(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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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”?… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
@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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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,… Read more »
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,… Read more »
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?”… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“”””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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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. 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… Read more »
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.
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? 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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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? 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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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 –… Read more »
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: 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”? 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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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. 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,… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
David Rogers, you said: 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.” 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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »