When I was growing up my father would tell me to do certain things and I would do them. However, there were some occasions I would not follow my father’s command and I would reap the benefits of such disobedience. Just because I reaped the spoils of my disobedience did not mean that I was placed out in the barn and kicked out of the family. There were some spoils of disobedience that were worse than others. However, being disobedient to my father did not result in my not receiving my father’s inheritance, nor did it result in other blessings he chose to bestow on me.
Some months ago one well known Pastor expressed his conviction so strongly relating to immersion that he expressed those who advocate pedobaptism were in unrepentant sin. There was a huge outcry against such a statement. Within the blogging community of Southern Baptists we had one of our leading bloggers to take up this expression and was castigated as being harsh and divisive. His article The Pernicious Evil of Mere Preference brought about one hundred sixteen comments. While the article presented a thesis that Dr. Dever was correct in his assessment that a pedobaptist was in unrepentant sin, some commenters tried to hijack the comments in a direction of hypocrisy on the part of Dr. Dever. Recently Dr. Nathan Finn published an article at his blog that speaks concerning the guidelines on immersion at the IMB. In this article He adovcated accepting the immersion of adult believers within the conservative churches he listed that practiced peadobaptism. He listed conservative Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican, and Lutheran churches as being “true” churches.
What does this mean? Well, it seems the debate has much to do with where we find ourselves as Southern Baptists. There are some that are Southern Baptist by conviction and some that are Southern Baptist by convenience. I am a Southern Baptist by conviction. I believe that the call for immersion is a command of Christ. While immersion has nothing to do with the Grace that brings one to Justification, it has everything to do with obedience that begins one walking in Sanctification. Thus, there appears to be a couple of questions that are screaming from the mountain tops. One question of a personal nature and one of a corporate nature.
These questions are very closely related to the argument presented by Drs. Dever and Barber. In these questions one concedes that we are speaking of Brothers and Sisters in Christ, thus there is no reason to place forth a comment about me questioning anyone’s salvation, or any church’s commitment to Christ.
Because we Baptist believe that immersion is the command of Christ. Because we Baptist believe that immersion comes after one has conscientiously responded to the free gift of salvation. Because we Baptist believe immersion is the identification mark that speaks to the world one has identified oneself with Jesus Christ. Would one refusing to be immersed be disobedient to Christ’s command? Also, would a church (one that preaches and teaches salvation by faith alone; in Christ alone; based on scripture alone) that teaches peadobaptism, but will immerse a person who has received the free gift of salvation if that person so desires in order to meet a need in their life, be openly disobedient to the command of Christ?
As a follow-up to these questions. While I believe there are conservative Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian, and Methodist churches, I still have difficulty accepting the immersion of these adults coming from these various churches. The reason? Let’s face it, theologically speaking, Anglican and Lutherans are really closet Catholics. Also, Presbyterian and Methodists are their kissing cousins–theologically speaking. Thus, I would be hard pressed to accept an immersion performed in any of the other churches due to the theological bend concerning their view of baptism and the Lord’s table.
Therefore, as you can tell, my answer to the above questions would be a resounding, Yes!
Tim,
This is good stuff. It is amazing how the simple things can become so difficult. I think that we are mirroring, in our convention, in these things, the mentality of the world. I mean by that, that rather than simply making obedience to the Word our primary focus and emphasis we are trying to “logically” defend our disobedience/rebellion to the Word we say we hold so dear. At least that is what I see at this point in time.
OBTW, I copied your last entry and put it on my blog. That was good stuff too!
Serving Him,
Mike
Comment by Mike Madaris — May 22, 2008 @ 1;20 pm
Tim,
Great post. I will read Nathans article. I have a lot of respect for him. At ETBC no one can become a member of our church unless they have been immersed. We have many from other denominations who visit and many join and are baptized but at the same time others don’t. It is all over immersion. I personally believe the Bible is crystal clear on this issue.
I feel die-hard Calvinist will hurt themselves by pushing peadobaptism or allowing it in the SBC.
Comment by jamie steele — May 22, 2008 @ 1;22 pm
I am writing on this same subject, and am coming to different conclusions than you are.
My current thinking is this: the subject of baptism is essential (believers only), the mode of baptism is essential (immersion), the meaning of baptism is essential (symbolic of salvation, but not necessary for salvation or sanctification). But I do not see any evidence in scripture that the administrator of baptism is an essential issue. So, if baptism is done by immersion of a believer as a symbol of salvation, I don’t see how it matters whether it is done by a Baptist preacher, or a layman, or a pentecostal or a Presbyterian. We are baptized INTO CHRIST, and that is what matters.
As long as the biblical essentials are fulfilled, the rest is optional.
