a baptism’s legitimacy. For example, those who don’t require church oversight would probably still not except a baptism from the LDS on doctrinal grounds even in the person claimed individual knowledge of the truth.)
2. The question of what level of bad belief qualifies a church as “Bad” or illegitimate to perform valid baptism.
In regards to number 2, I think Robin stretches the point a little to connect the issue of eternal security/perseverance of the saints with the idea of baptismal regeneration and even further to the point of JW’s and Mormon doctrines. In the issue of Baptismal regeneration, one can understand how such a view would require a true baptism later in life where the participant is no longer trusting in their work of baptism to bring them to Christ. The question here is NOT primarily about the baptism itself, but rather a belief that true salvation has not occurred in a context where the person is trusting in their own work rather than Christ’s for salvation.
For the issue of baptismal regeneration to be analogous to the eternal security question, one would have to argue that those baptized without knowledge of eternal security are NOT really saved. You would even have to go beyond whether or not the church itself taught eternal security in fact to whether the individual held to that position at the time of their baptism. (After all, the church taught it, but baptized an individual who didn’t hold to that.)
I can see how the doctrine of baptismal regeneration and those of sects like the JW’s and Mormons would disqualify any baptisms there based on what we believe about salvation itself. I cannot see how eternal security in Christ is at the same level.
And of course, moving the argument the other way, at what point do we start allowing baptisms from those who disagree with us? What about eschatology? (I’ve heard some pre-Tribbers say that a post-Trib position attacks the atonement of Christ by allowing believers to be on earth during a time of wrath. That would qualify for Robin’s argument about doctrines that connect with the work of Christ to be determinative of baptismal legitimacy.) Perhaps Robin might provide in a bit more detail in a comment (I know space was limited above!) a working grid for determining which doctrinal issues disqualify a church from being a valid source of baptism (and which would not.)
Good debate on both sides though so far!
.-= Josh C´s last blog ..Reading “The Life and Diary of David Brainerd” =-.
Robin,
“The first question that comes up in this scripture is whether Paul is talking about spiritual or water baptism?”
I don’t think the first question should be “spiritual” or “water”, but “ontological” or “relational”. Jason Meyer [whose doctoral supervisor was Schreiner] argues in favor of the relational in his book “The End of the Law” [Pg. 40-44] and I think he is right.
I don’t think Spirit baptism is in view in Romans 6 at all. I think what is in view is baptism into death, not baptism in the Spirit. I don’t think it is a good idea to equate baptism in/into the Spirit with baptism into death. Folks come out of death. Folks don’t come out of the Spirit. Water baptism reflects baptism into death, not the Spirit.
I think Spirit baptism is in view in 1 Corinthians 12:13 and if one wants to reject distinguishing between Spirit baptism and water baptism, then I think one has to show how Spirit baptism is involved in the imagery of water baptism. I don’t think this can be done.
I think the different imagery Paul uses of Spirit baptism and water baptism *implies* distinction.
Scheiner is my favorite SB theologian in any SB seminary. If my library burned down, I would hope his “New Testament Theology” would be the one book that survived [aside from the Bible].
However, I think he is wrong on not distinguishing between Spirit baptism and water baptism and I think he is wrong in his belief that the church existed before Pentecost.
God Bless,
Benji
What if the administrator believed in eternal security but was not validly baptised himself? Surely that would disqualify the baptism. But see where it leads. We would have to have an unbroken succession of valid baptisms dating back to the apostles.
Are women valid administrators of baptism?
The answer to that probably relates to our last discussion. If church oversight and authority is necessary, that authority would probably be male.
All the baptisms performed in scripture were by males. But I see no direct teaching on the subject. If someone came to me who had been baptized by a woman, I would have to do a lot of soul searching.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Significiant Servants September 20&27, 2009 "God’s Wonderful Plan for Your Life" =-.
Well, are all baptisms to be performed by elders? I can understand elder/church oversight, but can an male led church authorize a female to perform baptisms? I agree with having standards for baptism, but I would think long and hard before I looked someone in the eye and said their baptism was false because they were baptized by a woman.
Josh, I believe you are right that the foundation of this argument is local church oversight. Of course, I also believe that Robin’s exposition of the Romans 6 text is flawed, or I would agree with him!
