If you have been in ministry any length of time, you could compile a list for me of people who have offered themselves for baptism, seemed to know all the right answers and evidenced a strong profession of faith. Then, after the baptism, the faith that flamed fizzles fast. Where are they now? Who knows? It is an all-too-common story.
And any genuine minister of the gospel is bothered by that story. Did I fail to examine the candidate for baptism well enough? Should I have done something more? Something different?
One human and understandable response to this unfortunate story is for pastors to do extensive vetting of baptismal candidates, to demand that they demonstrate evidence of conversion before they are allowed to enter the waters. But is this biblically justified? Is this an acceptable biblical pattern?
I would like to examine that question today. Is it biblically acceptable to do extensive vetting and pre-baptismal discipleship? It has become accepted that this is a responsible and necessary preventative to these spiritual flame-outs that we have all seen. I have a problem with it. While I understand the motive, there seems to be little in Scripture to give warrant to the practice.
Baptism, in Acts, was an initial testimony of salvation that immediately followed profession of faith. No classes. Little vetting. When someone professed faith, they were immediately baptized thereafter.
As we debate issues related to baptism, we find that the Scriptures actually say very little about the issue. We have evidence that baptism was performed on believers only, after their profession of faith, as a symbolic picture of salvation, not a saving act of itself. And, of course, the mode of baptism was immersion. But other than that, there is no instruction book on baptism that defines these issues. The best evidence we have is the pattern of baptism in the book of Acts. Let us explore that for a moment.
The Baptismal Pattern in Acts
In Acts, there are seven examples of baptism we can examine. Is there a pattern there? I think there is.
Passage 1: Acts 3:38-41 Pentecost
And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.
Pentecost was the birthday of the church of Jesus Christ. Peter preached his lengthy sermon, inviting sinners to “save yourselves from this crooked generation.” Look at verse 41. Those who received his word were baptized – immediately. That day. Three thousand souls were saved and baptized. Practically, there can have been very little vetting or pre-baptismal examination being done. There were 120 disciples and 3000 converts. It was a long and glorious day, but one that allowed little time for discipleship classes before baptism.
But the process is simple. Peter proclaimed Christ and gave a powerful invitation to sinners to repent. Those that did were immediately baptized upon their profession in faith.
Passage 2: Acts 8:12-13 Philip in Samaria
But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip.
Some time later, Philip was preaching in Samaria and many believed. The teaching here could not be much more clear. “When they believed” Philip they were baptized. Salvation was followed immediately by baptism.
The story of Simon that begins in verse 13 may be most instructive here. Simon believed and was immediately baptized. Later, he turned out to have impure motives and was confronted rather harshly. But Philip baptized him on his profession and never apologized later when Simon’s heart was revealed.
Passage 3: Acts 8: 37-40 Ethiopian Eunuch
And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing.
Philip was carried out into the wilderness and met up with the Ethiopian Eunuch. He explained the Scriptures about Jesus. They saw the water and the Eunuch asked if he could be baptized. Philip did. We assume that there was some profession of faith in Christ, but that is not even mentioned in the text.
Passage 4: Acts 9:18 Paul’s Baptism
And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized;
Saul of Tarsus was the terror of the early church. He then had the vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus and was converted. Ananias was not thrilled to be directed by God to go and see this man with the horrid reputation. But he spoke to Saul and then, immediately thereafter baptized him. Don’t you think Ananias might have wanted some proof that Saul’s conversion was not some kind of ruse to draw out Christians for persecution? But when Saul made his profession, he was baptized.
Passage 5: Acts 10:46-48 Cornelius
For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
There was some initial evidence here of salvation – tongues and a desire to praise God. But many of those I’ve known who did not follow through on their profession gave strong initial evidence of understanding and commitment. Here, Cornelius and the others were immediately baptized upon their profession.
Passage 6: Acts 16:14-15 Lydia
The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.
Lydia’s heart was opened by God and then she was baptized. The pattern continues.
Passage 7: Acts 19:3-5 Baptism of John’s Disciples
And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Again, as soon as these men heard the gospel of Christ and responded, they were baptized in the name of the Lord.