Comment by Dave Miller — May 22, 2008 @ 2;48 pm
Brother Mike,
How are things in Fl.? You write; rather than simply making obedience to the Word our primary focus and emphasis we are trying to “logically” defend our disobedience/rebellion which is exactly what it seems some are trying in order to be more palatable to the evangelical community as a whole.
Brother Jamie,
I know the reputation of ETBC and you are doing a great job staying Baptist while reaching everyone. Keep up the great work. You are an example to us all.
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — May 22, 2008 @ 2;52 pm
Brother Dave,
You write; I am writing on this same subject, and am coming to different conclusions than you are. Why does that not surprise me?
Seriously, I believe you miss other distinct items in the argument for a biblical immersion. Proper mode, proper subject you have nailed head on. I believe that you are missing the proper authority, which the Bible clearly teaches is the authority of Jesus Christ through a local church.
Also, notice something that I have intentionally done in this article, and I am working on changing in all future correspondence. I am intentionally not using the term baptism by immersion because some are using baptism to mean sprinkling for either adults or infants. The Greek word means to immerse, and Dr. Bart Barber has shared that he is found historical accounts of arguments of translators against using the term baptism because our English does not clearly articulate what the Greek means. Thus, for me to say baptize by immersion I am advocating that the Greek word can also mean sprinkle, which is not what the text teaches.
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — May 22, 2008 @ 3;05 pm
Tim,
You say to Dave, “you are missing the proper authority, which the Bible clearly teaches is the authority of Jesus Christ through a local church.” I must be really dense, because after reading the Bible up and down, through and through, I still haven’t found the part about baptism being under the authority of the local church. Would you mind directing me to the approriate chapter and verse?
Comment by David Rogers — May 22, 2008 @ 8;10 pm
That should be appropriate chapter and verse.
Comment by David Rogers — May 22, 2008 @ 8;12 pm
Brother David,
We have debated this back and forth and I certainly will be glad to debate it further, but you need to know that I have not changed my position as I am sure you haven’t changed yours.
Chapter and verse Matthew 18:17, Jesus directs church discipline to the local church. If you say that is the universal church, how does one bring a non-repentant brother before the church universal. Also, if that is the universal church, then Brother Tom Ascoll and Brother Bart Barber, need to throw their resolutions on regenerate church membership out of the window.
Matthew 28:19. Jesus is speaking to the same group here that he told in Acts to go to Jerusalem and wait. So logically this command is given to the local church as this was a local group but the embryo of the universal church. We make disciples under the auspices of a local church.
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — May 22, 2008 @ 8;25 pm
Nice work and great defense! Your comment and question to David is indeed important. I have yet to hear an answer to that question by those who advocate a Universal Church instead of the difference between the body of Christ (universal) and the local church.
Comment by Tim G — May 22, 2008 @ 8;36 pm
And I thought we were talking about baptism?
Comment by David Rogers — May 22, 2008 @ 8;58 pm
Brother David,
Please tell me what you mean. I just am not following that last statement.
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — May 22, 2008 @ 9;32 pm
Tim,
You didn’t complete your thought/question to me. Unless I misread it. Looking forward to seeing you at the convention.
Serving Him,
Mike
PS. Things in FL are hot and dry, right now, and going great at the church. We are baptizing 3 the first Sunday in June.
Comment by Mike Madaris — May 22, 2008 @ 10;25 pm
Tim,
It is quite simple. The main topic of your post is baptism, right? My original question to you was also specifically related to baptism, and the requirement of a proper local church authority in its administration, right? Yet, in your answer to my question, you do not even mention baptism, nor show how what you say relates to baptism. That is what I mean.
Comment by David Rogers — May 22, 2008 @ 10;47 pm
Tim G,
Could you explain what question you are referring to? Also, what do you mean by “those who advocate a Universal Church instead of the difference between the body of Christ (universal) and the local church.” I’m having a hard time following your syntax on that one.
Comment by David Rogers — May 22, 2008 @ 10;51 pm
“Let’s face it, theologically speaking, Anglican and Lutherans are really closet Catholics. Also, Presbyterian and Methodists are their kissing cousins–theologically speaking.”
Tim, could you please back that statement up? You have a point with Anglicans, but the rest of the groups that you mention, I don’t follow. I’d love to see your rationale here.
Comment by Alan Cross — May 22, 2008 @ 11;16 pm
Brother David,
While my reply did not mention baptism, it did give you what you asked–chapter and verse for authority of local church.
Brother Alan,
Anglicanism, in its structures, theology, and forms of worship, is commonly understood as a distinct Christian tradition representing a middle ground between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism and, as such, is often referred to as being a via media (or middle way) between these traditions. A great definition of the Anglican Church.
Unlike the Reformed Churches, Lutherans have retained many of the sacramental understandings and liturgical practices of the pre-Reformation Church. They teach that Baptism is a saving work of God, mandated and instituted by Christ. Thus it is administered to both infants and adults. Children born to practicing Lutheran families are baptized shortly after birth. As I said, closet catholics.