I think it is also wrong to link this issue to baptismal regeneration, or JW or Mormons or others. If someone does not have an orthodox belief in salvation I would think that nullifies that baptism. I cannot imagine that Robin is trying to link Arminian theology on security with false views of salvation. There is a significant difference between false views of soteriology and flawed views. To confuse them misses the point entirely.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Significiant Servants September 20&27, 2009 "God’s Wonderful Plan for Your Life" =-.
Robin argued, “This relates to the last debate of church oversight I had with Bro. Dave. To remain consistent, those who deny church oversight must accept baptism done anywhere regardless of belief. After all, what does it matter who sanctions the baptism (Baptist, Assembly of God, Mormon, Jehovah Witness) if the one being baptized is truly a believer?”
Here, he is setting up a straw man. Readers need to understand that neither Robin nor I see the other person’s essay until they are posted. I would hope that he might not have made this argument had he read my essay in advance. But my point is that as long as the believer is baptized by immersion after salvation (not as a saving act) and the symbolism is orthodox, it is a valid baptism. That would clearly render baptisms for regeneration, or under the direction of Mormons or JWs valid.
Consistency does NOT, in fact, require me to accept Robin’s argument. It takes a valid point to the absurd extreme. Consistency only requires that we accept that which is necessary to biblical baptism and do not add requirements beyond that which is necessary.
The real question here is whether a belief in losing salvation so warps the meaning of salvation that it renders the baptism invalid. I do not believe that it does. Robin, of course, sees it differently.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Significiant Servants September 20&27, 2009 "God’s Wonderful Plan for Your Life" =-.
Dave
THis is no strawman. This is the logical outworkings of those who hold that the church has nothing to do with baptism as the ordinance itself is between the believer and God. Again, if that is the case then any baptism performed by anyone is valid.
You stated this, “The real question here is whether a belief in losing salvation so warps the meaning of salvation that it renders the baptism invalid.” Yes, I do believe that the belief of losing ones salvation does warp the meaning of salvation in a terrible and tragic way. Similarly in the same way you and I believe baptismal regeneration does so. Earning salvation and losing salvation are both works based.
.-= Robin Foster´s last blog ..Something Good About NAMB =-.
Robin,
Would you hold that one who does not believe (or is not taught) eternal security is not really saved?
Secondly, those of us who would draw a distinction between the problem of baptismal regeneration and the issue of eternal security would note that in the issue of eternal security, the role of baptism itself is not confused or tied into a “works” theology as it is in baptismal regeneration. How would you see that distinction?
.-= Josh C´s last blog ..Tozer on Faith and Mercy =-.
Josh
If someone believes they need to be good enough for God or believes their actions could lead to losing their salvation, then yes, I do not believe they are fully trusting in the salvation provided by Christ.
Second, eternal security is based on the fact that once someone is saved, they live in Christ, not according to their own performance as salvation is concerned. Let me ask it to you this way, if someone claims to be saved, but believes they need to do certain things (baptism) or not do certain things to remain saved (murder, adultery), how is that different from someone who believes they need to be baptized in order to be saved? Both ideas are works based.
.-= Robin Foster´s last blog ..Something Good About NAMB =-.
Robin,
I think perhaps you are oversimplifying the position of those who believe in “conditional security.” The Arminian position here isn’t that a simple “work” or sin (such as adultery or murder) disqualifies or removes someone’s salvation, but rather that one may renounce their faith in much the same way as they professed it in the beginning. Obviously we would disagree with that, but let us not reduce their position down to a simple “works-based salvation” heresy.
.-= Josh C´s last blog ..Tozer on Faith and Mercy =-.
“Yes, I do believe that the belief of losing ones salvation does warp the meaning of salvation in a terrible and tragic way. Similarly in the same way you and I believe baptismal regeneration does so. Earning salvation and losing salvation are both works based.”
Robin, you seem to be coming close to arguing that the belief in apostasy is a heresy that undermines the gospel itself, nullifying salvation – like baptismal regeneration.
I would distinguish the two. Baptismal regeneration is a false doctrine that stands against the gospel. Apostasy is a false interpretation of those who stand squarely within the boundaries of the gospel.
Because I believe that people who believe in losing salvation are nonetheless genuinely saved, I think their baptisms are authentic, even if flawed.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Significiant Servants September 20&27, 2009 "God’s Wonderful Plan for Your Life" =-.
The word, “united” (NASB) is the Greek word ????????.
