(Stephen M Young is a missionary living in Brazil. He blogs at “Beyond Outreach” and has a personal blog as well. I appreciate him sharing this post with us.)
And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” Matthew 28:18-20
I baptize you my brother…
A few weeks into my freshman year at ETBU (1994), a controversy broke out. Evidently, one student had led another to faith in Jesus and subsequently baptized her in the fountain at the quad. This ruffled feathers everywhere.
It was addressed in chapel.
“The fountain is off limits to students for swimming… and baptizing.”
It was addressed in the BCM.
“We are not a church, we are a student organization. Baptism is an ordinance of the church. It is not our place to baptize.”
It was addressed in the local churches.
“That baptism was not biblical, but we are proud of our students for winning the lost. The new believer will need to be baptized biblically in church.”(She eventually was, as I recall.)
We students talked it over during lunch and in our dorm rooms. The general thought among the freshmen was that it seemed pretty biblical, and pretty sincere, but you can’t buck authority.
“Go, therefore, and make disciples … baptizing them.”
The sticking point then, and the real question at hand is this: To whom does the command of Jesus to baptize1 disciples apply?
Was the Lord’s command to his eleven earthly disciples a command to all disciples of Jesus in all times? If so, every true disciple of Jesus stands commissioned to baptize by the authority of Jesus himself.
Or, was this command of Jesus a command not to individual disciples, but to the disciples gathered, to the end of the age? If so, “baptizing them” is a command that must be obeyed together and in cooperation. In other words, it is an ordinance for the local church.
Based on the Matthew text alone it is hard to build a complete case for baptismal authority lying with individual disciples or with gathered disciples. The traditional view is that baptism is an ordinance for the church. There is not universal agreement on this subject, however, even among Baptists.2 I have not been convinced that one necessarily excludes the other, and so lean towards a “both/and” view.
You can’t obey the gospel by yourself.
As a part of the Great Commission, Jesus commanded his followers to baptize disciples. His command was not that disciples be baptized (in which case they could simply baptize themselves), but that they baptize others. Baptism, by its nature, is communal in that there are at least two people involved in the act. There is a relationship there, a mentor and a disciple. This is the first act of mentor-ship, teaching the disciple to obey all of the commands of Jesus. The witnesses, too, are a part of this.
Whether the Great Commission was given to the church or to individual disciples, baptism is intrinsically linked to fellowship and to mutual responsibility, to church. The line between individuals and churches is blurred a bit, as baptism was never intended to be an isolated event. The Great Commission of Jesus is to make disciples, a process that involves teaching obedience and baptizing.
Teaching obedience is a bit more comprehensive than passing on teachings of Jesus or simply laying out his precepts. “Teach them to observe” is a matter of training, coaching, practice and mutual accountability. As one believer walks other new believers through obedience, brotherhood is born.
Consider just a few of the basic one-another commands: Love one another. Wash one another’s feet. Be at peace with one another. Give preference to one another in honor. Pray for one another. Encourage one another. Accept one another. Admonish one another. Forgive one another. Break bread together. Do not judge one another any more. Wait for one another. Serve one another. Bear each other’s burdens. Sing spiritual songs to one another. Be subject to one another. Stimulate one another to love and good deeds.
All of these commands are practiced and obeyed over time, and they can not be done alone. As baptism publicly identifies the new believer with Christ, it also identifies him as brother to the one that baptized him. That is church.
So, yes, baptizing it is the duty and responsibility of the church. Likewise, it is the duty and responsibility of every believer called of Christ to disciple completely, including by baptizing. As this kind of discipling happens, church is happening.
Any believer can baptize.
Sidestepping the question of where baptismal authority lies for a moment, there is a good observation to be made. Whether or not the Great Commission was directed towards the local church exclusively, any believer can baptize.
There is no scriptural prohibition on which believers can baptize. Likewise, there is no case of any believer ever being admonished for baptizing a new disciple. If the authority of Jesus to administer baptism lies only in his church, each church can commission any member it sees fit to baptize as a representative of the church by the authority of Christ.
Why put a ball and chain on beautiful feet?
Most of our churches, however, carry out the Great Commission in a way that divides Christ’s command into parts: that which is permitted (make disciples), and that which is restricted (baptize them).
For example, church members are encouraged to lead others to the Lord, but they are then required to hand the new believers off to the church for baptism (usually in the baptistery and by the pastor). These new believers are then expected to be assimilated into the church, meaning their discipleship is expected to occur through the church’s existing ministries and structure.
At the very least, it seems awkward that we deliver sermon after sermon on the Great Commission and implore our people to obey it, then shackle them by denying the right to carry it out completely. We do this by discouraging them (and even forbidding) from baptizing their disciples immediately and on location. This sends a mixed message that leaves the believer wondering just how true the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer really is.
It makes sense to baptize, in the assembly, those who came to faith in the meeting of the assembly. (John and Jane visited the Sunday morning service and were convicted during the message . They were baptized in the baptistery before the church the next Sunday.) It also makes sense to baptize, in the assembly, the children of church members as those children come to trust Christ of their own accord. This is the most natural and appropriate setting for these baptisms.
It does not make sense, however, to require those who came to faith outside of the church setting to be baptized in the assembly. (Especially when this requires them to be baptized by a person they do not know in front of people they do not know). This can hijack the natural discipleship process and severely hinder the development ongoing discipling chain. It would make a lot more sense for the person who discipled new believers to Christ baptize them in a setting appropriate to where that discipleship occurred.
I thank God that I didn’t baptize any of you…
If the commission is for every believer, then local churches should free every member to be fully obedient and expect them to do it. If the commission is for the church, then churches must find a way to empower their people to use situational judgment, emphasizing on-location baptisms by lay members as more desirable than baptisms in the assembly by the pastor.
There is biblical precedent for asking church leaders to step back from out of the baptismal waters and give space for others to do the baptizing. A number of scriptures insinuate a model where the leader is not the lead baptizer. Jesus did not baptize, but rather his disciples did (John 4:1-2). Paul did not baptize many, he left it for others (1 Corinthians 1:14-16). Peter did not baptize Cornelius’s household. Instead, he simply ordered that they should be baptized (Acts 10:47-48). The Twelve almost certainly called upon the 120 for the baptism of at Pentecost (Acts 1:15, 2:41).3
Elsewhere, scripture actually de-emphasizes who did the baptizing, employing a passive voice. Who baptized Paul? Ananias? Are you sure? The scripture simply says “he was baptized.” In fact, this is true for most of the baptism narratives of the Bible; someone proclaimed the gospel and “those who believed were baptized.”
Paul warned the Corinthian Christians against over-exalting certain leaders and positions. He recognized that baptizing too many could lead to this, and wrote that he was glad that he had not baptized any of them, except Gaius and Crispus. These were almost certainly on-location baptisms, as Paul had lodged in Gaius’s house (Romans 16:23), and had started his gospel proclamation that planted the Corinthian church in the synagogue, where Crispus was the leader (Acts 18:8). Paul also baptized the household of Stephanas, another possible allusion to on-location baptism.
Why then did you not believe him?
This kind of immediate baptism on location is New Testament hallmark. The fact that they were done wherever the new Christians professed Christ is probably due to the pioneer missions nature of the events, but the immediacy is almost startling. Paul was baptized in Damascus before the local church even knew he was converted. The jailor and his family in Phillipi did not wait for daybreak. The Ethiopian, who didn’t interrupt his travel to hear the gospel, called his ride to a stop in order to be baptized before continuing. In each of these cases, everything happened so fast, the local church did not have a chance to be involved.
Even still, the local church played a key role both immediately and after the fact. After Paul was baptized, he spend several days with the church in Damascus. Later, in Jerusalem, the church would not accept him, until they heard the testimony of Barnabas. After Paul and Silas baptized the jailor and his family, they went back to the church in Phillipi and encouraged the brothers, relating what had happened. The very fact that Scripture records the Ethiopian’s baptism reveals that Phillip had returned and shared this with the church and it was received without contention (otherwise, how would Luke have known about it to write about it.)
In the case of baptisms outside of the assembling of the church, it appears that the local churches applied the test that Jesus had given the chief priests with respect to John’s baptism. The churches, according to their understanding evaluated the testimonies of their own members in the case of these baptisms and discerned whether it was from God or from man. Peter, for example, had a lot of explaining to do with respect to the baptisms in Caesarea before the church “held their peace and glorified God” (Acts 11:18).
Where two or three are gathered in my name…
Besides this after-the-fact involvement, we also see the local church immediately present in some of these on-location baptisms, though not in an obvious way. Peter took six Christian brothers with him to Cornelius’s home (Acts 11:12). The church commissioned Paul and Barnabas, who also took John Mark, a team of three (Acts 12:25). Luke, himself, traveled for a while with Paul and Silas (Acts 16:10). In cases like these “there were enough in the missionary party for them to have been constituted into a church in transit with inherent authority to baptize.”4
It would take another article to explore this idea further, but the very small church is not a foreign idea to Scripture. Jesus guaranteed his presence to the assembling of two or three in his name. The New Testament is full of examples of churches small enough to meet in homes. There is Cornelius and his household, which was probably the biggest group of the list (Acts 10), Lydia and her household (Acts 16), Priscilla and Aquila (1 Corinthians 16:19), Onesiphorus (2 Timothy 4:19), Nympha in Laodicea (Colossians 4:15), Archippus (Philemon 1:2), and the thee-story house that Eutychus fell from in Troas (Acts 20: 9). There are some references open to debate.
Following the examples in Acts (and possibly Luke 10), missionary teams of even just two or three can either be commissioned or form themselves into temporary churches in order to exercise all of the duties and rites thereof, including immediate church oversight in baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Once again, an idea probably best developed in another article.
Conclusion
My basic position is that baptism is a function of the church to be carried out by any of its members individually and all of its members collectively as God so leads. Existing churches are the natural setting for baptisms, but not the exclusive setting. Churches, according to their understanding of the scriptures should evaluate the testimonies of their own members in the case of on-location baptisms and discern whether it was from God or from man.
The oversight that the church gives to the ordinance of baptism is threefold:
- The church administers baptism as a body.
- The church recognizes and accepts as one of their own those who are baptized on location upon the testimony of the church’s own member.
- The church commissions missionary teams who then function as a church with all the authority thereof as they minister in a pioneer field.
Notes
1. I presuppose a Baptist understanding of baptism in my blog (for those reading outside of SBC Voices). My understanding of the teaching of scripture is this: Baptism is the immersion of professing disciples of Jesus in water as the first step of obedience for a new believer. This is the scriptural method for claiming to be a Christian and an absolute prerequisite to inclusion in the church. Baptism is a symbolic proclamation of the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord.
2. A couple of years ago on the SBC Voices blog, Dave Miller and Robin Foster wrote short arguments for two positions on the question: Is Church Oversight Essential for Baptism? Robin Foster took the position that church oversight is indeed essential, and Dave Miller wrote from the perspective that church oversight, while normal, is not absolutely necessary for scriptural baptism. See also: Robin Foster’s rebuttal and Dave Miller’s rebuttal.
3. At Pentecost, if only the 12 baptized, dividing the 3000 equally, each apostle would have had to baptize a person a minute for nearly five hours straight. This use of time wouldn’t fit the text of Peter and the others continuing preaching and imploring people to repent and believe.
4. From Davis Huckabee’s Studies on Church Truth, Chapter 5: The Ordinances of the Church
Interesting article. It has given me something to think about.
You may want to fix the typo under your notes. 5 should be 4.
The typo is completely Dave Miller’s fault. He is the editor. 😉 Actually, I did some reducing on the size of the article and ended up cutting out a few references. I guess I forgot to check again that they all lined up.
Fixed the footnote for ya…
One question I would raise, and it is something that we’ve had to deal with where I’m at… things like camp baptisms.
As you say in your article, baptism belongs to the church and the church can authorize who it wants (doesn’t have to be the pastor) to baptize.
At our association’s camps, they have the habit of baptizing kids who profess faith and want to be baptized at the camp. Until enough of us pastors told them to stop, they did it w/o even contacting the churches.
This past year I got a call from the camp director wanting permission to baptize a young man who had put down my church as his “home church.”–the thing is, in my time here I had never even heard of or met this guy. I asked around and it even took me a while to find out someone who knew he was. After I explained that this youth and his family were not affiliated with our church, the camp went ahead and baptized him. We tried reaching out to the family, and the young man came a time or two–but that’s it. And he’s not involved in any other church.
So here we have the case of a baptized young man, done by a camp director w/o the direct authority from any church, and he doesn’t belong to a church and doesn’t partake in the fellowship of a church.
I agree with what you’re saying about a church being able to authorize whoever among their body to baptize.
But even though we do have an example in the Bible (Philip) of baptize a guy on the spot; I think allowing that as more of a common practice (such as the camp baptism above) runs too much into the problem of separating the act from part of its meaning–inclusion into the body and thus inclusion into a body.
I know I would be more upset as a parent about a camp doing baptisms than as a pastor. I understand different churches have different policies regarding baptizing minors (some won’t do it until age 18 if the parents say no, some feel that obedience to God requires ignoring the parents in such a case), but if a child or teen has parents who are Christians, I think it is clear that they should be part of their (believing) children’s baptism.
The Phillip situation certainly allows for baptisms to occur outside of the gathered church, but it appears to be an unusual exception as the one baptized is on his way out of the country. Perhaps a similar example in our day may be a military person about to ship out the next day led to faith and baptized before he leaves.
Camp baptisms are certainly an issue worth talking about, especially when involving children and youth.
All of the camps in which I participated or led were organized by a local church. There was one camp that was a cooperative thing, but even so, each church had daily time reserved for its own group. So the camp baptisms, when they occurred, were church baptisms.