The pattern is consistent in Acts and is not controverted in the Epistles. When one came to faith in Jesus Christ, just about the first they did was look for a place to baptize. There were no discipleship classes that preceded baptism. Candidates for baptism did not have to prove themselves. They simply made a profession of faith in Christ and were immediately thereafter baptized.
Why would we do anything else?
Here are some perspectives on the issue.
1) It is of primary importance that we proclaim the gospel clearly and fully, calling on people to count the cost before they trust Christ.
I believe that one of the reasons for the fizzled faith of so many who profess Chris is the weak gospel that is presented. A church in our town held a VBS and gave a “gospel” invitation that amazed me. One of our families attended and got a letter a week or so later congratulating them that their daughter had “made the big JC her best friend.” If we preach a weak gospel we can expect weak converts. I heard a celebrity give a “gospel presentation” once without even mentioning the Cross. Puh-leeze!
We must proclaim a clear gospel and call people clearly to repent of their sins and commit themselves to Christ, having counted the cost.
2) The only biblical condition on baptism is a valid profession of faith in Christ.
It would be appropriate to ask questions and to make sure that someone understands the gospel, especially younger candidates. But when someone offers a clear profession of faith in the grace of Jesus Christ, a repentance of their sins and a commitment to Christ, it is my duty to baptize them as soon as possible, in obedience to Christ.
3) Baptism is the beginning of discipleship, not the end of a process of discipleship.
Baptism is a public testimony of the act of faith. It is the initial act of discipleship. In fact, it can be argued that by delaying baptism, we are causing people to be disobedient to Scripture and thereby potentially hindering discipleship. Repent, believe and be baptized.
4) Ultimately, it is not my job to separate the wheat from the tares or the sheep from the goats.
We are all grieved by the presence of the tares (Matthew 13:2-30) and the goats (Matthew 25:32-33). But Jesus made it clear in both passages that ultimately it would be he who separated the good from the bad. In fact, Jesus warned to be very careful about pulling up the weeds lest we also pull up the wheat in the process. The church will always have false brethren among it. We can disciple. We can discipline. But we cannot completely purify the earthly church. And, as Jesus warned, we must not allow the process of purification to damage the real believers.
We must not, in our efforts to prevent false conversions, do anything that hinders real believers from following Christ. Better to baptize an occasional false convert than to prevent a true convert from following Christ.
5) Perhaps we err by making baptism an automatic entry into membership in the church.
In pretty much every church I’ve ever been a part of, baptism automatically enters membership. Maybe this practice is a problem. Perhaps we should baptize people into some sort of provisional membership in the church, then put them through some kind of initial discipleship and membership class and then when that is completely, give them fully vested membership.
But baptism should be performed as soon after profession of faith in Christ as is reasonable.
6) Pre-baptismal vetting is not the answer. Biblical discipleship and discipline is.
This restates and emphasizes points I have already made. But the point is important. Once a believer is baptized, he should then be discipled carefully. If he fails in his commitment. A loving and redemptive process of discipline should be applied to him. But all of this seems biblically to follow, not precede baptism.
I realize that I swim against the current tide here. Recent emphases on increased standards for membership and for discipline in churches have led the majority to increase their practices of pre-baptismal examination. I understand the reason for this, but I believe it is contrary to Scripture. The only requirement for baptism, in the Bible, is a clear profession of faith in Jesus Christ. That baptism is the beginning of the discipleship process, not a point along the process.
Could we actually be hindering discipleship in our desire to prevent false conversions and failed baptisms?
Something to talk about!
The problem with false converts is not solved by setting ourselves up as the judges of false and true conversions. It is solved by discipleship and discipline.
But there will still always be those who are false among us, whose profession is empty and shallow. There will be tares among the wheat and goats among the sheep. No amount of vetting is going to stop that.
“The problem with false converts is not solved by setting ourselves up as the judges of false and true conversions. It is solved by discipleship and discipline. “
Good word, Dave. That’s as good as anything in the post itself.
Dave, is discerning someone’s profession a type of pre-vetting?