I’m sorry, I tried to find ????????? in a Greek dictionary and couldn’t. Can someone help a brother out? Haa haa Just kidding.
.-= Joe Blackmon´s last blog ..The Secret to Happiness pt 1 =-.
I suspect he did what I sometimes do, put question marks in there to remind myself to add something later, which he then forgot to do.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Significiant Servants September 20&27, 2009 "God’s Wonderful Plan for Your Life" =-.
Yeah, I’ve done the same thing. Twas just a joke.
.-= Joe Blackmon´s last blog ..The Secret to Happiness pt 1 =-.
Dave
I did not know the posts were going up today. I will try to respond tomorrow on some of the questions, but the question marks must be a misformat from the Greek word I put in the text when it was transfered from the Word format.
Until then, God bless and good night.
I should have known that Yankees fan Dave would have tried to pull a fast one on you!
.-= Josh C´s last blog ..God is not the creator? =-.
Jealousy
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Significiant Servants September 20&27, 2009 "God’s Wonderful Plan for Your Life" =-.
The issue of baptism and th local church seems to me to be more of an issue with Baptists, since the rise of Landmarkism. In the 1700s John Gano, Shubal Stearns, and others never sought tthe appoval of a local church in order to baptize some one. Ministers on the frontier and missionaries as well as pastors of local churches simply baptized the person who desired it based upon being satisfied with their profession of faith, their experience of salvation. The church then voted whether it would receive the person’s profession (which was expressed in the act of baptism. After J.R. Graves, et. al., came on the scene, then the idea that the church had to authorize the baptism became prominent. Prior to Landmarkism, my findings in Baptist Church History do not support the idea that the church had to decide before hand whether the person should be baptized or not.
.-= Dr. James Willingham´s last blog ..The Climax of the Reformation =-.
Robin,
“…he speaks of the collective ‘we’ being planted or fused together with Christ…there is an understanding that baptism is not done in isolation, but with others who have preceded them. There is a connection in not only mode, but doctrine also as the individual comes together with the church uniting themselves to Christ.”
There is no mention of we being planted or fused *together* in the text itself.
The King James does say “For if we have been planted TOGETHER in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:” in verse 5. (caps mine)
However, this word is not translated from the Greek but is simply added. Verse 5 in the NASB reads differently for example [i.e., the word “together” is not found in that translation].
There is a big difference in saying these two things:
1. We all went to Golden Corral this year.
2. We all together went to Golden Corral this year.
.-= Benji Ramsaur´s last blog ..Principles of Faith of The Sandy Creek Association-1816 =-.
Benji
I will acknowledge that there is some debate concerning this term, especially the first person plural used in ginomai (. Sumphutos (the ?????? word) means a fusing or growing together. Part of my argumentation for this is that this identification or “growing together” is the fact that we all are united to one Savior and this one Savior draws us together with Him in not only His death, but His resurrection. This is done not as isolated individuals, but in community that is represented as the church participates in baptism also.
.-= Robin Foster´s last blog ..Something Good About NAMB =-.
Robin,
I have not studied that word and so I am open to the idea that the King James might be accurately drawing out the word’s meaning.
However, let us assume, for argument’s sake, that the King James is correct.
Wouldn’t the fact that *Paul* is saying “we” [and thus is including himself] exclude the idea that this is communicating some mere local church togetherness?
.-= Benji Ramsaur´s last blog ..Principles of Faith of The Sandy Creek Association-1816 =-.
Dr Willingham
Actually the question of baptism was debated from the earliest times in Baptist life. Dan Taylor would not be accepted for baptism because of his Arminian beliefs and waited until he found a General Baptist Church. Apparently all five points of the doctrines of grace was the dividing line there. What the church believed mattered to Dan Taylor and Particular Baptists. While in my post I disagree that all the doctrines of grace should be a dividing line, I believe that eternal security is pictured in Romans 6:9-11 and applied to baptism.
.-= Robin Foster´s last blog ..Something Good About NAMB =-.
Robin,
“Yet, it does matter for Paul because during our spiritual baptism certain doctrinal truths happened to us that are proclaimed in the physical manifestation of baptism as performed by the church.”
The way you phrased this is strange to me. What do you mean that certain doctrinal truths HAPPENED TO US (I don’t know how to italicize).
.-= Benji Ramsaur´s last blog ..Principles of Faith of The Sandy Creek Association-1816 =-.