Sounds to me like an issue to be taken up with the association itself. Certainly, one can claim a right scripturally, but that doesn’t mean the right is in the best interest of anyone. Giving preference to one another in honor and cooperating is the true scriptural guideline there.
That is why I used the expression situational judgment in my article, though godly discernment might be a better way to put it.
My understanding of this subject is this:
1) Understanding and agreeting to the trueness of God’s Word every beleiver is authorized.
2) As Baptists we agree that, within our beleif, we have delegated to the church that responsibility and therefore agree, of our own volition, to accept the fact it is to be done by those authorized by the church. Part of this beleif comes from the fact that Baptism, in our churches, makes them a member of the church.
As Baptists we are to authorize only that which the Bible mandates. We do not accept church tradition as authoritative. Since there is not a single verse in the Bible which mandates that baptisms only take place in the confines or under the authority of a local church, we ought not demand that either.
I think our problem is the added definition of “local” church. The New Testament doesn’t talk about the “local” church, we talk about the “local” church. When it’s a mandate of The Church, it’s a mandate given to believers. Church is not a gathering, it’s the believers. Believers are The Church, so we need to get off being so concerned with the rights of the “local” church. It’s not what Jesus set up.
Dave,
I agree 100%… But I do believe it is helpful to do it in the context of the local church.
“See where you are baptized,
see where Baptism comes from,
if not from the cross of Christ,
from His death.
There is the whole mystery:
He died for you.
In Him you are redeemed,
in Him you are saved “
St. Ambrose
Baptism is the new convert’s public profession of faith. The emphasis seems to be on the convert’s profession of faith more than the one reciting a portion of the verse in Matthew 28:19 (I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son and the Holy Spirit) Why is that recited before or after the baptism? That was not the instruction as I see it. Scripture tells us that “the prayer of faith will save the sick”. When we pray for the healing of a person do we state that this prayer is a “prayer of faith”? If so, everyone should be healed and sins forgiven, right? How do we know for sure that we are really being baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit regardless of who baptizes us?
That reminds me of this:
Whatever you ask in my name followed by the words “in Jesus’ name”, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask me anything in my name and close your prayer with “in Jesus’ name”, I will do it. (John 14:13-14 re-mix from Alan Knox)
I cannot express how much I enjoyed this article. My father is a pastor and his church holds pretty similarly to the line you lean towards in this article. It wasn’t until I went to college that I realized some churches felt anyone besides the pastor doing baptisms was just wrong. When I pushed back on the issue I never found a good reason for that view.
It seemed to me that churches held the view out of simplicity. Let other believers start baptizing and suddenly you are dealing with some who may not be as strong in their faith as you would like, women wanting to baptize (This was a huge issue), and all around a lose of control over the event.
I think the real problem is that you can’t tell which church deserves to count the baptism in their weekly and annual statistics…
😉
Exactly.
Baptism should be a Church celebration. It is a Church ordinance, just as the Lord’s Supper is. It’s not an individual, Lone Ranger, Cowboy on the range thing. It should be a celebration by the whole Church that a person has been born into the family of God.
But, I do agree with you that anyone in the Church should be able to baptize. I think it’s a great idea for the one, who led someone to Christ, to do the baptizing. Or, the Dad baptizing his children, etc.
David
Would you allow that in rare circumstances an individual may end up baptizing someone outside of the local gathering of believers? The Phillip story certainly seems to allow for rare cases.
(I’m in general agreements with your statements above.)
The Book of Acts was the Church just starting out. Everyone was a missionary. Phillip was a Deacon in the Jerusalem Church, and was obviously going out from that Church to win people in other places. Also, the Ethiopian Eunuch was heading back to Ethiopia, so there was not gonna be any other time to bapitze him.
I really think about Phillip like I would think about our missionaries, who are out there in some village, all by themselves. Of course, they would baptize new converts without a church around. BUT, they would be starting a new church…with those baptisms. So, yea, there are circumstances where an individual would baptize someone….when starting a new work in a place where none existed.
But, I’m not for everyone just, out there, baptizing their children in the backyard, swimming pool. Or, while out fishing, some fella leading someone to Christ, and then them just getting out of the boat, and baptizing the other fella in the lake. I do believe it should be a Church celebration, and the whole Church should be involved in it….to witness it…to celebrate it…to welcome the new disciple into thier church family…
David
I like your anecdotes, particularly the one that put college (sophomoric?) enthusiasm, an attractive thing, to the test of wisdom, knowledge, and maturity.
It’s tough to take the New Testament examples of baptism and make principles out of them, but I would grant to my fellow Christians the privilege of immediate baptism of any eunuchs without a priori, explicit church authorization. I don’t think there’s much harm in that, just don’t get too Church of Christ on us.
Your conclusions express the matter well.
@Stephen Young: Would you say that the deeds of the Apostles and the early church, as recorded in the Scriptures (specifically the Book of Acts), are to be read and understood as descriptive or prescriptive?
Personally, I lean toward descriptive. When we bring up the baptisms that the apostles conducted we know only what actually happened. Luke is telling us the events. His intention is not to give us doctrine, but to give us history.
So, although I see what you mean, understanding the actions of the apostles as prescriptive is to assume that they acted perfectly and their example and practice is to be emulated in not only this issue, but in all issues. It also means that we betray the intent of the author. But regardless, I am sure we both agree that the example to follow is not that of the Apostles, but that of Jesus.
The commands and exhortations of the Apostles are different in that they are meant to be prescriptive. The intent of the author is convey doctrine.
@reformedsteve: I don’t think it would be easy, or even possible to label each part of Acts as descriptive or prescriptive. Examples do carry their own kind of weight, however.
George Patterson, many years ago, gave a good outline for dealing with the descriptive/prescriptive/tradition issues. I have found it very useful in my ministry, so I will past it here.
The highest priority and authority are the New Testament commands of Jesus and His apostles.
• Example: Baptize new disciples.
• Obey Jesus’ commands without voting or arguing about them, because Jesus is our Supreme Commander.
• Do not include Old Testament commands, since Christians are not under the OT law. If they were, then they would stone to death anyone who gathered firewood on Saturday.
• Be careful to discern between the underlying intent of a command and the cultural form it takes. For examples, head covering and foot-washing.
Next there are the New Testament practices of Jesus’ apostles, which they did not command.
• Example: Baptizing converts immediately.
• We have freedom to follow such practices and not to do so, since they are not commands.
• Do not prohibit following them, since the apostles practiced and approved them.
• Do not command them for believers in other churches, since only God has authority to
lay down laws for people.
After Scripture, there are Christian customs, traditions and practices that have no basis in the NT.
• Example: Making baptism a graduation ceremony after weeks of doctrinal study.
• Most traditions are good and many are neutral.
• We should adopt or reject them according to their usefulness in fulfilling the great commission.
All I can say is that it’s a good thing I’m a pastor now so I can baptize my kids if God brings them to faith. 🙂
Seriously though, I’ve often thought of this in the context of children’s ministry and homes of people who actually disciple their kids. What an honor to be able to baptize your own child! Yet, most churches have the youth pastor or children’s pastor do it. Why? If I am a faithful father and I am the one discipling my children, what is preventing me from performing the baptism? Is that invalid?
I get the discernment thing – but that’s what the pastor is for, right? Shouldn’t he be talking to the family throughout this process?
I don’t see any biblical prohibition as to who can baptize, mainly because there is nothing magical about the ritual or words or even motive of the one doing the baptism. It’s about the heart and soul of the one professing faith.
This whole discussion seems to be a throwback from the baptismal regeneration days of the Catholic Church. What’s the point of questioning a baptism based on who administered it? Shouldn’t we be asking the baptized person about their testimony? Honestly, I could care less about who baptized you. Do you understand the gospel? That I care about.
You could care less who baptized you? That’s a sad statement to read.
I agree that the main thing, and the best thing, is that a person get saved…hallelujah! But, baptism is also very important. And, who baptized you, and why, are very, very important things.
Baptism is a local, Church ordinance…not a private, individual thing….baptism was given to the Church to do….
David
The problem is:
1) Not a single baptism in Acts happened under the auspices of a local church.
2) Not a single verse in the NT states that baptism is to take place only under the auspices of a local church.
We all practice baptism within the local church primarily. But a baptism performed by immersion, after conversion, by any other believer is a valid baptism biblically, even if some Baptists refuse it.
Dave,
I’m with you 110% on this. It was funny, my first staff position I was an associate pastor and the church had to vote to authorize me to baptize people. The youth pastor at my current church wanted to baptize his daughter who got saved, and I had to get the church’s permission for him to do it. The primary question they had was, “Is he an ordained minister?” He is, but that seems to be a man-made prerequisite and not a biblical one. Was Philip an ordained minister? He was a deacon…do the deacons in your church baptize people?
As we have with many things, I’m afraid we have made baptism more legalistic and restricted than the biblical text mandates. Great discussion topic.
Randy
Randy,
I’m not saying that it has to be an ordained Minister. I do believe that its a Church ordinance…as the BFM2K states.
David
David,
I think we are in agreement there and I’m sorry if I indicated you were saying an ordained minister MUST perform the baptism. Both ordinances we observe as Southern Baptist churches seem to get caught up in biblically unsupported minutia at times. The same thing could be said for a Lord’s Supper Service. Is it okay to observe it outside the context of a church worship service? Say a family at home celebrating it together? It all makes for interesting and hopefully edifying discussion ultimately.
Randy
David, Your two points above are well taken as far as they go. There certainly is “no” verse that states, “The person who has been saved will now be led to a tank in the church and pushed down into the water with appropriate pressure for exactly “x” minutes, etc. etc. etc.”
Even if there were such a verse, we’d still argue about it’s meaning and application here at Voices. So, having such a verse really would be of little benefit in this discussion. We have Ten Commandments that are quite explicit and we didn’t do a very good job at keeping them.
That said, there are some principles that suggest baptism is authorized by a local church, or occurs under the authorization of such.
In Acts 2 they are “added to the church” after or on the occasion of baptism. It could be argued (and will be) this means the “universal” church, but most Bible believers know that the word ecclesia refers overwhelmingly in such contexts to the local church–though one can point out, “It doesn’t say local church.”
Second, Jesus only established “one” institution, the Church as expressed in local assemblies. If there is “any” institution which provides an institutional oversight or connection for baptism, it can only be the church.
I know these are arguments from descriptive texts and some take such as having a weaker claim than “prescriptive” texts. I don’t know how you make that argument when the majority of texts are descriptive, not prescriptive, but I do appreciate the distinction.
I have probably not solved this issue for Southern Baptists, but in the spirit of your post I have solved it for “one” SB and “one” local church. So, as long as autonomy continues to be a Baptist distinctive, I can declare this issue, “resolved”–for me and my church at least.
Why does that sound odd . . . but also true?
The order seems to be conversion – baptism – then church involvement, not conversion – church involvement – baptism.
Dave, that could be argued. However, I think it could be argued that church involvement and baptism were simultaneous events.
Again, I understand the argument you are making and I see its merits. I just think your position might (might) not give the Church the weight of authority I think the Lord and the N.T. in general gives.
By that I do not imply you do not think the church is important or the Sacred Bride of Christ. I know you do. It is where you place the Church in the hierarchy concerning baptism that I differ with somewhat.
Also, if baptism is a simultaneous involvement with Church life, it is a locally administered ordinance and each church defines the parameters within the descriptive and prescriptive teachings of the Word.
So, I am 100% in agreement in regard to how baptism plays out specifically in each individual situation.
Dave, that could be argued. However, I think it could be argued that church involvement and baptism were simultaneous events.
Again, I understand the argument you are making and I see its merits. I just think your position might (might) not give the Church the weight of authority I think the Lord and the N.T. in general gives.
By that I do not imply you do not think the church is important or the Sacred Bride of Christ. I know you do. It is where you place the Church in the hierarchy concerning baptism that I differ with somewhat.
Also, if baptism is a simultaneous involvement with Church life, it is a locally administered ordinance and each church defines the parameters within the descriptive and prescriptive teachings of the Word.
So, I am 100% in agreement in regard to how baptism plays out specifically in each individual situation.
Dave,
I’m sorry about the double-posts. That has been happening lately and I’m not sure why.
Perhaps, the posts are just so good that reading them once is just not enough!
Maybe it was a strong statement, but I was speaking in the context of someone else. I care very much who baptized me, because he was a man who profoundly influenced me and was greatly used by God in my life, but I don’t expect you to care who baptized me – you have no idea about what he meant to me.
I would expect your first question to be not “OH, so you’re a Christian, eh? Who baptized you? Some hick in a river? Or were you properly baptized in a church by a proper minister of the word?”
I don’t mean to sound cruel, but I honestly don’t care if you were baptized in front of your family in a river by your uncle or if you were baptized in front of 500 people in a church by your pastor.
That’s the point I was trying to make – the “why” question is so much more important than the “who” question. Anecdotally – what if I came to faith through the preaching of a campus evangelist and wanted to be baptized there? What if I then joined a church and was discipled there? What if I never saw that campus evangelist ever again? Should I always think of that man as “very, very important”?
I guess it all depends on who you think the commands to baptize was given to….individuals? or, to the church? I believe that it was given to the church.
Who do you think can observe the Lord’s Supper? The Church? or, a bunch of college kids on a mountain, using kool aid and cookies?
David
@Volfan007: Sometimes, when you use comparisons that stereotype to an extreme or border on ridicule, you hurt your argument for me. It makes me want to not take you seriously.
“a bunch of college kids on a mountain, using kool aid and cookies” (you forgot to mention them singing kumbaya)
“Or, while out fishing, some fella leading someone to Christ, and then them just getting out of the boat, and baptizing the other fella in the lake.” (Not a person, mind you, not even a fellow, but a fella.)