Depends on what you mean by that.
If you mean, I am seeking to ascertain that they evidence an understanding of grace and repentance and the gospel, then I would say yes.
But it is not my job to determine if a profession is genuine. I do not have the ability to discern the wheat and the weeds. Philip did not “vet” the eunuch.
The evidence in Acts seems to be clear. Profession of faith. IMMEDIATE baptism. Even in the case of Simon, who turned out to be false.
Dave, all of those who were baptized in the New Testament understood they were laying down their lives to follow Christ. Baptism cost them something. I think we must make sure that professed believers understand that Christianity is taking up one’s cross and following Christ. You hit on this in your point about sharing the gospel. Many times, there is no sacrifice that’s presented; often it’s easy-believism. Then, we’re surprised when folks aren’t willing to sacrifice their time to worship the Lord; they never sacrificed their lives in coming to Him to begin with. You and I are saying the… Read more »
Except that I do not think I am given the biblical warrant to decide if a conversion is genuine or not. That is above my pay grade.
The only thing I can do is see that the gospel is clearly proclaimed and that the one professing faith has a genuine understanding of that gospel and has made that profession.
Judging whether it is genuine or not is simply not my right. I see no evidence of it being done at the point of salvation in the NT either.
Dave,
Jared (and I) are using the word “profession” and you used the word “conversion”. That’s a difference. We are trying our best to see if the profession is a valid profession…which means the same thing that you do when you say, “genuine understanding of that gospel”.
Dave, I agree with what Mike said. I think you, him, and I are largely arguing the same thing.
Let me be clear about what I am saying. There is no universal language and we each imbue these words with different meanings. But I am saying that it is warranted to make sure the understanding of the gospel and the profession of faith is accurate. If someone says, “I believe Jesus will help me clean up my life,” then the profession is confused at best and more teaching/instruction on the gospel of grace is necessary. But what is not warranted, in my understanding, is trying to determine if a biblically-clear profession is genuine. Simon, in Acts 8, made a… Read more »
Dave,
Do you think it is necessary in someones profession for them to have “counted the cost”? If so, then I don’t disagree with anything that you are saying in that statement. But I do want to safeguard against someone just reciting biblical facts b/c they’ve grown up in a Christian home. I think my little boy (who is 4) could probably articulate the gospel pretty well. But I know from living with him that he doesn’t really understand the gospel yet.
From the post above, “We must proclaim a clear gospel and call people clearly to repent of their sins and commit themselves to Christ, having counted the cost.”
That’s a good quote. Who said it?
Dave,
Would you say that those baptized today have the same Old Testament understanding as those baptized in the above biblical references?
Also, do you do immediate baptisms – why or why not?
Probably not. What is the point?
My point is that since you answered “probably not” to both questions your whole line of reasoning in the post falls apart.
Unless our confidence for believers lies not in WHAT they know, but in WHOM they know. If they have been baptized into Christ…if the Holy Spirit indwells them…then is the presence of the Spirit so weak as to need a Bible degree to prop it up?
Bart, I did not vie for a Bible degree. LOL I was also trying to answer Dave on his own ground as he presented his positions. I mean – don’t we do exegesis et al in context to the best of our abilities? However, if we are to follow Scriptures lead it is worth examining to find how to be as biblical as possible. Besides, it seems that if we do a little reductio on your rhetoric we could claim the power of the Spirit to the point where the Bible is dismissed all together. I.e. Peter did not have… Read more »
Mark,
Rather than doing away with Bible study altogether, I’m content to argue that he who has the Spirit will necessarily study the Bible. Ad interim, the leadership of the Holy Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit will qualify the new convert in whatever way one needs to be qualified in order to receive baptism and to function in the body.
Well, with that devastating analysis, I should probably take the post down.
Why don’t you make your point instead of asking leading questions and leaving snarky comments.
Dave, Dave, Dave….what’s got your knickers in a twist? Listen, I know your Yankees are going down to a team with a significantly lower payroll and all, but hey, at least you guys made the playoffs, right? Isn’t that enough?? I mean, the honor is just to be there, huh?