Doctrinal Truths – Identifying with Christ, Dying to our sins, Living with Christ never to die again (eternal security).
.-= Robin Foster´s last blog ..Something Good About NAMB =-.
Robin,
I’m not talking about the doctrinal truths, but the “happened to us” phrase.
.-= Benji Ramsaur´s last blog ..Principles of Faith of The Sandy Creek Association-1816 =-.
OK
We identified with Christ, we died to our sins, we will never lose our salvation.
If that does not help, maybe you can help me with understanding what you don’t understand. Sorry, it is late and I am a little dense.
🙂
.-= Robin Foster´s last blog ..Something Good About NAMB =-.
Robin,
Thank you for comment #51 because that does help me understand where you are coming from. As far as your phrase “happened to us”, I don’t think it is a big deal.
You said “happened to us” but when you explain what you meant, you talk about something not happening to us, but something that we do–“we identified with Christ…etc.”
But, again, I don’t think it is a big deal.
But there is one thing that I do think might be a big deal and that is the idea of “over systematizing” the Scriptures.
There is a sense in which dotting our i’s and crossing our t’s is helpful when it comes to something like explaining the truths of God’s word in a clear and helpful way [for example].
However, I think we need to be careful not to dot i’s and cross t’s that aren’t there in the first place. If we are not careful, then I think we can end up unnecessarily dividing the body of Christ.
Let us all remember that statements in the Bible concerning out unity *are* clear.
.-= Benji Ramsaur´s last blog ..Principles of Faith of The Sandy Creek Association-1816 =-.
I asked this once, but I don’t think anyone answered. Does the baptizer have to be validly baptized himself (herself)?
In other words, suppose the administrator was Baptist, believed in eternal security, but had been baptized in a Pentecostal Holiness church?
Are the baptisms this person performs valid, assuming the baptizee meets the standard baptist prerequisites for baptism?
Those are the kind of thorny answers that we might give different answers to.
I would say that the meaning and purpose of the baptism from the point of view of the one being baptized is what is important, so whether the baptizer’s baptism is declared valid matters less.
I’m just guessing, but those who hold more strongly to church oversight would probably say that might invalidate the baptism. Not sure.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Significiant Servants September 20&27, 2009 "God’s Wonderful Plan for Your Life" =-.
David: I agree. My question was more directed to those who would hold that the administrator must believe in eternal security. If that is true, then certainly the administrator must also have undergone a valid baptism himself. Anything less would pose an utter inconsistency.
Here’s my question (raised by a commenter on the last debate – Jugulum?) – Does an imperfect baptism equal and invalid baptism?
Using the “One loaf/one cup” argument rooted in 1 Corinthians 10, I think it is an apropos question. Few of us practice the LS with a common loaf or cup. Clearly, in 1 Cor 10, that would be the ideal celebration, symbolizing that we are all part of one body and take part in one act of grace.
Does the fact that we do not observe the LS ideal mean that it is invalid? No. The lack of an ideal does not make the practice invalid.
I would argue the same. Is a belief in apostasy ideal? No. Does the baptizer’s belief in such mean the symbolism falls short of the ideal? yes. Does it mean the baptism is invalid? No. The baptism, even falling short of the ideal, is still real – a valid baptism that should not be repeated.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Significiant Servants September 20&27, 2009 "God’s Wonderful Plan for Your Life" =-.
Is that akin to the “if video replay shows the top of the head didn’t completely go under, must the baptism be redone?” issue. Allow me to press you at this point, Dave, to define the difference between issues that make an “imperfect” baptism versus those that make an “invalid” one.
I would say that there are fundamental issues that are non-negotiable because they are biblical. Immersion after conversion. As a symbol of salvation, not as a saving act. Those are irreducible biblical minimums, to me.
If a baptism takes place without normal church authority, that would be less than ideal, perhaps. Or, if the person doing the baptism does not have proper doctrine.
These may not be ideal,, but they do not prevent the baptism from being performed in a biblical mode with biblical meaning. The baptism is biblical, but not ideal.
Some have argued that this would extend to mode, and we should accept non-immersion baptisms. Since I believe the word implies immersion, I can’t go there.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Significiant Servants September 20&27, 2009 "God’s Wonderful Plan for Your Life" =-.
Well put. Not airtight, but workable. I think we could all imagine complicated scenarios that would find holes in both Dave’s and Robin’s positions. But it is more helpful to deal with the normative situations that we as Baptist regularly encounter in the issue of alien immersion.