“It’s not an individual, Lone Ranger, Cowboy on the range thing. ”
I do appreciate what you are trying to communicate and your perspective on the subject, though.
These situations…which you dont seem to care for…are where we go with this when you dont see Baptism as a Church ordinance…to be celebrated by the entire Church.
I have asked these very things of people, who feel that baptism is an individual thing. And, they would say that all the baptisms I mentioned would be valid…in their opinion. Like, say, a Mom baptizing her children in the backyard, kiddie pool.
Also, the one about the college kids on a mountain using kool aid and cookies for the Lord’s Supper was told to me as something that really happened. I dont know if they sang Kum ba ya, or not…they probably did…lol…but, it happened.
I believe like the BFM2K….that baptism and the Lord’s Supper are Church ordinances….not individual, private things.
David
I think it’s a natural assumption that the ordinances would take place in the context of a church body, but concerning the LS, I think there could be exceptions, as you have sick people, homebound, and those in long term care facilities that prevent them from taking active participation in a local church, and I would hope that pastors are seeing to the needs of these. Some folks absolutely though get very legalistic concerning baptism and the LS. I had a preacher one time tell me they had to dunk a man four times because his hand didn’t go under the water…wow just wow.
If that bunch of kids on a mountain had KoolAid and cookies, and were worshipping God, and wanted to have communion, more power to them.
Besides, a thimble of wine/juice and a little piece of bread is in no way like what communion was in Jesus’ day. It was a meal for fellowship. If kids on a mountain can fellowship and praise God during a meal, who are you to say it’s not the same as a thimble of juice and a tiny piece of stale bread.
“Who do you think can observe the Lord’s Supper? The Church? or, a bunch of college kids on a mountain, using kool aid and cookies?”
David,
Extreme examples, like this, will always exist. Let’s crank the extremity back a little. Let’s assume the college kids are on a hiking / camping trip up in the mountains. They are all members of the same SBC church, or from several SBC churches. They decide they want to celebrate the Lord’s Supper together. Is it appropriate to do so? Are they not a “church” at that point?
Now, the question of what elements to use. So all they have to use are cookies and kool aid. Hopefully somebody would make the wise decision that these are not the best representatives of the elements of the Lord’s Supper.
But let’s take your extreme example and crank it up a couple of notches. This group of college kids has a major accident. One of their members takes a terrible fall down a steep escarpment and is critically injured. Due to the nature of his injuries, he has only a handful of minutes to live. He desires that they share the Lord’s Supper together. Again, they are all of the same faith, maybe even the same church. However, all they have on hand to use as the elements are kool-aid and cookies. Do they honor their friend’s dying wish or say, “Dude, I’m sorry, we can’t do that…the preacher ain’t here and all we have is some Berry Blue kool-aid and a bag of Chips-a-Hoy.” In that case, which thing would honor the Lord more?
That’s why I hate extreme examples, because they are far from the norm and can make different levels of sense based on the context of the particular situation.
Randy
I would celebrate communion with any group of Christians anywhere as an act of worship, whether inside a church or not.
As long as it was a remembrance of the body and blood of Christ, done in a respectful manner, of course.
Who is harmed by some college kids on a hill worshiping the crucified and risen Lord without a church looking over their shoulders?
David,
I agree with you. I have taken the Lord’s Supper to the homebound of my Church…usually with a Deacon.
And, the example of having to dunk a fella 4 times because his hand didnt go under…wow…lol.
David
Randy,
First of all, the college kids werent all from the same Church.
Secondly, if I was dying, why would I want to take the Lord’s Supper? Why would anyone want to take the LS while in the process of dying? I mean, pray for me…hold my hand…sing praises to the Lord…read the Bible…but, the LS?
David
I guess I’m just gonna have to strongly disagree with the rest of yall, and with your comments. Because, I dont see the Lords Supper and baptism as some private, individual ordinances. I believe these are Church ordinances.
So, Jeff, Randy, Dave, and others, do yall think the BFM2K is true? Dont yall hold to the BFM2K as a true document of our faith? If so, then how do you square your beliefs on baptism and the LS with the BFM2K?
David
David,
I don’t know what your aversion is to taking the LS upon one’s pending death.
Jesus said, “And I’ll not drink of this fruit of the vine until I drink it with you in Paradise.” What a beautiful way to say good-bye to this world.
Now, if you are talking about the “Last Rites” or the final communion as a Catholic, then I see what you mean.
I accept the BF&M, except where it differs from scripture. It is not authoritative. Scripture enlightens the BF&M, the BF&M does not govern biblical interpretation.
Frank,
I’m not against taking the LS at death. I dont see anything wrong with it. I’ve never been asked to do this…by anyone at anytime. I’ve never heard of anyone asking to take the LS while dying. And, I really cant see anyone asking to take the LS while dying….me included.
That was my point. That is all…nothing more…nothing less.
David
Dave,
The BFM2K is all about what the Scripture teaches. It’s about the basic beliefs we have as Baptists of what the Bible clearly teaches. And, I believe the BFM2K clearly teaches that the 2 ordinances of the Church are Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
David
Yes, David, I believe that the LS and baptism are two ordinances of the NT church. No disagreement there. But I do not believe that the NT says that because they are ordinances of the local church they may ONLY be observed within the structure of a local church.
I’ve observed communion with friends at a family Bible camp and didn’t feel we were violating any biblical teaching.
Where the BF&M and the Bible disagree, I will stick with the Bible.
Would you say that you agree that everything in the BF&M is completely biblical?
“So, Jeff, Randy, Dave, and others, do yall think the BFM2K is true?”
I’m not SBC, so I’m free to believe the BFM2K is wrong in certain points. However, I do not believe it is wrong in these points.
Hers is how the BFM2K defines “church”:
—-
“A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel; observing the two ordinances of Christ, governed by His laws, exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word, and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth. Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.
The New Testament speaks also of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.”
—-
So, the BFM2K would call that group of kids on a mountain a “church” if indeed they were all believers.
Here is what the BFM2K says about Baptism and the Lord’s Supper:
—–
Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer’s faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer’s death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper.
The Lord’s Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming.
—–
I see nothing in there about who is authorized to administer these sacraments – I mean ordinances. My bad. 🙂
I just don’t see the scriptures to support the extreme-church-oversight position.
If you see the commands of baptizing and observing the LS as commands given to the Church, then you do. The Scriptures are many.
In fact, all thru the NT, you see that the Church is being talked about…the fellowship of Believers in a local area. In fact, most of the NT was written to local Churches…Corinthians, Philippians, Ephesians, Thessalonians, etc, etc, etc.
I dont think the Lord wants us to be Lone Ranger Cowboys out on the ole plains….riding off into the sunset all by our lonesome. I think He set up the Church to be the place to observe His ordinances, and to exercise church discipline, to disciple people, etc, etc, etc.
David
I completely agree with points brought out by Dave and Jeff. I particularly agree with Dave’s statement:
“Scripture enlightens the BF&M, the BF&M does not govern biblical interpretation.”
On Christmas day 2010 at my house, we shared the Lord’s Supper. All present were members of various SBC churches. Two of us were ordained minsters. We used Welch’s Sparkling Grape Juice and a loaf of whole wheat bread. Everybody had a full glass of juice and a whole piece of bread. This was around the dinner table. Was that wrong? If so, what made it wrong? Was it right? If so what made it right?
On the subject of baptism, what bibilical principle nullifies the baptism of a newborn believer by another believer? If the answer is the BF&M, then we have a major problem as we have exalted a manmade document over God’s word.
Randy
Maybe here is where we should ask the question of Christian liberty, are private observances of these ordinances helpful, do they build up? While I can see both sides of the debate, I would have to say that the ordinances are most helpful and edifying in the context of a local church body. That being said, after reading the posts here, I have come to the conclusion that the baptism i performed on my cat in the toilet at 3yrs old most likely was not a valid baptism. 😉
I do not hold the BFM2K above the Scripture. I repeat, with all of my heart, I do NOT hold the BFM2K even on an equal level with the Bible. BUT, the BFM2K is simply a document that describes what we Baptists hold to be the CLEAR TEACHINGS OF SCRIPTURE. We believe that the BFM2K spells out the teachings of Scripture, which make us distinctively the Baptist kind of Christians.
I thought this was something that everyone would know about me by now….good gracious.
And, David Gallimore, lol concerning your cat.
BTW, did yall know that David Gallimore lives very close to me? And, I’ve preached in his Church before?
David
Thank you for the introduction David. 🙂
Of course, the other can of worms here is whether “the church” is just a local church or any gathering of believers to worship.
If I am with 10 brothers and sisters in Christ worshiping the Lord, we are the church in a real sense. I know you probably won’t agree with that, David, but with my understanding of the NT use of the word church, it is justifiable.
I’ll disagree with you on that…
Goes back to some of the things I’ve written on before concerning, especially, the Lord’s Supper as a central mark of church and church fellowship. I think part of church discipline is the denial of the fellowship in the Supper. You can only have discipline if you have a group where the members have recognized authority over one another.
While I might be able to come up there to Iowa and fellowship with members of your local church and off a rebuke if I see one sinning, I have no place or authority in your church to add my say in a discipline process or decide to deny the fellowship of the Lord’s Supper to a person.
The distinction of the local church from the universal church is a very real aspect of biblical Christianity (and I know you agree with that), but implications of local church life, especially the authority of the church to confirm, deny, and/or discipline members is something special to a particular body.
Therefore, when I am with a group of 10 brothers and sisters in Christ worshiping the Lord, yes we are all a part of God’s universal and eternal church, and we will all be parts of local church bodies, but I don’t see scriptural justification in the greater scheme of things to call ourselves “the church in a real sense.”
Yeah, I agree that there are no commands in scripture saying only so-and-so can perform baptism or administer the Lord’s Supper; but I don’t think Scripture truly gives us the leeway to practice these things outside of context of the local church either.
Mike, this threading is getting ridiculous here, so I’m gonna answer this below.
Stephen has succeeded in persuading me.
Thanks for the encouragement, Eric. I don’t think you and I have sat down and talked about baptism since our high school days.
Dave is quite right about the fact that the church does not mandate baptism. We can hardly understand or grasp the overwhelming impactof Landmarkism on our thinking in this respect. Prior to the rise of that view of ecclesiology, ministers baptized whoever professed faith without vote of the church. The church then voted only whether to receive the profession and the baptism. Roger Williams was one who raised the issue of who has the authority to baptize. He wanted some one with that authority after feeling like the baptism they had practiced there in Providence (they baptized one another which meant someone was unbaptized beforehand) was in error. Baptists in the 17th and 18th century were more concerned to baptize by immersion upon profession of faith and less concerned about being authorized by some church to baptize (in fact that issue from what I read does not come up for discussion except in a case like Williams). If we insist upon authorized administrators, we will run into a problem, namely, that of some early believers being baptized by others who were unbaptized. Landmarkism did one thing superbly well; it established that the nature of the local church as the source of equality of membership in Christ’s body.
Do you think that an important factor in the case of Phillip and the Ethiopian eunuch is that the new convert asked to be baptized immediately? So the immediate baptism was at his initiative?
To be honest, I like the picture of the entire church celebrating baptism together, and of the new believer being able to invite people to come share in the celebration. A few years ago when I was working at a college, one of our student aides accepted Christ. He was so excited to be baptized he passed out invitations to his friends and professors all over campus. I was pretty honored to be invited to share in that moment with him. And in the process, he shared Christ with quite a few people as he was explaining why the baptism was so important to him and what it meant. It was a really awesome picture.
But if that young man had been led to the Lord next to a swimming pool and had wanted to be baptized immediately, that would also have been wonderful. And as you’ve said, it seems that in that case the church should have recognized his baptism based on his testimony and the testimony of the church member.
Good post–I think you have a balanced position.
I’ve thought about the Ethiopian’s request, too. Here is the text:
Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus. 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?”
I am sure there is a great deal of discussion that is summarized in that passage. Philip must have, at some point, spoken about baptism and baptizing. The Ethiopian took the initiative in asking to be baptized, but it probably wasn’t spontaneous initiative. It was the natural conclusion in a conversation where he saw that Jesus was the Messiah he had been waiting for.
Going back to the prescriptive/descriptive debate, the fact that Philip’s question of what impedes him from being baptized goes unanswered (or answered only with “If you believe you may.”), should, at the least, give one pause before forbidding baptism.
Question: With these differing views of who should/should not be alowed to baptize and where…was it in a pool at a youth retreat or as some prefer in the context of the local church meeting for worship,
…how do you as pastors receive Christians transferring from one congregation to another?
Jimmy was baptized in the pool at a youth retreat by a senior in high school (who led Jimmy to Christ), later joined ABC Baptist church and now presents himself to your church for membership.
1. How do you confirm the baptism? Take his word I suppose.
2. If you think baptism is rightly done by a minister in the context of a local church service, what do you do?
Wondering…
We basically accept people’s word that they have been baptized. If they tell us they have been saved and baptized, we accept their word.
I check to see that they were baptized by immersion post-conversion as a testimony of faith, not as a means of salvation (tricky since Church of Christ is strong around here). Beyond that, I accept their word.
I’m not SBC, but here’s my experience. I grew up Roman Catholic and was therefore baptized as an infant. When I was 27, God graciously saved my wife and I. A pastor at the church we began attending asked about baptism, and I didn’t know anything about what the bible said about it, so I told him I was baptized as an infant. That was good enough for me for about a year, and because that pastor wanted me to experience believer’s baptism for everything it meant, encouraged me that entire time to pray about and study it.
I decided to be re-baptized as a believer at our church’s “family camp”, by that pastor, in the lake.