🙂 I added the emoticon cause I know you love them so much. LOL
Snarky comments? Excuse me? I meant no snark whatsoever. My apologies for coming across that way. The questions were to uncover a bit more about your understanding, etc. I basically said the same thing that others said in several paragraphs. My point was simple, but I had to ask questions to be sure it was correct. To compare those in NT times who most likely had a much greater understanding of the Messiah and the OT with today’s Christians isn’t exactly apples to apples, IMO. My perspective is that your “probably not” answer reveals that you may feel the same.… Read more »
I still don’t see how that changes the fact that baptism immediately followed conversion in every instance in Acts. Did Simon have that same understanding? Lydia? Cornelius?
Dave, transcribing the actions and responses of first century Christians on to the Church today does not strike me as offering an effective way forward on this. I think those that are becoming more interested in “pre-baptismal vetting” are trying to faithfully translate the actions and responses of the first century to ours. The differences in the contexts of the earliest believers to our own are so different that I think the transcription you are advocating is completely inadequate to the task of discipling a healthy church body. Everyone agrees (or should) that discipleship is the key issue, but how… Read more »
I should also make clear to those who think I sound harsh that I neither know or have met Dave personally. I would not dream of passing judgment on him or Southern Hills. I am only engaging with his ideas based on the way I’ve personally tended to see such sentiments work out in Christians around me. Any alarmism others detect is the passion I’ve come to have for this subject in my growth as a Bible-believing Christian. I hope this exchange can further help both of us to grow in understanding and fellowship and challenge us to both live… Read more »
If we do not look at the pattern in the Scriptures as a guide, but instead substitute our own wisdom for that in the Bible, I think we are on shaky ground.
Maybe, if the way we do discipleship has changed from the way it was done in the early church – that in and of itself is the problem?
Amen
A guide is one thing. An inflexible agenda is something else. Does God not provide us with wisdom? Can the Holy Spirit not reveal what the best way forward is for our particular situation? Did God’s incarnation give Him no sympathy towards different expressions of culture? Is the true Church the one that has done things exactly the same way and had the same theology for 2000 years? Where/what/who is that church? The church before Constantine and after the NT regularly required potential converts to be discipled for 18-36 months before they were allowed to be baptized and join the… Read more »
I’m reticent to discuss church history with the good Dr. Barber lurking around here, but am willing to be instructed. As I remember it, though, the post-apostolic church descended rather rapidly, disturbingly so, into a number of heresies. Baptismal regeneration. Gnostic-type practices. Christological problems. No, I am saying that the revelation of Scripture is authoritative for these things. If there is a clear pattern in Acts (and no one so far has argued against that clear pattern) then perhaps we should seek to follow that pattern ourselves, not assume that we have grown to understand something superior. Church history is… Read more »
Fear not. Be of good courage, Dave.
[…because you’re right.]
Church History only becomes authoritative when I teach it.
You are kind of on a roll today, Bart.
The Doctor adjusted my medication again.
The NT church already suffered from numerous troubles and false teachings. Paul didn’t write all those warnings and admonitions to a pristine Church and John warnings in Revelation confirms this. The NT church was not pristine and perfect any more than the Church has been in any period or place since.
I agree with you that Scripture is authoritative and I have argued against your pattern before. I’ll refresh your memory in a comment below.
Man, I need some of that medicine = please share!
Rob
this was fun 🙂
Dave I would like your thoughts on this issue. I don’t think it is as much a baptism problem as it is a conversion problem. The misuse of a sinners prayer, which many pastors use, leads to a verbal profession without a positive possession. We as pastors, most of us anyway, are at the mercy of the church when it comes to receiving new converts. A mother who is a member of the church can stir up more trouble than a pastor can handle because there was a delay in her five year old child not being baptized or failure… Read more »
Well, as I said in the post, we must be careful to proclaim the gospel clearly and call people to repent and believe.
If there is a flaw in our gospel presentation, there will often be flaws in the gospel response of people.
Of course, we must be very careful to present the gospel accurately.