(In response to alien immersion, one of my MBTS professors once joked, “well if I could ever catch one of those little green buggers, I’d dunk ’em.”)
.-= Josh C´s last blog ..Tozer on Faith and Mercy =-.
I have a similar thought every time I hear the word “alien immersion”
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Significiant Servants September 20&27, 2009 "God’s Wonderful Plan for Your Life" =-.
This is somewhat unrelated to the issue at hand, but it may relate to the idea of “imperfect” baptism.
The last time I saw a baptism in a Southern Baptist church, the man being baptized was holding his nose as he went under, and his left arm was bent and pointing away from his body. When the pastor put him under, most of the man’s left arm did not go under the water.
Was this man validly baptized?
.-= Chris Poe´s last blog ..Dismissing Dispensationalism for the Wrong Reasons =-.
Only if he is conservative, you know, right wing.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Significiant Servants September 20&27, 2009 "God’s Wonderful Plan for Your Life" =-.
If I remember right, Constantine’s army was baptized except for their sword hands so they could still fight. (unless that’s one of those historical urban legends.)
.-= Josh C´s last blog ..Reading Spurgeon’s “Lectures to My Students” Part 16 =-.
Interestingly enough there is the story of John Gano baptizing George Washington by immersion during the Revolution. This took place at Washington’s request, and was witnessed by perhaps 60 people (I forget he exact number) according to the information that Dr. Garland Henricks provided in his article on the subject. Naturally, Gano baptized Washington wthout any aughtority from a church other than his own ordintion to be a Gospel minister. Keach or Knollys or Kiffin, I forget which, had a General Baptist preach his funeral. Sometimes people made an issue of the differences between calvinists and arminians and sometimes they didn’t.
.-= Dr. James Willingham´s last blog ..The Climax of the Reformation =-.
I have followed the debate and there are good arguments presented, but I still have a problem with Robin Foster’s view. I was raised in a Primitive Baptist church and surrendered to the Lord when I was 12. There were several of us who were young and we talked about baptism and church membership. I knew what was happening when I was baptised and I knew the baptiser. I had not heard much about security of the believer at that time. Most of our studies were limited to those a 12 year old could understand and most were evangelical because we were so young. What I did know was that my pastor was a man of God. Later I would find that I disagreed with his view of eternal salvation. What I never saw was the slightest waiver in his faith. He served God until his death. I have no doubt that he is in heaven. I joined a Southern Baptist church and really struggled with their requirement to be rebaptised. No one knew why they required anyone from a non-SBC church to be rebaptised. I gave in eventually because I felt this was where God wanted me to serve. My second baptism was non-scriptual but it is the one that was accepted by the IMB. I still know within my heart that I was baptised correctly when I was 12. If I had not been talked into the second baptism I might never have served on the foreign field or even with the NAMB. Our church has changed the policy since that time and each candidate is considered seperately according to their experience. No one on the mission field, no one in my hometown, no one that I have witnessed to, has ever asked about my baptism. Only Southern Baptists. My first pastor led me to the Lord. Do not tell me his authority is in question.
My first time to comment even though I have followed many of you for the past 4 years.
Rick M
I think you state in the practical what I tried to state in the theoretical.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..I’m Having a Coronary =-.
More often I have heard of Primitive Baptists rejecting all other baptisms but theirs. But IMO it cuts both ways.
.-= Chris Poe´s last blog ..Dismissing Dispensationalism for the Wrong Reasons =-.