Presbyterians traditionally have held the Worship position that there are only two sacraments:
*Baptism, in which they hold to the paedo-baptist (ie. Infant baptism as well as baptising unbaptised adults) and the Aspersion (sprinkling) or Affusion (pouring) positions, rather than the Immersion position
*The Lord’s Supper (also known as Communion )
Sacraments are different than Ordinances. The Catholic church holds to Baptism and Communion or the Eucharist as Sacraments. Kissing Cousins.
Sacramental theology within Methodism tends to follow the historical interpretations and liturgies of Anglicanism. This stems from the origin of much Methodist theology and practice within the teachings of John and Charles Wesley, both of whom were priests of the Church of England. As I have already explained about Anglicism and you have conceded that one we see that Methodists, as Presbyterians are just another set of kissing Cousins.
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — May 23, 2008 @ 5;14 am
Tim,
Matthew 18:17 is about church discipline, not baptism. I agree that church discipline should be practiced in the context of a local church.
The use of Matthew 28:19 to justify the idea that the authority to baptize is exclusively through the local church is a far stretch. It is eisegeting something into the text that is simply not there.
If you choose to believe that, then there is not much I can do about it. But when you talk about the Bible “clearly teaching” something that I don’t see is there at all, I think you had better come up with better evidence than this for what you claim. I am especially concerned about us, as Southern Baptists, using conjecture, and calling it “clear biblical teaching,” in order to back up our practices and policies.
Comment by David Rogers — May 23, 2008 @ 8;31 am
Brother David,
So, we agree that Jesus’ words in Matthew 18:17 is referencing the local church. That being the basis of his reference to church discipline we understand that Jesus established a local church. Then Jesus instructs the same group in Matthew 28:19, thus implementing commands to the local church. “clear biblical teaching”.
I believe the time line we are speaking about between Matthew 18:17 and 28:19 is only about 6-10 months. Thus, Jesus is giving authority to his disciples as the local church and then instructs the disciples, and possibly the 500 that saw Him in His resurrected body at once, of what they are to be doing as a church.
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — May 23, 2008 @ 9;25 am
Tim,
Their was no Local Church at this time. There were House Churches that the Disciples met in Upper Rooms. John Gills on
Mat 18: 17 And if he shall neglect to hear them,….
, the political magistrates, or sanhedrim; who took cognizance of cases between one person and other, either by themselves, or messengers; and gave admonitions and reproofs, as to parents, when they did not provide for their families (x), and to wives that were perverse, and provoked their husbands (y), &c. others, of the presbyters and governors of the Christian church; others, of the church itself, and so the Ethiopic version renders it, and they are spoken of in the next verse, as having the power of binding and loosing,
Wayne
Comment by Wayne Smith — May 23, 2008 @ 10;39 am
Tim, Sorry I dropped some of this article.
Their was no Local Church at this time. There were House Churches that the Disciples met in Upper Rooms. John Gills on
Mat 18: 17 And if he shall neglect to hear them,….
, of the presbyters and governors of the Christian church; others, of the church itself, and so the Ethiopic version renders it, “the house of Christians”; to which it is objected, that as yet a Christian church was not formed: but what were the twelve apostles of the Lamb?
Wayne
Comment by Wayne Smith — May 23, 2008 @ 10;43 am
Tim,
HOUSE CHURCHES
Title: Hard Sayings of the Bible Author: Brauch, Manfred T., Bruce, F.F., Davids, Peter H., and Kaiser, Peter H. Jr.
Second, we noted in a previous chapter that 2 John is addressed to a church (referred to as “the elect lady”). We need to understand what this church was like. It was normal until the mid-third century for Christians to meet in houses. (It was not until the mid-fourth century that house churches were outlawed and church buildings became the only legitimate place to gather as Christians.) Given the size of rooms in even a large house in those days (due to the limitations of building materials), it is unlikely that a house church would grow beyond about sixty people. In fact, there were many reasons to keep them smaller. Since most people had only their feet for transportation, several small groups conveniently located would be more accessible than a single large group. This also tended to make the churches take on the character of the neighborhood in which they were located. Furthermore, given that the meeting involved a meal (which developed into the symbolic meal presently celebrated in the Eucharist, or Lord’s Supper), one would not want to crowd the room too much, for space was needed for tables and dishes of food. Finally, smaller groups enabled the church to attract less attention and thus avoid persecution as much as possible. Most house churches, then, probably served twenty to forty people. Therefore we need to view the early church as a series of small house churches. While Paul, for example, might write a letter to the church in Rome or Corinth, that single church would in fact be made up of a group of such cells. For example, in Romans 16 Paul greets several house church leaders and their groups by name. Third, hospitality was important to the early church. Christians would travel from place to place and need safe and wholesome places to stay. Some of these travelers were apostles, prophets or teachers. When such a person came to a church, they not only brought news of the situation of the church in other places, but they also brought a fresh stream of ministry. Lacking our easy access to books and other media, this was an important way for a congregation to increase its knowledge of the faith as it received insights and graces that initially had been given to another congregation and were now shared. We see the synagogue practice, which the early church copied, in Acts 13:15: “Brothers, if you have a message of encouragement for the people, please speak.” Furthermore, the house-church services were relatively informal, so discussion and questions gave many people an opportunity to share their ideas.