Dave, This has been a very interesting conversation in our church as we are rewriting our constitution and by-laws. It has caused me to really dive into this issue and I’m thankful for it. At the end of the day I think our positions would be pretty similar. I too don’t find any scriptural evidence for “discipleship classes” before baptism, or “extensive” vetting as you say. But I also wonder why you are using such strong words like “extensive”. If you are against lengthy periods of “trial” then I am too. In your first two points you are saying something… Read more »
Well, I’m not sure how to answer the question. Of course, we all carry different conceptions into our confessions. But the core would still be the same, an expression of repentance and faith.
As to point #5, this might be a key. We could develop a system in which we baptize into Christ and into a provisional membership. Once an introductory new-members class is finished and any issues are ironed out, then full membership is vested.
I think this discussion will lead down the same path as that which happened at Bethlehem on the issue of membership in their church for those that did not affirm believers baptism. I believe that Piper argued that the door of the local church shouldn’t be more narrow than the door of the universal church.
I think where you land on that question determines the validity of a system that has some baptized into the body but only into a provisional membership.
I guess I believe that the door to the universal church and the door to the local church can, in fact, be very different.
We recognize many people as members of the Body of Christ who we do not recognize as members of our church. And would not.
So, I think that the door to the local church is necessarily narrower.
The wayward member you kick out of fellowship through church discipline is still a member of the universal church. If you would make local church membership coextensive with universal church membership, you must necessarily either abandon church discipline or side with Cyprian to declare extra ecclesiam nulla salus and pronounce an anathema upon any who is subjected to discipline.
extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
Thankful for wikipedia today.
“extra ecclesiam nulla salus”
On point as usual – a further validation of Dave’s point that human authorities are not in the position to validate or determine a condition of the human heart which is God’s business (salvation). He knows who is in the universal church – and our list is not the same as ours I recon. All were given is to obey Him.
Brilliant.
Rob
Bart,
“The wayward member you kick out of fellowship through church discipline is still a member of the universal church. ”
Just a point of clarification. I think this should read, “The wayward member you kick out of fellowship through church discipline MAY still a member of the universal church. Maybe not.”
While a true believer may be excommunicated and be treated as an unbeliever, excommunication may in fact also be done on a tare person…a false professor.
Les
I agree, Les. Thanks for helping me to write with better clarity.
Bart,
BTW brother, I was sure you meant what I said too. But you know how it goes…someone might misunderstand.
Blessings,
Les
So, here is a question. An open homosexual professes faith in Christ. He has been living that life for a long time and it has a strong hold on his life.
Do you demand that he work through all of the ramifications of his sinful lifestyle before he is baptized? Or do you baptize him on profession and then guide him through the discipleship process as the Holy Spirit transforms?
My guess is most would withhold baptism until he “cleans himself up.” I think that is wrong. Understandable, but wrong.
Dave, I’d baptize a repentant homosexual.
What is his attitude toward that sin?
Not necessarily the ramifications of it. But what is his attitude concerning sin? Is he fighting it?
I wouldn’t withhold baptism until he “cleans himself up”. But is he in the process of cleaning up? If he has an attitude towards sin where he does not model a life of repentance then if you baptized him you’d then need to exercise church discipline shortly thereafter.
Credible profession of faith? Dunk him.
I would baptize him because the question might be: “If the head of some agency whose goal was to hunt and kill Christians professed Christ, would we baptize him or hold out until he proves himself?” I think God answered that question in Acts 9. Also, I think John the Baptist in Matt 3 is a great pattern for us – he called for repentance but nowhere in the ready of that passage do I see John the Baptize refusing to baptize them.
Dave
We baptize folks based upon a testimony of their faith in which they are able to explain the gospel,(not perfectly), their need for Christ. and their conversion experience which includes repentance and faith in Christ alone.