Rick Myers is a good illustration of why rebaptizing can descend to the absurd. I studied the Primitive/Missionary split. Here is a contrast. Before the split, Baptists usually referred to other Protestants as their pedo-baptist brethren. After the split things got so nasty that Primitives and Missionaries referred to one another as the Antichrist!!!! Actually, my thesis on The Baptists & Ministerial Qualifications:1750-1850 sought to explain the nature and effect of theological ideas on human behavior, and the Antichrist was a result of a number of things, but one was the polarization of the human mind on one side of a two-sided doctrine. Rick was forced to undergo a baptism which actually violated the spirit of NT baptism, i.e., one baptism/immersion (water that is). Such rules especially grew out of the wrangling between the Primitives and Missionaries, and it was intensified with the development of Landmarkism. The Primitives are not all bad any more than the Missionaries are all good. The Primitives more nearly resemble some of our predecessors (whether there is an organic connection or not does not matter) in the Dark Ages before the Reformation. People being persecuted are remarkable for their holding on to any truth, even if it isn’t much. Both groups have been very mean to one another at times. Once they have dealt with their opponents, they then turn on subgroups within their own grouping. The end result can be total chaos (a thing some groups outside the original really desire. The sad part is that the biblical teachings were meant to make us balanced, flexible, creative, and magnetic. Indeed, biblical orthodoxy is the only truly liberal position as it wants truth to win by persuasion and love and evidence alone. That is why Williams and Clarke put religious liberty into law in Rhode Island, and they were following General Baptists who had written on the subject before them. Then the US Government followed the Rhode Island example. The Bible teaching is the source of our liberty and freedom and our liberalism. What ruined the latter term has been the efforts of some individuals to turn liberty into license. However, in the end true biblical liberty wins. God bless Rick for trying so hard, and Lord open the eyes of Southern Baptists not to be so hard nosed. After all Gano went to communion with Whitefield?????? And Stearns’ had eldresses in Sandy Creek Church (one his own sister, Martha Stearns Marshall who would win a man to Christ who later became a Baptist miniter for over 50 years, Elder Samuel Cartledge).
.-= Dr. James Willingham´s last blog ..The Climax of the Reformation =-.
If baptism by those rejecting eternal security is to be rejected because in Robin’s words it has to do with the “condition of Christ,” then why not reject the baptisms of those who deny limited atonement? Or on the other side, why not reject the baptisms of those who believe Christ died only for the elect?
One’s view of the atonement certainly has implications regarding the condition of Christ, specifically what Christ did on the cross. Five point Calvinists would argue that those who do not believe in limited atonement (and who are not universalists) believe in effect that some of Christ’s blood was therefore “wasted” since he would have died for people who did not believe.
(Of course I’m playing devil’s advocate here and know no one who would make the argument above, although some Calvinists do regard unlimited atonement as heresy. Yet I find my hypothetical argument to be no more absurd (at least from a logical standpoint) than the eternal security argument.)
Brothers, if we are going to add these kinds of conditions, the multiplying of sects will have no end, as Dr. Willingham notes above.
To toss another aberrant view out there, what about baptism under the authority of a church that does hold to eternal security but one which believes that women can be pastors/elders, whether that particular church has them or not? Is this a sufficient error to make it a false church and thus invalidate its baptism?
I also wonder who first taught that baptism (immersion) by those rejecting eternal security is invalid. From my reading of Baptist history (which is by no means exhaustive) it seems to be a rather novel view that is not expressed in any of the historic Baptist confessions. The IMB controversy is the first time I saw it raised, although I would think that the idea predates it.
.-= Chris Poe´s last blog ..Dismissing Dispensationalism for the Wrong Reasons =-.
I can’t seem to get traction with my idea here but I’ll give it one more try. If both the person being baptized, and the administrator must meet certain conditions to perform what we’ll call a “legitimate” baptism, then it seems to me that is going to require an unbroken string of legitimate baptism stretching back to the apostles. What happens when there is a break in that string and we have a group of people, none of whom are legitimately baptized? This had to have happened at the very least around the time of the reformation.
For the unbroken string theory, I’d have to refer to you to the book “Trail of Blood”, specifically its accompanying charts.
I say that with a little sarcasm, but obviously some who hold to such views as you are describing have attempted to reconstruct an historical string of legitimate baptisms going back to John the Baptist himself. Others would simply argue perhaps that the historical circumstances of a very broken string, though less than ideal, are what they are. They might argue that now, however, it could be possible to start “keeping score” again now that enough people have been baptized under the right conditions.
(I know some people “skim” comments and reply. I don’t hold either of those views; I’m just trying to answer Bill.)
.-= Josh C´s last blog ..Reading Spurgeon’s “Lectures to My Students” Part 16 =-.
Bill, I think your point does on one side what I believe Robin is doing on the other. He made the point that the logical extension of my view is to say that Mormons or JWs or other cult groups can baptize legitimately. I said I thought that was absurd.
I think you’re kidding. But I also think this is making a logical extrapolation which is unwarranted. I do not agree with Robin’s position, obviously, but he is not advocating the “trail of blood”, just as I am not advocating we accept baptisms from cult groups.
Both are argument ad absurbum.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Significiant Servants September 20&27, 2009 "God’s Wonderful Plan for Your Life" =-.