I am a firm believer in “believer’s baptism”, and I’m not sure I would really ever get used to someone who was baptized as an infant but did not want to be baptized as a believer. However, if that person who was baptized as an infant walked with God, grew up in the faith, was a strong Christian example, and pointed to their faith instead of their baptism as the reason for the hope within them, I’m not sure I’d pressure them to be re-baptized.
It’s been my experience too though, that nearly everyone in that situation chooses to be rebaptized, so it might be a non-issue.
My stance on rebaptism is this: If the person was ever baptized as a believer, I would not expect them to be re-baptized. If the person was baptized as an unbeliever, I would probably encourage them to be rebaptized unless there were some pretty extenuating circumstances.
In your cases:
1. Yeah – you must take his word. Or you could get all the names of the people he was with (he should still remember some of them, right?)
2. I would not request Jimmy be re-baptized.
But again, I’m not SBC so I’m not familiar with your requirements for local membership and baptism other than heresay.
But what about option #3 – the person who baptized Jimmy was actually not a believer as evidenced by his deconversion and now militant atheism. But Jimmy has remained a strong, faithful Christian since his testimony and baptism. What would you do?
“”””other than heresay.”””
That’s pretty much how we do it 🙂
We have a lot of people around here who grew up Reformed or Lutheran or something else and they do not see the importance of baptism as a believer, holding to their infant baptism.
I fellowship with them, but we do not lower the bar of membership. Baptism by immersion as a believer as a picture of salvation is required.
If the baptism is done at church (and 99.9999999%) of the ones I done or seen done have been, a pastor always does them. That’s just kind of the way, though it is not a necessity.
Dave, we are kind of unique in our Baptist approach to baptism–though not all that radical.
I play the bass in our praise band so getting back and forth from the baptistry became a challenge. So, I now give a brief introductions and explanation, then a Deacon reads a “covenant” our church makes with each person being baptized (pledge of support, etc.), then I question the candidate before the congregation (have you accepted Jesus as the Lord of your life, and is it your intent to live for Him to the best of your ability with the help of the Holy Spirit for the rest of your life?), and then as a pastor (or any adult member) lowers the candidate into the water I do the, “We now baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).
Our belief is that the “church” authorizes the baptism and the church accepts responsibility for the new member, so we get everyone involved.
And, I don’t have to get wet.
One of the greatest baptismal services I’ve seen is the way John MacArthur does theirs. Each candidate reads their testimony just before they are baptized. It was a wonderful way of exalting the Savior and His grace before presenting the death, burial and resurrection of the person.
I just want to put in a comment here and thank everyone who is participating in the discussion. I’ve been blogging for roughly 5 years now, and have never had such a response to a post. Granted the platform here at SBCVoices is much bigger.
I would love for you to visit my blogs that interest you and comment there from time to time.
I am deaf and have a blog on learning to hear again with a cochlear implant http://smy2ci.blogspot.com
I am a missionary and chronological Bible storyer and have a blog on some of my experiences in missions and bible storying in general http://smy2brazil.blogspot.com
I blog about evangelism in the USA with a focus mostly on my reaching people who don’t readily fit into church culture http://beyondoutreach.blogspot.com
I also have other blogs and blog experiments that you can reach through my homepage http://stephenmyoung2.com
The beyond outreach description should not have the word my in there, that changes the whole meaning. What a typo!
Some of your concerns here about where, when and who on baptism would allow some the license to consider gender. Can a woman baptize if the baptizer has no scriptural qualifications?
This comes up from time to time. I have seen no scriptural reason a woman can not baptize.
Interesting question, Bruce. If the commission is a commission to all believers indiscriminately to go, baptize and teach , then there would be no restrictions on gender, age or anything — only that the baptizer should be a believer.
From the available evidence in the New Testament, there is no example of a woman baptizing.
Dave wrote:
“1) Not a single baptism in Acts happened under the auspices of a local church.
2) Not a single verse in the NT states that baptism is to take place only under the auspices of a local church.”
Amazing!!! I would contend that every single baptism in the New Testament was connected with a local church. Every baptism was administered by someone acting with the authority a local church.
People keep bringing up Philip. Have you all not read where Philip is called an “evangelist.” He wasn’t just an ordinary church member out witnessing, but an ordained officer of the church at Jerusalem.
The only command in the Bible to baptize is Matthew 28:18-20. Who was it given to? Who was the “power” (authority) given to? Apostles? No, they all died. It was given to someone / something which was endure to the “end of the world.” Sounds very similar to Matthew 16:18 – “gates of hell not prevail against it” i.e. the church.
It matters who this command was given to. Only the church has the authority to baptize.
By the way, this is why the Baptist Faith and Message says baptism and the Lord’s Supper are “church ordinances.”
Ben,
Would you characterize yourself as a Landmarker? I’m just asking, not accusing.
John,
Yes, I am a landmarker (and a Southern Baptist pastor under the age of 40) but that’s not the issue. That fact that baptism is a local church ordinance is a standard Baptist belief. That’s why it was included in the Baptist Faith and Message.
There was no “local church” in Acts, just The Church. All this “local church” stuff is the problem.
I think you need to read Acts again…
When you have descriptions of the “church in Jerusalem” (8:1), the “church at Antioch” (13:1), and elders being appointed “in every church” (14:23), etc., you have the idea of local individual churches and not just a conglomeration called “the church.”
well, ‘locality’ ?
where Christ is, there is the Church
we hear this in His Words:
“Saul, Saul,
why persecuteth thou Me?”
as ‘without God, Creation vanishes’, so it is true that
‘without Christ, the Church vanishes’
there can be no separation of Christ from His Church, as He is with us always
If you read it literally and not with our transliteration, it’s the Called Out Ones in Antioch, the Called Out Ones in Jerusalem. The believers in a city, not a building with pews. You are taking our current definition and applying it backwards.
It was an “assembly” of baptized believers who had covenanted together. I say “local church” so others will understand I am not talking about three random Christians in the area who have never met each other. That’s why the Bible speaks of “churches” in the plural.
I never said anything about buildings and pews, now did I?
Church, ekklasia, assembly–the point of saying the “church at or in” a place is to give distinction to that group. Yes, they are a part of a universal people, but they are also a distinct gathering of believers in a specific local. Plain and simple.
It is the local church…
It’s nothing like our local church. It was the entire group of believers in a city, they met in houses, got together in large groups and small groups. They had people who taught and people who came, but it was a much more indigenous group. The definition we have now and what we are talking about as “local church” would look nothing like the New Testament. No one in Jerusalem would tell a pocket of young believers together who baptized someone that they weren’t under the “local church”. Your whole argument is flawed. Just because it’s a group doesn’t mean it becomes what we define as the “local church”. What we call the “local church” isn’t defined by a city, but a group of people who are exclusive in a sense.
Dan,
Your whole theory is flawed. The Church has Elders/Pastors, Deacons, and collects money thru offerings. They met for worship…together. They baptized, observed the Lord’s Supper….together. The NT is full of commands for the Church(local assembly of baptized Believers) to carry forth.
You cant have real Christianity and Church without a local assembly of Believers.
David
Dan,
It was exactly like our churches today. Do you really deny the fact that the “churches” of the New Testament assembled together? No one is saying they didn’t occasionally meet in small groups. But they also meet together. That’s why the Bible calls them ekklesisas. That’s why in 1 Corinthians Paul speaks of the church coming together. That’s why Acts speaks of other believers not daring to join the church at Jerusalem. The Bible, the Baptist Faith and Message, and the Greek language all define the idea of churches as “bodies of baptized believers who have covenanted together.” If it can’t assembly, it’s not a church!
Well, I never said anything about “our” local church structures either.
But, they weren’t completely different than how we practice local church.
Yes, in many senses they were defined by cities, though not always the case. In Romans Paul distinguished a church “in the house” of Priscilla and Aquila, distinct from the larger group of the saints in Rome.
“Greet the church in their house.” It is a statement saying they are distinct from you but also a church.
When Paul wrote discipline instructions to the church at Corinth, he wasn’t giving them instructions about how to discipline a guy over in Ephesus. Most people think Timothy was a part of the Ephesian church when Paul wrote 1 Tim, giving them instructions about widows, he wasn’t telling them to take care of the widows of the Colossian church. When Peter writes to various elders in 1 Peter 5 he tells them to shepherd the flock “among you.”
I agree, in MOST cases when these were churches of the city… but it was a particular church gathered in a particular location–a local church.
I must say it is actually puzzling to me that you are so adamantly denying the idea of the local church when it isn’t tucked in an obscure verse but is there over and over and over again all throughout the New Testament.
Dan, that is just “parsing” words. Of course there were “local” gatherings–the only expression of the church that any person can participate in an empirical sense.
The term “The Church” in caps signifies the “universal” church which Jesus inaugurated in Matt. 16. However, the universal church is a “concept” not an organization (organism).
The “Universal” Church has members but no manifestation.
“However, the universal church is a “concept” not an organization (organism)”
think ‘Body of Christ’ as ‘organism’ . . . ‘mystical’, if you will.
The Universal Church is a most definitely a real presence in the world, as it has been for two thousand years . . . it stands witness to Our Lord as it has done for two thousand years,
and it will continue to stand strong witness until Our Lord comes again.
How do you know when you are local enough of a local church? Can a small church plant church? If they call themselves a church does it count? What about a small group? A Bible Study? When is it a “local church”? Can be baptize before we get a Lifeway account, or is that a prerequisite too?
I was just thinking about that. Do you have to be recognized by the state as a church before you can perform the ordinances properly? That would seem rather odd to me. If not, who decides? Questions like that.
In one sense, being the Baptists we are and holding to the autonomy of local churches, we must see church as self-defining; in another sense though, a definition still must follow a biblical pattern.
A gathering of Christ-followers can join together and unite themselves as a church on their own w/o having to be approved by an outside authority… but if we use the patterns of Scripture, I think it’s hard to defend the definition of a gathering as “church” without recognized leadership (pastors/elders), the reading and teaching of scripture, worship, serving and caring for one another, a recognition of who “belongs” and who doesn’t and with that–accountability and discipline, as well as the practice of baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
Of course, a Lifeway account won’t hurt! 😀 j/k
In Matthew 28:19-20 there is a command/commission to baptize. From there we can proceed with our interpretation of the text, what makes sense, what others are doing, and/or what we “have always done” to decide how to obey this command. I prefer to look in the New Testament record to find how the New Testament believers understood and obeyed that command. If I have examined the Scriptures correctly and thoroughly, there are ten specific examples of baptisms that occurred after Jesus gave the Great Commission to the apostles. In some cases, the account specifies the administrator. In others, the administrator is easily surmised, or may be assumed without definite identification. In other cases, there is not enough information to know the administrator (there is some overlap between the 2nd and 3rd conditions). Here are the accounts in chronological order: [1] Acts 2:41; [2] Acts 8:12; [3] Acts 8:13; [4] Acts 8:36-38; [5] Acts 9:5,9,18; (cf. Acts 22:16) [6] Acts 10:44-48; [7] Acts 16:14-15; [8] Acts 16:31-33; [9] Acts 18:8 (cf. I Corinthians 1:14-16); [10] Acts 19:1-7. I find particularly troubling the interpretational approach that proceeds on what is not prohibited. Non-believers are not prohibited from baptizing, are they?
But can we discern who was/is commanded to baptize by the information about baptism in the book of Acts? I think we can begin to, and that is where we ought to begin. It does not seem that believers as believers are indiscriminately baptizing. Where the administrators are known, they are persons who are in a sort of ministerial capacity — apostle, evangelist (or deacon) — or directly commissioned to baptize (Ananias). On the other hand, none of the cases look like the average baptismal candidate in a Baptist church — professing believer comes before the church and is voted on in regular church order. The New Testament baptisms are a result of going to make disciples and some believing — not really in a gathered congregational context, except Acts 2. There is an urgency involved, and all baptisms take place immediately except for the situation of Saul/Paul (and even he was baptized immediately after Ananias arrived).
Every baptism need not be voted on by a church before it is performed, else New Testament practice itself is not valid. But “church authority” is involved on both the front end (e.g., those sent by the church who baptize) and on the back end (i.e., churches may reject professions and/or baptisms as false; e.g. Barnabas interceded for Paul before the church @ Jerusalem was satisfied with him).
Mike Bergman,
I do not really disagree with you (or with Vol) about the PRIMARY use of the Lord’s Supper as a gathering of a local Christian fellowship.
But let me give you a real life example. I attended a family camp for many years. We were people from all over the USA who came together for Bible Study, fellowship and fun. Not all were Baptists. But for that week when we were together, we were a worshiping community of believers.
We had people saved through that camp and several of them were baptized in a river near the camp. Mostly, they came from churches that practiced infant baptism.
Every year, we closed the camp with the celebration of communion together.
It was a great worship experience for brothers and sisters in Christ and it is hard for me to see that we offended God by breaking bread together. Nor do I see how that violated any scripture.
Would you say that what we did was wrong? How does it violate scripture for a group of believers to worship at the Lord’s table together?
We AGREE that the church should celebrate communion together as an ordinance. But where I disagree is that the ordinance of the local church precludes believers celebrating the Lord’s Supper together in other situations.
You know this is one of those things where I can’t look at you and say, “Yes, absolutely, for a fact, this is wrong.” Especially since my views on the Supper have been in a state of flux over the past couple of years.
But where I’m at now in my understanding, I would not participate in the celebration of the Supper at an event like that, nor would I encourage my church members to (I also wouldn’t stand there and slap their hands if they did participate…)
The ministerial alliance in my town does three corporate gatherings each year–baccalaureate, thanksgiving, and good friday, during the latter two it is traditional to partake of the Lord’s Supper together. My church hosted the thanksgiving service, and that means we would have been in charge of preparing and administering the Supper. I (nicely) told them we wouldn’t be doing that this year.