I gladly baptize them before the church-but in order to join the church they need to go through new members class like everyone else who joins the church. In this class we have more intensive discipleship before they enter into membership. Our goal is to help them understand the benefits and blessings of being a church member at MMBC. Great article, thx BJ
Overall: AGREE. The biblical pattern is conversion, baptism, then teaching. In fact, that’s also the order in which these things appear in the Great Commission. 1. AGREE. 2. AGREE. 3. AGREE. 4. Don’t necessarily disagree with the concept you’re advocating, but I do differ with your exegesis of this parable. This is not what the parable of the Wheat and the Tares signifies. The field is the world, not the church. I believe that this is actually a parable about religious liberty. We’re not to go about binding up and burning the “tares” in the field of the world. I… Read more »
I’m not advocating a halfway covenant or anything like that. I am not really advocating anything at this point, but opening a door of discussion. But, what I am wondering about is the wisdom of a “probationary” period for membership. I was in a church once that did it. You joined a home fellowship group, then 3 months later, if you had given indication of a willingness to fulfill the covenant of membership, you were recommended for membership in the bigger church. The problem comes when someone whose life is broken by sin comes to Christ. Sometimes, there are issues… Read more »
I’m all in favor of a probationary period of membership…
…so long as it never ends.
Brilliant.
Dave,
I think this is an excellent post. I think you give a great foundation for helping people come to a “full, exciting, fruitful” life in Christ beginning from the springboard of baptism.
I think you avoid the “extremes” of “pre-vetting” and “non-discerning.”
I couldn’t have done better myself — which is why I enjoy Voices.
Dave, thanks for a very scripturally based and definitive post on the subject. Two thoughts 1. In our new church plant we implemented a phased membership. When someone is baptized upon their profession of faith, seeks membership int he church through transfer of letter of statement of faith they are immediately accepted in to “Watchcare” or provisional membership. They are members of the fellowship but can not vote or hold office UNTIL they complete a New Member Orientation class that is built around the Church’s Covenant and ends with their public signing of the Covenant. We used a similar pattern… Read more »
I like your tiered system in point 1 and agree fully with your point 2.
It would seem that an open homosexual professes faith in Christ would also be called to repentance prior to baptism. If not, should the unrepentant be baptized? (Not, I’m not asking for perfect repentance.) If so, should only some sins be repented of?
The beauty of Baptism is that Our Lord Himself stood in line with some pretty rough repentent sinners of His day, waiting for St. John the Baptizer to baptize Him . . . He was innocent, yet He stood WITH those people . . . they were imperfect, and weak, and knew it, and sought out St. John’s help, and Our Lord stood WITH them . . . something about that should give great comfort to a homosexual man who is repenting his life-style and wanting to live for Christ. Our Lord still stands WITH us, you know . .… Read more »
As old as I am, I may not have time to read all the comments to I’ll offer my simple opinion without that. Separate baptism from membership. Membership classes, part of discipleship, as a pre-requisite to membership, make all the sense in the world to me. Think about it .. folks wander in, sit through a service, like what they see, so they want to join. They’ve been baptized, so we take them in, and neither one knows much at all about the other. That ought not to be. I spoke a few weeks ago with a SBC pastor who… Read more »
I am reluctant to leave what has been a thoughtful and interesting discussion here. But I’ve got to do some other things, like study for my Bible study tonight.
Enjoy the discussion and play nice.
At least you don’t have to study for your Wednesday evening prayer meeting…
Bart, I appreciate your ad interim answer though it seems to shift the debate a bit. Going back to the OT information Peter used in Acts 2 to explain Jesus is one way the Spirit qualifies the new convert. That is, Peter’s teaching was a vehicle to explain Who he was calling people to believe in. Even so, defining Jesus today might look differently than what Peter preached to his audience. I’m not writing in absolutes, but hashing this out. Narrowing my point – unbelievers need to know Who they are called to believe in and Acts 2 gives a… Read more »
Mark,
I presume that some modicum of knowledge about Jesus is prerequisite to conversion. That which one must know about Jesus in order to be baptized, one must also know about Jesus in order to be converted. I agree that my ad interim statement shifts the debate somewhat from my “Bible degree” comment. But you can take the ad interim comment as my genuine position and the “Bible degree” comment as my hyperbolic jousting for recreational purposes.