Dave: Not kidding, just trying to explain the flaw in the reasoning that the administrator has to have a distinctly “Baptist” theology in order to perform legitimate baptisms. I’m not issuing a Landmarker charge. But I do think the error is best demonstrated by demonstrating that at some point in the not too distant past our Baptist forefathers were baptized by someone who was not legitimately baptized themselves.
Baptism is really the first great post-conversion command of Jesus. I think the idea that millions of Arminian Christians are actually living in disobedience to that command is troublesome.
If I am exaggerating anyone’s claim then please let me know, but I think the logic follows.
I think I understand what you are saying. I’m just not sure about extrapolation either way. But I believe that you are I are in pretty close agreement on this.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..I’m Having a Coronary =-.
The “Trail of Blood” theory was well meant. Actually we might predicate our succession only in the blood of the martyrs, but then we might have to be martyrs ourselves. As to the matter of succession, most are willing to have a spiritual succession and let it go at that. There could be connections through the Philadelphia Church in Asia Minor which likely lasted down until modern times. But God never called on us to do such things. Our task is to hear the Gospel call and respond to it as best we can under our present circumstances (whatever they are). Right now what we need more than anything is a visitation from God, a coming down of Heaven to earth, a revival, a Great Awakening. Every soul needs to awaken to the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. We need to unit for prayer to that end, that is, to the end of Heaven coming down to earth, of souls awakening to the Savior, of the whole earth being converted to the Lord Jesus in one generation and then for a thousand more generations for a 1001 generations. Some of these questions cannot be answered under our present circumstances, and we must wait on the Lord for their clarification. So let us humble our selves and plead those promises listed in Jonathan Edwards Humble Attempt for such a visitation. Gloria in Excelsus Deo.
.-= Dr. James Willingham´s last blog ..The Climax of the Reformation =-.
I have been busy with ministry and I am now in Ft. Worth for the Evangelical Homiletic Society meeting. It is late, but I wanted to make a comment or two or more. 🙂
Let me say that I have read many of the remarks and I appreciate everyone’s input. Other than Benji (his question was about a side note of my post, not the main premise), I don’t find a lot of interaction dealing substantially with the focus of my point and my exegetical work concerning the symbolic connection between baptism and eternal security as shown in Romans 6:3-11. I was waiting for the ole “L” word to come up and it sure did. Thank you Dave for putting it to rest. That meant a lot to me. Let me also say Dave that I don’t believe you would accept a baptism done in a cult even if the person baptized was a true believer. My intent was not to accuse you of this. My intent was to show the logical outworking of believing that baptism is only between the believer and God. When one leave’s out the church equation, any baptism should logically be allowed. Again, I am not accusing you of accepting cult baptisms.
I thought I properly explained that the other doctrines of grace were not necessary in belief because the text talked of us identifying with Christ. Limited atonement deals with something that is not symbolically linked to baptism in this text or any other text that I can tell. Even though the early Particular and General Baptists would not accept each others baptism (pre-Landmark I might add), because of their views on soteriology, I feel they went beyond scripture. Yet eternal security is linked to baptism in Rom. 6:9-11.
One other thing, I thank Dave and Matt for the opportunity to interact on this blog. I enjoyed the challenge. I do wish more would have interacted with Dave’s article. It is clear that I was in the minority here, but I appreciate the thoughtful comments.
I shall scamper back over to SBCToday.com. CB Scott has gotten on our case for being absent, so I must escape the sting of his whip and get back to my place. I pray Christ has been glorified in our conversations.
His Truth Abideth Still
Ps 112:1
.-= Robin Foster´s last blog ..Something Good About NAMB =-.
Thanks, Robin. (and Dave). This debate had a good tone, and both of you get credit for that.
Are you guys not doing the “response” posts for this one? I was waiting to see if Dave responded regarding Romans 6.
.-= Josh C´s last blog ..Reading Spurgeon’s “Lectures to My Students” Part 16 =-.
Josh
I guess it was decided not to do follow-ups for whatever reason. I am just glad that I was invited to participate and I pray that I honored God in doing so.
.-= Robin Foster´s last blog ..Who is Spreading Myths? =-.
Just ignore CB.