Where my convictions are at, built largely from 1 Corinthians–the most detailed passages we have on the practice of the Supper and in the context of instructions to a local church–I think Paul puts too much emphasis on it as a supper for the local body where we are to consider one another and wait on one another in the practice of it for me to be comfortable partaking of it outside of the context of the local church.
And since this post is about baptism–I see baptism not only as a mark of entrance into the universal fellowship of union with Christ, but also a mark of our fellowship with a particular body (1 Corinthians 12, for instance, being baptized by the Spirit into one body–and again, Paul giving instruction for local church life). So I think baptism also falls under the rubric local church life/authority.
How does that play w/ receiving people into our fellowship who were baptized elsewhere? If we consider the body they came from/were baptized in as truly being a local church that practices legitimate baptism, then we receive them accepting that practice of baptism as our practice of baptism… but I’m not going to go to that church and start baptizing people who want to be members there, just as I wouldn’t receive a delegation from their church to come in and baptize people who want to be members at ours.
If someone joined your church who was baptized in our family camp, would you require rebaptism. The baptizers would have been either myself or my dad – both Baptist pastors, but the camp itself was not sponsored by a particular church.
So, if someone came to your church and said they were saved and baptized at our camp, would you force them to be rebaptized.
The issue is not whether baptism and LS are primarily under the auspices of local churches – that is the norm and we all agree to that. The question is whether this is exclusive.
Would a baptism performed at a family Bible camp be considered valid? I can tell you that I would consider it valid.
Re-baptism is a mockery of baptism.
Bill Mac,
Re-baptism is not re-baptism if the first “baptism” was not a legitimate baptism. Thus, the “re-baptism” would be the real baptism.
For example, if someone gets baptised at a Church of Christ for the remission of thier sins…Campbellite…then you would accept that baptism as legitimate? When they got baptised in order to be saved???? I wouldnt.
Also, you’d be for accepting the baptism of someone, who’s buddy in college baptised him in the swimming pool late one night, with no one around, after leading him to Christ? The 2 of them just went out to the swimming pool and got baptised? I wouldnt.
Or, what if someone had been sprinkled by the Presbyterians or the Methodists? had water poured on thier head by the Nazarenes?
I would think that they would need to be truly baptised.
David
Baptizing someone sprinkled as an infant is not re-baptism. Baptizing someone who was baptized in an Arminian church is rebaptism and it ought not to happen. Let’s deal with what normally occurs, not crazy outliers.
I’m talking about rebaptizing someone who was baptized as a believer by immersion after a credible profession of faith.
Bill Mac,
Exactly! I guess it all comes down to what you believe is a true baptism.
David
“Re”-baptism is in the eye of the beholder. That is, few if any believe they are “re”-baptizing (whether they are or not). The idea is that what they consider a valid baptism does not exist. If all were agreed on what constituted scriptural baptism, an argument about re-baptism would not exist.
Dave, I would consider the Bible camp baptism valid as well.
Dave,
I see no reason why anyone leading a camp would feel the need to baptize someone, or to have the Lord’s Supper. Why not just worship the Lord together? I really dont see any reason to baptize kids at a camp, and I really dont see the need to take the LS at a camp.
You can worship the Lord without doing these 2 things, and the worship will be just as meaningful.
David
I’m not much into the, for lack of a better term, re-baptism idea. If I have people come to me and say, “I was baptized as a child/teenager after I professed faith, but I later realized I wasn’t truly a Christian, and now that I am I want to be baptized.” I’ll give them an explanation as to why, but in 99.9% of the cases, I’ll tell them, “No.”
If someone came wanting to join my church in the situation you described, would I accept them without having to baptize them? Yes.
But I still don’t support camp baptisms and still don’t think they should be done. It’s one of those areas where I’m confident in my convictions about baptism and its relation to local church life, but I’ll also admit there is sufficient enough gray area to not be dogmatic.
Yet if a child or teenager and family who are involved with my church come to me and say, “Lil’ Timmy was saved while at camp and wants to be baptized in the pool there.” I’d tell them, I would be more than happy to talk to the camp director and find a time we can go out there and do it as part of a church celebration, but that it shouldn’t happen as a camp activity separate from the church.
Church life–belonging not just to THE body but also a particular body to live out your faith with–is such an integral part of the gospel, and Lord’s Supper and baptism carry such meaning as aspects of the church/gospel community, I personally cannot separate the practice from life as the local church.
Basically, we agree as to the basics. I just allow more exceptions than you allow.
“Would a baptism performed at a family Bible camp be considered valid?”
If you are baptizing on your own without the authority of a local church, then I would not accept this baptism. Neither would multitudes of Southern Baptist churches.
Think about this. If you can baptize at a camp without the authority of a church, then can your church members also baptize any time they want to. If it alright for your church members to baptize their friends and family in their swimming pools during the week without consulting their church? This is just the same as a camp baptism.
It all comes down to the question: Is baptism a church ordinance or a Christian ordinance?
Ben, in the NT instances we have, the person who led someone to Christ looked immediately for a place to baptize that person – that is the common truth in every instance we have. Baptism follows conversion immediately.
I would accept any baptism that is performed after salvation, by immersion, as a symbol of salvation, not a saving act.
Normally, (99.9%) we do baptism under the auspices of the local church. It’s just not required biblically, nor by me.
The Lord’s Supper is not the purview (sp?) of a parochial group. I appreciate my denomination affiliation as long as it is a “tool” not a “tyrannt.”
I think it is absolutely permissable and desirable to share the Lord’s Supper at a camp.
When I was a Protestant Lay Leader on a submarine, we celebrated it while on patrol at a crusing depth of over 200 feet. It was a “deeply” moving experience (bad pun intended).
Wow. Interesting discussion.
I’m really troubled by the constant referring back to the BFM2K by Vol and others. Last time I checked that was a confession and not a creed which means that it is not a binding document for fellowship. I would say many of you would not be comfortable with the practices of my church. We have held Communion on a men’s retreat, with a small group, and in other places not considered “in church.” The important context of Communion seems to be the hearts of the people, not the location.
Further, the elements used can vary. The dry “cracker” and stale juice sold at Lifeway are not any mess biblical than kool aid and cookie. Truthfully, the Last Supper involved wine and unleavened bread but the NT church practiced it in the context of a communal meal.
As far as baptism goes, we have baptized on a men’s retreat, in a pool, and have allowed dads and moms to baptize their kids.
I’m not concerned a whit about what the BFM2K says about those practices. I do care a whole lot about what the Bible says about these practices. I don’t think scripture, shockingly, is as restrictive of these practices as the Baptists would like to be. Of course, I find that true in many areas.
For a people of the Book, we sure do enjoy ignoring it in favor of traditions of men when it allows us to demonize the practices of those we do not agree with.
Its not the traditions of men, since that’s what the Bible teaches…concerning your comments about the BFM2K.
David
Ryan,
The reason for the reference to the Baptist Faith and Message is to demonstrate that the idea that baptism and the Lord’s Supper are ordinances of the local church is not a radical hyper-landmark or ultra-fundamentalist idea. It shows that it is historic Baptist (and biblical) doctrine. It also shows that the idea of baptizing and taking communion outside the context of a local church is a novel idea.
There is plenty of scripture to back that up.
“””Yeah, I agree that there are no commands in scripture saying only so-and-so can perform baptism or administer the Lord’s Supper”””
We’re Baptists. We’d never let a little issue like lack of Scriptural support squash a good idea 🙂 . . . . . and certainly, not let it stop a good discussion.
So .. if the Great Commission .. and I’d suggest also the Acts 1:8 command .. are church-related, then where’s the mandate that the individual be a witness? Would that, then, be a church commission?
Many places the command and exhortation is given in the context of individual believers. Matthew 5:14-16 came to mind first.
“You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden; nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.
Luke 12:8-12 came to mind second.
“And I say to you, everyone who confesses Me before men, the Son of Man will confess him also before the angels of God; but he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God. And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him. When they bring you before the synagogues and the rulers and the authorities, do not worry about how or what you are to speak in your defense, or what you are to say; for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say.”
I’ve served communion using orange juice and stale crackers on the fantail of a USS destoyer; I’ve served communion using grape juice and wafers on the bow of USS COLE (we had all sorts of denominations present including Catholics); I’ve taken a sponge, dipped it in juice and touched it to the tongue of someone who died hours later. None were in the presence of a local church or a group of believers, in fact, I’m pretty sure many present were not believers. It is not the mode or the form but the heart and the attitude.
There is a generalized decline in the resect for and importance of institutions in the life of Americans. Evidence can easily be found in reading the comment threads of this blog. It’s not surprising that people would increasingly not see the point in having local church saction for either baptism or the Lord’s Supper.
We are suspicious of leadership, of their motives and even of their legitimacy. We look just like the rest of our culture at this point, turning away from institutions when they don’t conform to our needs at the moment. This cultural attitutde is the great threat to the CP and ultimately to the SBC itself.
Scripture is silent on the matter of baptisms outside of the church and you have to be a lawyer to find “authoritative” direction in BFM.
Personally, I am highly uncomfortable with either baptism or the Lord’s Supper outside of the context of the church. My uncomfortableness is mostly my own love of tradition and concern for lone ranger faith. I am most comfortable inside of a faith community.
But I can’t find a scriptural prohibition and I would be unwilling to create an extrabiblical rule.
After thinking about some of these comments, I began to think about Acts 8. In that chapter, some pretty crazy things happen (the Holy Spirit being conferred to people through laying on of hands, people being teleported around the world, etc.), but there are two baptisms described there.
The first is the baptism of Simon the Sorcerer.
A number of questions pop into my head regarding this:
1. This looks a lot like a “camp” setting and not a “church” setting
2. Simon’s salvation is in question
3. Philip was there and it can be argued that he performed that baptism
Was Simon’s baptism valid? If Simon came to your church seeking membership, would you accept his baptism? Why or why not?
If you believe Simon’s baptism was legit, how does that square with the “ordinance of the church” thing?
If you don’t believe it was valid, why did Philip seemingly accept it? Why doesn’t Peter seem concerned about the baptism?
Or is this a “special case” that doesn’t apply today because the BFM1C was later revised as the BFM2K and we know better now?
The second baptism is of the Ethiopian eunuch. This baptism is obviously not in the context of a church service, it is just Philip and the eunuch.
[35] Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus. [36] 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?” (Acts 8:35-36 ESV)
It is interesting that verse 37 does not say “And Philip answered him “Sir, what prevents you from being baptized is that this is not a church. The BFM1C clearly says that baptism is an ordinance of the church. I do represent the church, but what we are doing here is not church. If I baptized you here, you would need to be rebaptized by whatever church you end up attending before they would accept you into membership.””
Would you accept the eunuch’s baptism if he came to your church? After all, it was performed in a roadside ditch for crying out loud! Or would you make a concession because Philip did it and not Uncle Cletus? Is the “who performed the baptism” the deciding factor? Was it in the case of Simon Magus?
I wonder what the message boards back then would look like? “Philip did what? First he baptizes Simon Magus at camp, now this eunuch in a ditch! Doesn’t he know that the BFM1C strictly says that he can’t just go off by himself and baptize someone in a roadside ditch? He may as well have called in Uncle Cletus for all the good that did those guys. Baptism is an ordinance of the church and must be performed in a church setting by authorized church people. Now we’ll have to rebaptize that eunuch because Philip screwed it all up, not to mention re-evangelize Simon!”
You also have to remember context…
Up to that point in the Acts narrative, there wasn’t much of a spread of the Gospel outside of Jerusalem. In 8:1 a massive persecution began against the “church in Jerusalem, and they were all scatttered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles.”
This began the fulfillment of the promises of Acts 1:8. No longer able to gather in Jerusalem, these disciples esentially started spreading/planting churches in various areas. And in fact, later in Acts Philip is called an “evangelist” which is a leadership office of the church according to Ephesians 4.
Thus, it is less likely Philip was doing things like “camp baptisms” but instead was going out as a part of the scattered Jerusalem church, representing the “mother” church in spreading the gospel and beginning new churches in the regions…
Agreed, but I don’t see very many here allowing for context. The comments have seemed pretty cut and dried.
Jeff,
These are both easy cases to understand. Simon was a lost church member, so I would reject his baptism, but it has nothing to do with who preformed it. i.e. the administrator.
The eunuch was baptized by Philip, a “evangelist” sent out by the church at Jerusalem. He was not just a random Tom, Dick, or Harry out baptizing. He was an ordained officer of the church at Jerusalem sent out to evangelize the lost, baptize the saved and organize them into churches.
I would be interested to see the argument backing up the view that “evangelist” necessarily equals “an ordained officer of the church at Jerusalem sent out to evangelize the lost, baptize the saved and organize them into churches.”
Well they get that idea because Philip was also an ordained deacon in the church at Jerusalem. Also Ephesians 4 lists evangelists alongside of pastors and apostles. I’m not saying I agree with the logic of Landmarkers but that’s what they will tell you. My question is when Philip baptized the eunuch did he become a member of the Jerusalem church?
David,
We do know that Philip was an “evangelist” and “evangelists” (along with pastors) are mentioned in Ephesians as a position in the N.T. church.
We also know Philip was sent out by the church at Jerusalem.
Last we know Philip was ordained by the church at Jerusalem.
So Philip is clearly some sort of officer of the church at Jerusalem sent out by the church. When you look at what he did – evangelized and baptized – it becomes pretty clear what he was sent out to do.
“We do know that Philip was an “evangelist” and “evangelists” (along with pastors) are mentioned in Ephesians as a position in the N.T. church.”