An excerpt from a paper I wrote in seminary on this (almost) very same topic: When Miller sees “no evidence of any kind of screening process, membership class, or discipleship process that preceded baptism,” I would contend that each of those eight passages contains the “screening process, membership class, or discipleship process” within them. In Acts 2:38-41, Peter had just addressed a crowd in the preceding verses on Pentecost and we see in verse 40 that “With many other words he testified and exhorted them… (NET)” In Acts 8:12, Philip “was proclaiming the good news about the kingdom of God… Read more »
“””That the Church showed evidence of being very cautious in who it let into its folds in the first few centuries should give us pause “””” I think this is very true, but not absolute. I believe there will be people in heaven–many saved as children–who never “signed a church covenant.” Was it Wesley who said, “In heaven I expect to see many people I never expected to see, and not see many I had” or something to that affect. I think it is probably not in our best interest, as Dave points out, to make baptism and church membership… Read more »
“”””but the messages that were preached in the Bible had a lot more heft to them than what we have accustomed ourselves to today.”””” It seems this statement assumes a lot. It assumes, for example: 1) I don’t preach the same gospel as the early church; or 2) I don’t do as good a job as the early church preachers; 3) or I don’t have as much of the Holy Spirit as those in the early church; or 4) I’m not as committed as those in the early church. Not only does this assume as much about me, but about… Read more »
Frank L. said, “While proving this proposition requires a significant sampling of “all” the preachers and “all” the sermons preached, debunking the proposition only requires one instance in which it does not apply.” This is simply untrue. I’m pretty sure I never said that “all” preachers preach a cheap gospel. I don’t need a large sample size when I’m referring to the trends I notice in my own experience. Of course, there are preachers who preach a robust Gospel, but I think they a very small minority of Christian preachers these days. If you disagree with that then we’ve either… Read more »
Blake. Your right. We disagree on your check list of what a person must know or believe to be a Christian and qualify for baptism. My checklist has one box–Jesus. Also. We disagree on where the power lies–I believe it is in the message not the messenger. If I believed that it all hinged on me being “full and robust” as a preacher I would find another job. Also we have a different experience to be sure. The preachers I know by a wide margin put everything they have and are into every message. I don’t doubt your experience in… Read more »
Our checklists are different, but our application of them seems to be. When I go to check off Jesus in someone’s box (to continue with this bad and maybe heretical analogy) I look to the rest of scripture to define what it means for someone to claim to follow Jesus. If I did not do that then Paul, the other disciples and Jesus himself wasted a lot of time with a lot of extra words and teachings. However, I also think some of our difference (or maybe miscommunication) comes because I do not know your concept of what the Body… Read more »
Blake, As you put it in this post, I think I could agree, if you allow that any “check list” (as bad as that analogy is) is left up to the local church and is an “ecclesiastical matter” not a soteriological one. I’m not near as concerned about the messenger’s prowess (“full and robust”). The messenger is consequential, though his abilities are not. That’s how I’d view it. The key for me is “integrity” not ability, and maybe it is with you and we are just using different words to describe the same process. I think I can see what… Read more »
Frank L., I do not think the “checklist changes” since it is based on Scripture and Scripture does not change, but I do think it is up to the local church to determine how to apply it. I, also, am not concerned with the messenger’s prowess. “Full and robust” are supposed to describe the gospel, not the messenger. The gospel preached in our churches should be full and robust in accordance with all Scripture and not weak and cheap in accordance with what makes for an easy presentation. It is integrity I am concerned with as well and is why… Read more »
Scanned and didn’t see it, but has anyone mentioned this passage in the discussion?
yES, Someone mentioned it. It is the only such verse in the Bible and it deals with the Pharisees who “already” considered themselves right with God.
Seem pretty relevant to me…
We must be careful not to prooftext. John’s baptism is not the Christian Baptism. John’s baptism is linked to a person’s repentance. The Christian baptism is linked to a person’s rebirth. The Christian pattern for Baptism set forth in Scripture is regeneration and baptism. This cannot be debated. The baptism was done without any discipleship. If a local church wants to add a new believer’s class as a prerequisite for membership that is their prerogative. However, such a class cannot be mandated from Scripture as being necessary for baptism.