Dave
When we ignore our “elders” we cut ourselves off from valuable wisdom. You and CB might not agree on Ecclesiology, but I have found wisdom in him in many other areas from which I think we can all learn. The same can be said of you and me. I refuse to ignore you so that I can learn and grow. It is up to me to filter.
Wow, that sounded so postmodern. The EHS conference is wearing off on me. Help me Jesus! 🙂
.-= Robin Foster´s last blog ..Who is Spreading Myths? =-.
Why are we trying to extrapolate rules and guidelines on what is a proper baptism, Lord’s Supper, Church, Church Member, etc. When the NT does not provide any hint that rules and guidlines ought to be applied to such areas? The NT certainly is clear on how we are to behavior as ambassadors for Christ so that we are a light to the lost and dying world, but it just isn’t this clear on these other subjects. Seeing as how God provided some very strict instructions for Israel on both their activities, the construction of the temple and the conducting of sacrifices, it’s clear that God is capable of being definitive when He wants to be.
Grace is all over the NT – maybe we ought to start applying some grace in the areas where the Bible is not so black and white so we can be more united as God’s ambassadors, being people whose activities shed light on how great, loving, kind, forgiving, merciful, etc. that God is instead of shedding light on activities that divide? Isn’t it enough that the cross is foolishness to the lost, does our activities have to seem foolish to them too?
Just my thoughts, for what they’re worth – which isn’t much, but my heart hurts over what seems to me to be petty squabbling over issues related to how the church functions that have to be derived from the scriptures because they aren’t spelled out in them.
I’m going back under my rock now…
Thanks,
Trish
Trish,
I would say that I agree that these issues arent as clear as our call to fulfill the Great Commission and our role as ambassadors. Yet, the Bible does address these issues, which means God sees these issues as important and we need to try our best to understand what the Bible teaches on these matters- which is the point of these debates and discussions. We dont need to debate what the Bible teaches about us making disciples-its crystal clear- but we do need to discuss these issues that are a little tougher.
Thanks for commenting…
Matt
My views on this debate may be different because I am not a Baptist. Looking at the manner in which this debate was framed, I begs the question: How much does an individual need to know, and what exactly does an individual need to know before he or she can be baptized?
Foe me an individual must accept these doctrines first before being Baptist zed;
1: The bible is the word of God and is without error. This is very important and must be the very first thing that a believer must accept. All other doctrines that this baptismal candidate must learn will come from the bible. There fore we must first accept the bible as the word of God
2: all have sinned and come short of the glory of God and is in need of a savior. The candidate must see himself or herself as a sinner in need of a savior.
3: Jesus Christ is the son of God (and is God) who was sent by the Father to redeem us from the wages of sin.
3: Baptism symbolized our desire to be joined to Christ and thus the church, because Christ is the head of the church.
If these three things are accepted then all is well.
My model is:
Teach from the Bible -> Baptize-> Teach from the Bible.
Because the individual accepted the Bible as the word of God, after baptism all other doctrines can be taught from the word of God. Even the doctrine of eternal security can be taught after baptism.
If an individual is baptized accepting these three things outlined about, he or she can move from one denomination to another without needing to be re-baptized. The move from one denomination to another does not in any way invalidate the three prerequisites for baptism. Moving from one denomination to another should be done ONLY if an individual find fault with the doctrine of one denomination and moves to another where he or she believes sound doctrine is taught.
It is impossible and unnecessary to attempt to teach an individual all the biblical doctrines that are in the bible before baptism. Further more, and maybe more to the point of this debate, who decided which doctrines were more important than the other so much so that it must be taught before baptism, and not after?
What did the Philip say to the Ethiopian Eunuch when he asked: What doth hinder me from being baptized? (Acts 8)
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
The General and Particular Baptists were noted for pulling one another’s chestnuts out of the fire, that is, of helping one another when the chips were down. That concern for each other is the essence of Christ Agape Love, and we need to hve some confidence that our view can win the day on its own without our making use of tactics of manipulation like the evangelist in Ga. who was preaching a revival for a friend of mine back in the 50s. He told a lie to get people forward. Whn I related that example in a class on evangelism in seminary, one student said, “Well, he got some forward, didn’t he?” It was a grief to hear his remark of approval as if the communist philosophy of the ends justify the means was biblical and Christian. There are things recorded in the Book that might seem to justify such a view, but in the end both the ends and the means are complementary in the truest sense of the word, ethically.
.-= Dr. James Willingham´s last blog ..The Climax of the Reformation =-.