Ephesians seems to be talking most directly about the universal Church, though I would agree that the equipping done by the apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastor-teachers likely occurred in what we might well consider a “local church” setting. If you say, on the basis of Eph. 4:11 that “evangelist” is a local church office, though, that leaves you with the logical conclusion that “apostle” and “prophet” are also local church offices. This would in turn, lead to the conclusion that the 12 apostles (counting Matthias) were apostles of the Jerusalem church, but not of the Church at large.
Also I cannot find where Philip was “sent out” by the Jerusalem church. Could you direct me to that passage?
Whether the “seven” were also “deacons” is not a proven fact, but that is a bit beside the point. It appears to me they were appointed to do a specific task, however (i.e. waiting on tables), and not necessarily to a general office. If by “ordained” we mean nothing more than appointed to a task (including an commendation to carry out that task symbolically conveyed through the laying on of hands), I have no objection. But if by “ordained” we mean given a special “clergy status,” I don’t see how the Bible teaches this concept.
Perhaps Philip is identified later in the text as an “evangelist” because that is what he did (i.e. it is descriptive, not prescriptive; he was called an evangelist because he evangelized, not that he evangelized because he had been ordained as an evangelist). Perhaps, on this particular point, it is the other way around. I don’t see Scripture as conclusive either way on this.
In any case, you use the word “know” three times in the previous comment, and the word “clear” or “clearly” twice. I think, given my comments above, a bit more tentativeness would be warranted.
Also, if “apostle,” “prophet,” and “evangelist” are all local church offices, where does that leave us with the BF&M that states that the scriptural offices of the church are “pastor” and “deacon”?
St. Philip, as an Apostle, would have worked on behalf of Christ’s Church. He would have been ‘sent’ out to found a new separate Church. After Pentecost, he was ‘sent’ as all the Apostles were ‘sent’, to spread Christ’s Church throughout the known world.
I am really not understanding something here about the founding of separate Churches.
correction: St. Philip would NOT have been sent out to found a new ‘separate’ church.
Christiane, try “congregations in various locations” in place of “separate churches”. Does that help?
As far as Philip, it is fairly conclusive that the Philip of Acts 8 is the deacon Philip of Acts 6 and the evangelist Philip of Acts 21, and not Philip the Apostle. Acts 8:1 says the apostles stayed at Jerusalem, while others were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. This Philip goes to Samaria, Gaza, Azotus and finally Caesarea (Cf. Acts 8:40 & 21:8).
Hey Robert,
I saw that you have an article on your blog from Royse Smith, is that the same Royse Smith that pastors in Oklahoma?
Yes, Bro. Smith is at Bethel Baptist Church in Choctaw, OK. That was excerpt from something he wrote in a discussion about the Trinity, names of God, and so forth. Are you in OK? Do you know him?
Yes I’ve been to a few conferences that he has preached at and I have share a few mutual friends. I think he’s a really good preacher. Yes I pastor in Oklahoma.
John, I met Bro. Smith at a conference (not sure if that was actually what the church called it) in Texas last year, though I had heard of him before. Even had a chance to visit with him (and others) over breakfast. I was favorably impressed.
‘organize them into churches’
is this the same meaning as ‘planting churches’ ?
Yes that is what they are meaning.
Basically, yes.
thank you, both
Ben Stratton has well said.
The fact is that the denial of church authority as a necessity to Biblical baptism has continued to fertilize the spiritual confusion that abounds. This “anyone, anytime, anywhere” magical authority is not conducive to any semblance of order connected with New Testament Doctrine.
It is on par with every U.S. citizen having the authority to hand out Social Security Cards, Driver’s licenses and Immigration Visas. Authority is what makes something “authentic.” Where there is no “authority”, counterfeits, confusion, and cheapening of all meaning abounds.
The Landmark view of Ecclesiology, and Biblical Baptism, is the historical Baptist opinion and view. Though it is not relegated to history. There are Baptist Associations and Groups in significant numbers, other than the SBC, that see this opinion substantiated throughout the scripture. I said that just to say, Landmark Ecclesiology and Authorized Baptism is not some fringe theology; but is alive and well among many serious Baptist theologians.
The scriptural basis for the “authorized Baptism” will stand the scrutiny of an honest and patient evaluation.
Ben, keep on keeping on.
Jeff,
With all due respect the Landmark view of ecclesiology is not the historic Baptist position. Baptists while always valuing the local church as the primary meaning of the word ecclesia, have also always admitted through the centuries that word church is also applied to all believers. The denial of the universal church did not begin until the advent of Landmark doctrine in the 1840’s. J.R. Graves, J.M. Pendleton and men like that were trying to combat ecumenicalism.
This is my first post on sbc voices, though I am a regular reader of the blogs. As someone who was saved, baptized, surrendered to the ministry and pastored in an association of Baptist churches that were known for their landmarkism I have enjoyed the discussion and debate.
It’s been one of the more instructive discussions I’ve seen on here.
If I remember correctly, one of the big reasons Christian Smith gave for his recent conversion to Roman Catholicism was the penchant of Evangelicals to find “clear biblical support” for their arguments, and then for other groups of Evangelicals to find “clear biblical support” for the opposing view, etc. He finally concluded someone has to be the final arbiter of what the Bible actually teaches, and decided the Roman Catholic hierarchy has as good of a claim to this as anyone.
When we discuss issues like the one at hand, for the reason above, I think it is important that we do not lightly throw around the term “clear biblical support.” I admit I can be hard-headed at times, and someone can be saying something and I just don’t get it. But for the life of me, I do not see where in the world anyone comes up with “clear biblical support” for a required local church oversight of ordinances.
Yes, Jesus gave the Great Commission to the apostles, and yes, because He told them, “I am with you till the end of the age,” we may assume they were representative of the broader body of disciples of Jesus down through the ages. And yes, Christians of all times, including NT times, have seen the importance of gathering together with other believers, of mutual accountability, and of church discipline, which requires some sort of tangible structure. Yes, I get all that. But it seems to me those who argue for strict local church supervision are making a huge leap from those basic facts to a hard and fast requirement that a duly organized, covenant-based congregation is the only context in which baptism and the Lord’s Supper may be legitimately practiced. At that point, it seems to me we are “connecting the dots” when the evidence is not all that clear for demanding we do it in that way. It reminds me of paleontologists recreating ape-men from a fossilized tooth.
If you want to make a case for something having “clear biblical support,” you are going to have to walk me through the exegetical steps, with supporting chapter and verse references to back up presuppositions and conclusions along the way.
Several of us, including Dave Miller (he had a great series of posts on this on his personal blog back a couple of years ago), have done a thorough analysis of all of the NT passages referencing actual baptisms in the NT period. The evidence supporting local church supervision is conspicuously absent. And I am not just referring to Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch. It is striking how time after time, whenever baptism is mentioned, there is no hint of any type of local church supervision, unless you jump to the conclusion that the presence of Christian disciples automatically assumes local church supervision.
The Lord’s Supper is obviously a group activity. And I believe there is biblical evidence for it being confined to authentic, confessing disciples of the Lord. But unless you are conflating any gathered group of Christian disciples with a duly constituted organization called a local congregation, I find no evidence demanding the Lord’s Supper always be celebrated in the context of such a local congregation. It is a celebration commemorating the Lord’s death, as well as the unity of the body of Christ (i.e. big C, universal Church).
Once again, step-by-step exegetical argumentation with accompanying chapter and verse references will be necessary to convince me on this, not just saying “the Bible clearly teaches…” and “the BF&M also states…”
David,
You wrote: “It is striking how time after time, whenever baptism is mentioned, there is no hint of any type of local church supervision”
Brother, every baptism in the N.T. was preformed by someone sent out and authorized by a local church.
It’s the church that is the pillar and ground of the truth.
The apostles were set first in the church – that’s one of the reasons why we contend the Great commission was given to the church.
While some churches may have changed their polity in the last 50 years, the Bible hasn’t changed one bit.
Just saying “every baptism in the N.T. was preformed by someone sent out and authorized by a local church” does not make it so. I am open to being convinced this is the case, but as I say in my comment I will need to see the exegetical steps, preferably including chapter and verse references. And I am not asking to see anything “we” (myself, Dave Miller, and others) have not done before. If necessary, I can provide some urls. It would be too long to include in a comment stream.
“The apostles were set first in the church – that’s one of the reasons why we contend the Great commission was given to the church.”
You’re going to have to help me with than one too. Frankly, that seems like a classical non sequitur to me. Were the apostles “set in” the local church? If so, what does it mean to be “set in” the local church? What is the basis of this?
“The church that is the pillar and ground of the truth.”
Yes, Paul did say that. But what exactly does that mean? RC exegetes, for example, take it to mean something entirely different. What are the hermeneutical underpinnings behind your interpretation and application of this verse?
see Ephesians 2
“19 So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the holy ones and members of the household of God,
20 built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the capstone.
21 Through Him the whole structure is held together and grows into a temple sacred in the Lord;
22 in Him you also are being built together into a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.”
Ben Stratton,
I would enjoy a little dialogue via E-mail. Fire one at me when you get a chance.
W.David.Campbell@gmail.com
David Campbell
David Rogers, you wrote:
And of course, this ties to that question about whether Philip was acting on behalf of the persecuted and scattered Jerusalem church as he went out, evangelized, and baptized…
I talked about the offices of Ephesians 4 in an article here back last summer: https://sbcvoices.com/rethinking-the-ministry-of-the-evangelists/
Basically, I think we can point to the evangelists being an office of the local church, as part of eldership (in a plurality of elders, you have some who are more focused on leading the church in evangelism and missions, so elders-evangelists; and then you have others who are more focused on leading the church through teaching and building up, or elders-pastors/teachers–I have more detail about this idea in that post…)
But at the same time, that doesn’t necessitate we see apostles and prophets as continuing offices. In the context of Ephesians (which, granted, I understand the textual debate about the term Ephesus–but I take the view that this letter, like most of Paul’s, is directed to the context of local church practice with implications to the universal and not vice versa as you indicated above), Paul labels the apostles and prophets as being a part of the church’s foundation in Ephesians 2. Thus during the time of their ministry in the establishment of the early church/es, they were an office. Yet, after that foundation was laid and the apostles died off, etc., they ceased to be a continuing office.
As for the BF&M, I think we actually miss the boat, sadly, by limiting the language of the office of “pastor” to the least used term of the three (elders, overseers, and pastors), and we miss the boat with our exclusion of evangelists within our terminology of office as well.
Well said Mike. Almost everyone would agree that Pastors are a position in the local church. Since Eph. 4:11 lists evangelists along with pastors, it makes sense that evangelists were also connected to a local church and did their work through a local church..
All through the book of Acts you see pastors, evangelists, and missionaries working in and and through local churches. And then when you consider that the Great Commission was given to the local church and not random Christians in general, you have a strong case for the ordinances being church ordinances.
A lot of people would argue that “apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastor/teachers” in Eph. 4:11 are all best understood as referring to ministry functions rather than to “offices” or “positions” in the church. That doesn’t mean that “pastor” is not also a position. It seems that the NT prefers to use the terms “elder” or “bishop” when referring to the actual “position,” though.
Also, I would be interested to hear the exegetical argument behind the assertion “the Great Commission was given to the local church.” I have heard various people make this claim, and it seems to be, if not the main plank behind the BI/Landmark argument, at least one of the main planks. Yet I still have not been able to wrap my mind around exactly how one comes to this conclusion.
Well I’m not into the BI thing from a few years back, and I’m far from a landmarkist, so I don’t know how they’d answer…
But I don’t think it’s too far off to say the GC is primarily a local church idea…
On the one hand, true, from the text Jesus doesn’t say “The local church should go and make disciples…etc”. Yet, on the other hand in big-picture exegesis, when it comes to being a follower of Jesus, we then become a member of the universal church, but we live out the practical nature of day-to-day life as part of THE Church within the context of local community or a church. Life in a local church is inseparable from general gospel living; and the commands were given to us not primarily as individuals, but as the communal body impacting the world…
So with the great commission, while we have our individual roles in the parts and pieces, we fulfill it together as we use our gifts, love one another, and live as one with each other primarily in the context of the covenant community we are meant to be a part of each day…
Mike,
I agree with everything you say here, but I don’t see how all of that means the Great Commission was specifically a local church thing as opposed to a general command given to all disciples of the Lord. If we extrapolate this out, we could also say that anything in the Christian life–quiet time, personal witnessing, resisting temptation, etc., etc.–are all subject to local church authority, since all of our Christian life is lived in the context of caring, committed Christian relationships. I guess that in a way that is all true. But we don’t seek local church authorization for having our quiet time, for witnessing to someone, for resisting temptation, etc. It seems that is an artificial way of dividing between universal and local aspects of the Church.
I think “authorization” might be too strong of a word here–b/c you’re right, we don’t seek church permission and such to do these things.
Yet we subject ourselves (or at least should) to the teachings of the local church as a guide for our understanding and doctrine as we do personal Bible study in order to help ensure that we don’t go off the deep end with some wacky theology, likewise we subject ourselves to the accountability of the local church to help us resist temptation and to hold us in whatever needed step of discipline and restoration whenever we sin, and we subject our personal witnessing to the witness of the church–1) like the Bible study above, to make sure our theology of the gospel is right, and 2) because our words must match our deeds and are made more powerful by our deeds especially if we love one another and are one with one another in our church context, and thus show the world surrounding us that we are truly Jesus’ disciples (John 13:35, 17:21-23).
On the one hand, the church should not have to give us permission, nor should we feel like we need it to study the Bible, witness, etc., but even our personal devotions of these things ultimately cannot be properly done outside of the context of our local Gospel community.