Dean,
…and yet it was a baptism resulting from the exact same message that Christ preached…”Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.”
I think I agree with Randall on this one. The message preached by Jesus and the apostles placed just as much emphasis on repentance as that preached by John the baptist. I don’t see how you can tie baptism to faith (or profession of faith) and not tie it, at the same time to repentance (or to profession of repentance). However, I agree that baptism is not tied anywhere in the NT to Bible knowledge or doctrinal understanding. To put it more technically, I believe that the criteria for biblical baptism are of a volitional rather than a cognitive nature.… Read more »
I think I’m going with David and Randall on this.
Acts 19 teaches that John’s baptism is probably not relative to this discussion unless someone is going to baptize with John’s baptism.
There was no power in John’s Baptism. But John said that one is coming after me who will Baptize with fire and the Holy Spirit. So when we Baptize in His name, He is there. He commanded it…so He must be in it. So, we Baptize to put God’s grace ahead of our faith. And then we teach about it, and Him, so folks will know about the promises that God has made in their Baptism. That’s in the case of little ones, or babies. With adults, we teach them a bit beforehand…and continue to teach adults and little ones… Read more »
We are really talking about baptism as it is presented in the Bible, which leaves out infant baptism, Steve. Sorry.
Dave, glad to see someone with a forum to speak to as many as you do taking on this issue. It needs to be discussed, there are so many extremes among Baptists, with the “easy-believism” get-em-in-and-dunk-em-before-they-change-their-minds on one end, and the “take a class for a year or so and pass it” on the other end. The Bible must be our guide. I would add two scriptures to your list from my list: [1] the days following Pentecost — people were being saved and added to the church daily (Acts 2:47); and [2] the Corinthians, who were baptized when they… Read more »
This is slightly off topic, but do any of you make accommodation for baptismal preferences such as location? For example I insisted on being baptized in a river. I am going to be baptizing a couple this weekend in a creek behind their house (yes, it will be like the polar bear dip). I think many people may find more significance in their baptism being as close as possible to what was practiced in biblical times. (without casting aspersions on people baptized in other, manmade locales)
Bill M.,
I think that is a good idea, Bill. Not necessary in the least, but if the symbolism of locale helps some remember the promises of God in their Baptism, then I would be all for it.
Bill Mac,
I’ll baptize anywhere, it doesn’t matter to me. I remember baptising in the Cumberland river. The river was swift, muddy, and bone chilling cold.
The water was so swift that sand and gravel was washing from under my feet,and I was sinking. I baptized the husband first, when he came up out of the water he said “ouuuuuuuu” instead of praise the Lord. When the wife came up out of the water she said, “BURRRRRRRRR.” I thought baptism is not what it used to be.
So…when will My Favorite Iowan be having his spontaneous baptismal service?
This seems to be the current hot item on the subject…firetrucks with bells dinging are so 1990s.
Here is my story. I was baptized as a child. I know I was sincere, but I came to know that I wasn’t saved. Parents divorced when I was 8. Grandparents did their best to keep me in church. Ended by age 11. Life took a downward turn. I still believed in Jesus, but knew I wasn’t saved. Occasional visits to church through the years. Lots of baggage. Intellectual questioning. Was told I shouldn’t question!! I had to!! I knew I wasn’t saved, but saw people in church who were obviously glued to the minister’s words. I saw the hypocrits… Read more »
One more quick note regarding my great sorrow over wasting my life and not being able to work for the Lord all those years. A dear Christian friend told me about a card that she received once. It said,
“A Moth has moments, not months, but it is time enough”.
God has given me the same salvation that others have experienced at much much younger ages. How tremendously grateful I am that HE let me slip in under the wire. I want God to use me to write His story until there is nothing left but the eraser.
Dave,
Thanks for the article. Have been dealing with this from time to time in the Church I pastor. I enjoyed and got a lot out of this that will be useful for us.
Alan Davis
Dave, you and I are in full agreement on this. Good stuff!
Donald