It’s a both/and, not an either/or…
So when it comes to the Great Commission, we have our individual roles but we carry out those roles as a part of the bigger piece of our local church which is then a part of an even bigger piece of the universal church.
As I go and witness, part of my witness is that in saving you Jesus makes you a part of his people and you need to be joined in accountability and worship with a local gathering of his people. If I’m witnessing in my area, the local gathering I seek to bring them in as a part of is the church I’m a part of (which was more centrally focused w/ the city churches of the NT as opposed to our church on every corner–at least in the Bible belt–of today).
If I’m witnessing in an area where there is no church, then I’m seeking to establish a local church body in that place. And if I’m witnessing on vacation somewhere, I’m ultimately not trying to get them to move and be involved in my local church, and if there is a church, I’m not trying to establish one, but I’m still going to point them to a local church.
If I’m “going” in my area, and someone comes to Christ, and part of that then becomes involvement in a local church, I wouldn’t baptize them on the spot and send them on their way… I’d say, “Come, let’s meet the family and celebrate this symbol of your new birth together.”–maybe not in those words, but in those ideas. If I’m in an unreached field, then most likely I was sent there with the blessing of my local church with the purpose of planting churches, so I baptize them as that first step. If I’m on vacation, since I’m not a part of the local body there, I think it’s most proper to connect them in with a local body and let them be baptized through their membership.
After all baptism is a sign of union w/ Christ, therefore union w/ his body, therefore union w/ a local expression of his body.
While baptisms were performed by all sorts of people in all sorts of places in the NT, I think it follows that general rubric–they were either baptized by members of the church in that local area to which they belonged, or they were baptized by those acting as missionaries, but still with the focus to build the local church where they belong.
Philip kinda serves as an outlier, b/c he was a part of a persecuted and scattered church who baptized a man in a place where there was no church traveling to a place where there was no church. In that instance, the Ethiopian was essentially the start of a new local church.
But ultimately, I don’t think we find any baptisms outside the rubric of the local church, just as we don’t ultimately find them carrying out the Great Commission (even their “individual” parts) outside of the same…
Mike,
Once again, I find little to object to in the way you have worded it. In actual practice, I am confident there is very little difference between what people like Dave Miller and myself do regarding these issues and what leading “BI” advocates do (acknowledging you have already deferred from identifying yourself with the “BI” contingent).
In a lot of our everyday practice, these are theoretical questions that perhaps don’t merit the time we spend on them. However, when we start disqualifying missionary candidates because of technical matters related to who baptized them, even though they meet all the other biblical qualifications, or we start insisting that people who have been authentically baptized be baptized again, then these issues become more relevant and important.
My main angle in all of this is a hope the IMB will one day, hopefully not in the too far distant future, revisit the policy that disqualifies missionary candidates because they weren’t baptized by the “right administrator.”
David,
You agree that “pastors” are a position in the church. I think you would agree that apostles are more of a position than just a ministry function, since they were ordained. Therefore if in Eph. 4:11, you have two positions (pastors, apostles) in the local church, it makes sense that the other two (prophets, evangelists) would be positions in the local church.
The best presentation of the Great Commission being given to the local church is in B.H. Carroll’s Interpretation of the English Bible. If you have access to this, check the volume on the Gospels and the chapter of the Great Commission.
I did a quick Google search and found it. Here is a link:
http://sglblibrary.homestead.com/files/bhcarroll/Volume_11.htm#xxxii
Ben,
The way I would word it more precisely is that there is a “pastoral” role and function that goes along with the local church position of “elder/bishop” (all 3 identifying different aspects of the same individuals). As far as apostles are concerned, there are different types of apostles in the NT. There are the 12, there is Paul, and there are others. I believe the apostles and prophets upon which the foundation of the Church is built are really “apostle-prophets” (same Greek grammatical construction as “pastor-teachers” in Eph. 4:11), who are those individuals who, having a personal commendation to ministry from the Lord, were also uniquely inspired to communicate his eternal revelation for the Church (in all aspects, universal and local) through the Bible.
The theme in Ephesians is one Body being built up throughout history to become a holy temple to the Lord. I believe each of the ministry functions mentioned in Eph. 4:11 play a role in this building up, or edification, process, the “apostle-prophets” being foundational, since the legacy they left by way of the Bible is the basis on which the others continue to build.
Some would say there is an on-going apostolic and prophetic function operating in the Church today. In a sense, I think this is true. But there are also some important differences between this and the unique authority the original “apostle-prophets” had due to being eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ, and the personal commendation to ministry they received from him.
Having said all that, I don’t think it is necessarily a bad thing for a local church to recognize someone as having an evangelistic ministry, or even to call them an “evangelist” officially sent out, or commended to ministry, by the church. This doesn’t necessarily mean, though, that anyone called by term “evangelist” is automatically an ordained officer of a local church, with authorization to baptize and plant new churches. As I see it, maybe so, maybe not. The NT evidence is not sufficient to be conclusive at this point.
Thanks for the heads up about Carroll’s “Interpretation of the English Bible.” I will have to check that out. I have read and am familiar with Carroll’s essay (part 1 & 2) on the Ekklesia, but not with the “Interpretation of the English Bible.” It sounds to me like this may be something of a “primary source” for those espousing the idea that the Great Commission was given specifically to the local church. Do you know if it is available online?
Stephen beat me to the punch on the link and already had it up while I was still typing my last comment. Thanks, Stephen.
I skimmed through the Carroll article on the link Stephen provided, and think I understand the gist of his argument. I may have to re-read more carefully later.
In any case, I don’t see on what he bases the assumption that the more than 500 present at the same time referenced by Paul in 1 Cor. 15:7 were gathered (or “assembled”) on the same occasion as Jesus gave the Great Commission to the 11, as recorded in Matt. 28. I guess it is possible, but it seems to me this is based on speculation, not verifiable information.
Even if the more than 500 were there on hand sort of eavesdropping, I don’t read anything about Jesus leading them at that time to “constitute” as a church, to “draw up a covenant,” or establishing a defined structure of delegated authority. All of these things are “reconstructing the ape-man from the fossilized tooth” I metaphorically referenced earlier.
We might just as well assert that the more than 500 were representative not of the local church, but the universal Church, and were the sum of his disciples at that time.
In any case, Matt. 28 specifically references the 11, not the more than 500. The 11 + 1, as I understand it, are apostles of the one, holy, catholic, apostolic Church, not just the local representation of that Church at Jerusalem, thought they, at least originally, met together and ministered in that specific context.
Personally, I think the Roman Catholic emphasis of apostolic succession transmitted by way of ordination and laying on of hands has influenced some Protestant, some Baptist, and especially Landmark interpretations of this whole question. If it were not for that historical background, I don’t think we would naturally read into the Great Commission all these ideas about delegated authority and formal structures through which that authority is to be exercised. A more natural reading to me is that the authority to make disciples is the authority of the Holy Spirit given to each and every disciple upon his conversion. To be a disciple makes one at the same time a disciple-maker. Yes, this is best accomplished in the context of a group of disciples who know each other, meet together regularly, and hold each other accountable in the practice and outworking of their discipleship. But the emphasis is the power of the Holy Spirit, not the formal accountability structures.
David,
B.H. Carroll’s main point does not depend on whether there were 500 present or only 11 when the Great Commission was given. Now I think it is very likely there were more than the 11 present. The giving of the Great Commission is the key moment between the resurrection and the ascension and Jesus announced a head of time where to go to hear this commission given. Still even if Jesus was talking to 11, 120, or 500, he was talking to an assembled body of baptized believers. The Great Commission is a corporate commission, not an individual commission.
Now if the Commission was given to individuals as you seem to believe, any Christian can baptize any time they want to and any Christian can observe the Lord Supper, any place and with anyone they want to. Yet this is a new idea in Baptist history. Can you think of any Baptists in history who believed such an idea? It is not just landmarkers who are opposed to this. Baptists in the 1600’s, 1700’s, 1800’s and 1900’s did not believe this. (I can readily show proof that they did not.)
Now before someone says, that’s just Baptist tradition, think about this. If you hold a new idea that no one in Baptist history has held to before, I would back up and say, ummmm… I wonder if this is really correct or not.
As far as Ephesians, I see it has a book written to local churches. (Whether it was written directly to the church at Ephesus or a circular letter to the “churches” [a great New Testament word!] of Asia). When Paul says, “One Lord, One faith, One baptism” how can that apply to the universal church? All believers do not have one faith (body of doctrine). Christians don’t agree on hardily anything. They don’t all have one baptism – many are sprinkled, others are baptized as babies, still others have no baptism. (Now Paul has already said “one spirit” so it doesn’t make sense to say “one baptism” refers to spirit baptism – plus water baptism was singled out in the Great Commission.) But “One Lord, one faith, one baptism” fits perfectly with local New Testament churches!
But Ben, even if you were to prove the idea of local church only, which I don’t think you have, how would you then prove that Baptists are the original Christians using your Bible?
Ben,
I would say that any believer can baptize and any group of believers can celebrate the Lord’s Supper, but it is not a question of “wanting to,” it is a question of obeying the Lord’s command to make disciples, and to remember him, and to walk in unity one with another. Though I was not there, and I cannot read the thoughts of those who were, I highly doubt anyone present at the giving of the GC was thinking, “Is this a corporate commission or an individual commission”? The whole question is anachronistic, as I see it. It was Jesus’ commission to his disciples.
Whether this coincides with Baptist tradition (or any other tradition, for that matter) makes little difference today, unless it can also be corroborated from Scripture. I am not against tradition, but I am against the traditions of man taking precedence over against God’s revelation.
While I agree that “one faith” almost certainly has doctrinal connotations, if you make that “one faith” the equivalent of dotting i’s and crossing t’s like everyone else, you will run into problems real soon. I don’t know of any local congregation, even sectarian groups, where every member believes like every other member on every doctrinal issue. It makes much more sense to me to view “one faith” as referring to gospel essentials (a la Al Mohler’s “Theological Triage”). The early church sought to codify this by creeds. I do not see this as bad in and of itself, as long as these creeds to not take the place of the authority of God’s Word, and don’t become a means for splitting fellowship with those who are authentic brothers and sisters in Christ.
Also, as I am sure you are aware, the view that Ephesians, when it speaks of the Church, is referring specifically to local congregations and not to the “Universal Church” is a minority (and probably extreme minority) view in SBC circles, as well as among general Evangelical scholarship. That would be a lengthy rabbit trail, but I think there are fairly conclusive exegetical grounds for viewing the best part of Ephesians as directed toward what theologians have called the Universal Church.
David,
I agree with your assessment. I believe that the theme of Ephesians is the unity of all true believers in Christ. Since the Universal Church is made up of only believers in Christ there is one mutual faith concerning the person and work of Christ.
I know I keep talking too much about all of this but I actually think it would be cool to see a blog article that deals with the tenets of Landmarkism. The reason I think that people would find this interesting is that the would discover some of the things we do today are directly attributable to the Landmark Movement of the 1840’s. Baptist only baptism, which is prevalent where I live, is a throwback to Landmarkism.
John Wylie,
I don’t know how long you have been reading Baptist blogs, but part of the problem is that back several years ago various posts were written linking the new IMB policies, and those who defended them, to Landmarkism. Various advocates of the new policy have taken offense to that, however, and sought to distance themselves from Landmarkism. Ben Stratton is one exception to the rule, as he is open and unashamed with regard to the Landmark label. There are, nevertheless, several points at which the traditional Landmark views on these issues and what has come to be called the BI movement converge.
Because of the above reasons, though, it is hard to tackle this issue without having to walk on eggshells.
John, I figure you mean a current blog post — which would be good and would probably get a lot of feedback. In the meantime while waiting for something better you might try the post on Landmark ecclesiology on my blog (or just go their and search for Landmarkism).
Thanks Robert and David for your responses.
David,
Here’s the question about Ephesians. (And Bro. Mike worded it well) Is Ephesians “directed to the context of local church practice with implications to the universal” or vice versa.”
You seem to see a primacy of the universal church in the book of Ephesians, Acts, and throughout the New Testament. I would see just the opposite.
John,
You wrote:
“The reason I think that people would find this interesting is that the would discover some of the things we do today are directly attributable to the Landmark Movement of the 1840?s. Baptist only baptism, which is prevalent where I live, is a throwback to Landmarkism.”
I would challenge you to go back and do some further study on Baptist history. For one, Landmarkism (as a movement) started in the 1850’s. (not the 1840’s) Also every doctrine of landmarkism existed long before J.R. Graves started the landmark movement going. This is documented in Leroy Hogue’s work “Antecedents of Landmarkism,” which was a doctrinal dissertation written at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in 1966. http://landmarkism.tripod.com/index.html
You refer to alien immersion. Jesse Mercer (Whom Mercer University is named after) said:
“Our reasons, therefore for rejecting baptism by immersion when administered by Pedobaptist ministers are: That they are connected with churches clearly out of the apostolic succession, and therefore clearly out of the apostolic commission.” George Baptist Association Circular Letter 1811
In 1811 J.R. Graves wasn’t even born yet! If you’re going to study the origins of Landmarkism, you need to go back earlier than the 1840’s or 1850’s.
Ben,
I stand corrected, it was the 1850’s not the 1840’s. But even if there were some aspects of Landmarkism that predate this time it never was the majority view of Baptists. Further one simply needs to read the Philapdelphia Confession of faith to clarify some of these issues. Almost all Baptist churches in America trace their spiritual roots to the Philadelphia Association. The article on the church clearly teaches the dual nature of the church, both local and universal. If the universal church doctrine is true, and I believe it is, it destroys Landmarkism.
Bro. John,
You wrote: “even if there were some aspects of Landmarkism that predate this time it never was the majority view of Baptists.”
Again I would disagree with your statements. The majority of Baptists have rejected alien immersion, practiced restricted communion, believed in Baptist perpetuity, and rejected pulpit affiliation. I understand that Baptists have always been a diverse people, but I can show you historical statements to back up these claims. For one, J.H. Grimes’ “A History of Alien Immersion and Valid Baptism” would be a good place to start.
You also wrote: “Further one simply needs to read the Philadelphia Confession of faith to clarify some of these issues”
Would you believe that many Landmarkers have adopted the Philadelphia Confession of Faith as their personal confession. Clarence Walker, pastor and founder of the Ashland Avenue Baptist church in Lexington, Kentucky was a very strong Landmark Baptist in the early twentieth century. His church published the Trail of Blood by J.M. Carroll and Walker wrote the forward. Walker led Ashland Ave. to adopt the Philadelphia confession. T.T. Eaton, the famous landmarker who opposed William Whitsitt, even wrote a defense of the Philadelphia Confession of Faith – http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/eaton.phila.confession.html
These men believed in what B.H. Carroll called the “glory church” – a universal church, made up of all the elect, which will finally assemble in heaven. (There it will be a gathered assembly or local church)
Further one simply needs to read the Philapdelphia Confession of faith to clarify some of these issues
Either I’ve missed it, or no one has mentioned yet the fact that Peter took a vote from his delegation before he baptised Cornelius in Acts 10:47; and how that speaks to the issue of authority . . .
and he was the Pope! 🙂
Jeff,
That is an interesting reference. How do you think that speaks to the issue of authority?
David,
I apologize for butting in to your conversation with Jeff, but I just can’t resist. I came out of Landmarkism several years ago but I still remember the rhetoric. Jeff is essentially saying that there was a church vote that took place at Cornelius’s house. He believes that Peter actaully took a vote and submitted to their authority and that Cornelius was baptized by church authority not apostolic authority.
Thanks, John, for the input. So, if I am understanding this right, this implies they spontaneously constituted as a local church there on the spot, and the first thing they did was vote regarding the baptism of Cornelius?
Actually most Landmarkers would believe that Cornelius and his house were baptized by the authority of the Jerusalem church. Most Landmarkers hold that for a church to constitute they had to get their authority from another existing church.
In that case, a subgroup of the Jerusalem church (albeit led by an apostle) spontaneously took a vote on an issue in the name of the entire congregation, but without consulting with the rest of the congregation.
You nailed it brother. Many times Landmarkers see a church vote in scriptures when actually only a few people were in on the decision. Two other examples they cite would be the choosing of Matthias in Acts 1 and the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. What’s interesting though is that they would be dead set against an elder form of government.
John,
Actually I know of several Landmark Baptist churches who have a plural eldership. That is they still hold to congregationalism, but with more than old elder / pastor / bishop.
Also the reason landmark Baptists are so strong of voting for baptism, is because they see baptism and church membership connected. Virtually all Baptists agree you should before someone joins the church as a church. Therefore many Baptists (landmarkers and otherwise) vote to baptize some and upon their baptism make them a member of that local church.
Ben,
Thanks for your response, but I was referring to an elder form of government, not a plurality of elders. If what happened at Cornelius’s house constituted local church authority, than only a few men possessed church authority, something I know all Landmarkers would reject.
David Rogers,
You may remember a debate the two of us had a few years back on either the SBC Impact blog or the SBC Voices blog or maybe it was your personal blog.
If you do remember it, I wonder if you would mind linking to it for others ro read here. it was rather long, but we did exhaust a lot of material relatd to this subject. Maybe it would be helpful. Maybe not. Anyway, if you can find it, I would hope you might be willing to link to it.
For a couple of years, this baptism discussion was the hottest thing on the internet.
I guess I’m glad that it still garners at least a little bit of attention!
Well this is the hottest thing to hit voices since that “calvinism” thing of two-thousand-diggity-one… I don’t even remember the details of that flash in the pan!
Dave Miller and David Rogers,
Dave, you are right. This was a hot topic as was everything having to do with ecclesiology some years back.
David, You are probably right. The debate is in the old SBC Today tucked away somewhere. I will say, I thought it was a good debate, void of emotional comments about Landmarkism and other issues. I will say that it was due to that debate that I became interested in the City Church Paradigm and I have you to thank for that.
In addition, it was due to those debates about ecclesiology that I came to appreciate you and Dave “Huggy Bear” Miller a great deal and I am glad we had lunch in FL.
I would like nothing more than to enter this thread and smite the two of you hip and thigh once again, but you two will have to do this one without me. It seems that there are some other issues I must attend for a while.
Lastly, Vol is right in everything states here and I wish I could be there to back his play. Maybe you could call the great Robin Foster out of retirement to join Vol and bring some live fire to this thread and make it about 450 comments or more like in the old days. 🙂
Those were some great blog fights back before culture, good manners, rules, and civilization ruined things on Baptist blogs. 🙂
Until next time my brothers.
In Christ Free,
cb
Thanks, CB….and, those were the days!
David 🙂
CB, CLICK HERE for one post from SBC Impact. It may not be the specific one you’re looking for, but check it out. You, Dave Miller, and David Rogers are in the discussion, so maybe that’s one of which you’re thinking.
Haven’t been able to get online much yesterday and today. I will read through the comments and jump back into the discussion.
CB,
If I remember correctly, I think the particular discussion you are referring to was on the old SBC Today blog. I am not sure if all of those old posts and comment streams are still archived, nor exactly how to find it. If someone else remembers I will be happy to point people that way.
As much as we have gone up and down on these questions, though, it seems to me there are still new aspects of this or that that come up every time a new post on this comes up.
I can remember when, as a Landmarker being concerned about who had the authority to baptize, that our concern never went back too much to the past. When I got back to the past in my research, I found Baptists in England were in the 1600s more willing to be concern about the resotration of dipping upon profession of faith and less concerned with who had the authority to baptize. But the real breaker for me was discovering that the exegesis for I Cors.12:13 by Graaves, Gilpin, Carroll, and others would not hold up. The baptism there is a baptism of the Spirit, and it includes all that the “we” means (including the folks addressed in I Cors.1) which includes us among those “who call upon the name of Jesus in every place”). In short we are talking about a spiritual body of all saints, a universal, spiritual body. This gives us the other side of the doctrine of the ekklesia, the one being what we know as the local, visible, democratic (under Divine leadership)called out and assembled together congregation. I traced down a lot of stuff, when I was doing research. Perhaps the most fascinating was the church of Philadelphia (like as in Rev.3 – not Pa.). There are indications that that church survived down to the 16th century or even later. In the 1200s Reinarius (sp) Saccho, an Inquisitor of the RC Church, recorded that the Waldensians in Italy, etc., had churches in Constantinople and in Philadelphia. Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire has a remark about the church still being a light in the 1700s (when he wrote). A Greek Orthodox church is still there, and a methodist travelling there in the lae 50s or early 60s got a picture of another group going into a building and the guide said that they were Christians but did not have anything to do with anyone else. The old city of Philadelphia was destroyed by the Moslems some centuries ago. One wonders. O yes, and antoerh work about the Czech brethren declared that the Waldensians sent a committee to check on the church in South India in the 1400s, a mind boggling thought, to say the least. And then there is the Olchon Baptist Church in Olchon Wales that has supposedly existed since the 8th century. I could add that the last commander of the last Roman Garrison of the old Roman Empire was the son of the Novatian Bishop of Constantinople, and he became the Novatian Bishop there after he returned home. History is utterly fascinating. The Waldensians and the Lollards of England were in contact with each other prior to the Reformation, and the Lollards of the Chiltern Hills in England had some of the same family names that Baptists in that area had after the Reformation. Some Anabaptist ministers were or had been Waldensians, an interesting fact. The Waldensian Historian, Emil Comba, writing around 1900, asserted that there were no Waldensians, no groups like them, in the Alps prior to the 12th century. The truth is that the area looked like the crossroads of Europe for every tom, dick, and harry group of heretics (according to the state church) that one could want. For example, Monatanists, Novatians, and Donatists, supposedly, fled to the Alps in the 4th,5th, 6th, and 7th century. The Paulicians started trickling into the Alps from the Balkans in about the 8-10th centuries. There were also the Petrbrussians, Arnoldists, and other groups. One Waldensian in the 14th century (the 1300s) said that he could travel across France from the Alps to the English Channel and spend every night in the home of a believer. In England, there is reason to believe that the Lollards, Anabaptists, and early Baptists were in contact with some of the predecessors of the early Masons (e.g., the Knights Templars), that they likely helped one another against the prevailing oppressive state church.
A look at Acts 1 and 15 indicates, in the first instance, that Peter spoke in the midst of believers, suggesting that perhaps the church was present, and, in the second example, the statement is actually made that the whole church was involved (vs.22). The authority issue is resolved by the very fact that the ekklesia stands above all else as the ultimate authority. Go back and study the ekklesia of the Greek city state as illustrative and suggestive of what was actually involved. The elder rule issue is a presbyterian thing, and it leads to real difficulties down the road. Having had the opportunity to observe churches in action with both forms of government, it seems clear that the Lord knew what He was doing, when He said, “tell it to the church.”(Mt.18:17) If the elders rule, why did He not say, “tell it to the elders?” Congregational church government is the NT teaching. PERIOD!
David Rogers, you said:
Yeah, from what I understand of that IMB policy, I think it’s stupid.
It seems like you and Dave Miller are basically at the point where just about any proper baptism (immersion, confession of faith, non-salvific) done by anyone is acceptable. I’m a bit further down the spectrum–I want those three conditions, but I think it should be under the purview of the local church and not at a camp or by some guy just out witnessing etc. (though I wouldn’t outright reject such baptisms as invalid, either). Then things like the IMB policy, etc. are a lot further down the spectrum.
I would not accept a person from a Presbyterian church who was sprinkled as an infant as being properly baptized… but if you had a Presbyterian church that immersed and did so with an adult on profession of faith (even if the church still also practiced infant baptism through sprinkling, etc), I’d accept that one b/c it meets the “clear biblical” 🙂 qualifications of immersion, faith, and meaning… and then in the “gray area” that I prefer it’s through a local church…
“It seems like you and Dave Miller are basically at the point where just about any proper baptism (immersion, confession of faith, non-salvific) done by anyone is acceptable.”
For me, it depends what you mean by “acceptable.” If you mean not needing to be repeated to be considered valid, then yes, that is my point of view. I am not, however, arguing against local church supervision as a positive practice with much pragmatic value. I can think of a lot of reasons why it is a good idea, just not any biblical justification for invalidating otherwise valid baptisms because of a so-called improper administrator.
The western state conventions, e.g., much of Missouri, Kentucky, Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, were largely composed of churches under the influence of J.R. Graves views. Not all were enamored with his teachings, but a large number were. My pastor in my childhood was not a landmarker. He knew and did not care for Ben Bogard, one of the leaders in the Landmark movement that wound up forming the American Baptist Assn., if my memory serves correctly. Landmarkers have a tendency to get bent out of shape over the matter of authority for baptism. After all, it is a form of ecclesiology much like Apostolic succession. Only the Landmarker’s case was for church succession and linked chain baptism which they never could prove, try as they might. My pastor who baptized and licensed me was a Landmarker. My ordaining pastor was not. Dr. R.G. Lee and Dr. George W. Truett were Landmarkers to some degree. My ordaining pastor who had been Dr. Lee’s associate pastor and the man named in Dr. Lee’s will to preach his funeral was not a Landmarker. Many good men have been Landmarkers. Such a view can, like any aspect of theology, play to the pathology of the individual with sore results. You all might be interested to know that a Landmarker was the example for the sorry preacher in Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn. I won’t say who, but let us just say he was one of the leaders. The sad fact is almost any view we hold or might hold has misrepresentatives who hold it, and the distort the truth or that aspect of it which they advocate, creating all kinds of problems for the adherents of such positions. Perhaps this is a part of the process of correction. No position is designed to give the individual believer or even group of believers absolute control, a know-it-all attitude, or maintain them in influence.
Mr. Stratton points out that there were Baptists concerned about alien baptism (immersion by ministers of other denominations), and there is some truth in this. It can even, possibly, be traced back to the `1600s, and there are groups of Baptists who have some kind of connection with the Lollards prior to the Reformation, but just what the connection is lacks definitive evidence. The family names of the Lollards of the Chiltern Hills in England prior to the Reformation were apparently the same as the names of Baptists in that area after the Reformation. there are churches and remains which suggest that baptist like congregations existed prior to the Reformation and that they baptized by immersion. There is also evidence to indicate that the Baptists in England were willing to accept immersion by unbaptized administrators, that the issue was immersion upon profession of faith, not pouring or sprinkling and that of infants. The fact that England and the Celtic church groups might have maintained some contact with Greek speaking churches of the Middle East is suggested by the fact that there was a trade being carried on with that area by the Brits circa the 8-9th century and that a knowledge of Greek was evidently presevered in Celtic monastic communities (which, contrary to Roman practice, allowed for married ministers and members).
One thing is sure and that is, if there is a baptismal succession, it must be in a connection with something of a tremendous humbleness of mind, spirit, and practice which is alien to much of the Landmark practices as it is to the Roman Apostolic succession practices.
Arrogance has ruined more ministers and churches and church members than any other sin. Edwards’ Humble Attempt which promoted the prayer effort that led to the launching of the Great Century of Missions underscores the great lesson that spiritual success is directly tied to the spirit of humble supplication. Proud and vain thoughts of self-importance are downright inimical to the blessing of God upon one’s service. I believe God has hid these things from the eyes of vanity. He imparts them with a sense of lowliness and awareness of just how unworthy we are. It also, likely, includes a spirit of deference to the word of God written…