Comment by Wayne Smith — May 23, 2008 @ 11;51 am
Tim,
If you and everyone else cannot see that the line of reasoning you are offering here is nothing more than pure speculation and conjecture, and that to determine policies that disqualify otherwise qualified servants of the Lord, and demand separation from otherwise sincere and dedicated servants of the Lord on the basis of this is unreasonable, frankly, I don’t have a lot of hope for us working out a solution for our present conflict. In other words, if you insist on calling this “clear biblical teaching,” then it appears language doesn’t mean very much to you. I’m tempted to give up. Come on. I really want to see your argument, but I am not getting it. You can do better than this, can’t you?
Comment by David Rogers — May 23, 2008 @ 12;23 pm
I think this subject is important because we are now talking about authority. In Matt. 28 Jesus says he has all authority. This gives him the right to command the disciples to go and baptize. He does not say that he gives his authority away. Too often too many act as if this is the case. We act as if we have the authority to baptize into our own organization. We act as if we have the authority to judge others as being in ‘unrepentant sin’. We do not. Jesus has the authority and he is still on his throne. As one person said it, ‘Your Church will have a leader. His name better be Jesus.’ I have a very strong theology of baptism. I teach and I practice baptism in accordance to what I have learned from SB’s and the scriptures. A proper understanding of baptism is what awoke a hunger for God in my heart and caused me to give my life to Christ. But I will not judge some Presbyterian somewhere of being in unrepentant sin. That is a heart issue. I do not know his heart. He is another man’s servant and I have no business judging him. If this unknown peodo-baptist someone shows up on my doorstep then of course I invite him in and share with him the truth of scripture that God has revealed to me. If he accepts this truth then I gain a brother. If he rejects this truth then he has made the choice of joining with me or not. I will not reject him but even as the rich young ruler walked away and Jesus loved him even so I will love the paedo-baptist who walks away from our fellowship over this issue.
As for those who are ‘properly’ baptized but for reasons that are quite beyond me rejected by our new IMB guideline I have no comment because I can find nothing in the guidline that makes any biblical sense to comment on. If the person who did the baptizing were important then Jesus would have baptized to impart the greatest grace to those being baptized. He did not. He entrusted baptism to his disciples who would all betray and abandon him. What do you think, did Judas believe in eternal security making his baptisms ok?
Comment by Strider — May 23, 2008 @ 12;58 pm
David,
I just don’t see why there is such a fuss over this. I know that in your comments to Tim you are refering to the policies of the IMB. My thought is that if these servants of God feel called by God to go to the mission field as an SBC IMB missionary, they should be willing to do whatever is necessary to do it (ie…be baptized according to the IMB policy). Doesn’t the bible say somewhere that we all, as followers of Christ, are to submit to the authority over us. I believe that this is referring to all authority on this earth: local, federal, employment, eccleseastical (SP?), etc… If these servants of God feel led by the Spirit of God to answer the missional call, they should submit to the authority. I believe that this is some if not most of the problem that has arisen in SBC through many who blog or have blogged. They have refused to submit to the authority over them in these areas. It has done nothing but caused division. There are much better ways to handle these situations. God bless you.
Comment by Mike Madaris — May 23, 2008 @ 2;03 pm
Brother Wayne,
If you are basing your ecclesiology on Gill, I believe you will find you are resting on one that is very weak in this area. While Gill is a sharp theologian, his ecclesiology is weak.
Brother David,
Ok, let me take your reasoning to its logical conclusion. No place does the Scripture call for a local church. Where does one meet? How does one administer the elements? How does one discipline? Please, if there is no local church, or only ‘city churches’ who is in leadership and how is it determined? Who is the Bishop? How are decisions made? Is it congregational rule of is it elder rule?
These are burning questions, Brother David. Please Scripture reference, chapter and verse for these answers. We do not have a local church only universal church.
Brother Strider,
This ‘authority’ that your interpret Jesus has given to his disciples in Matthew 28. Is this the same authority that he gave to the church in Matthew 18, when he told us that whatever is bound on earth is bound in heaven, and whatever is loosed on earth is loosed in heaven?
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — May 23, 2008 @ 2;17 pm
David Rogers says the view that baptism is a local church ordinance to be administered by and under the authority of a New Testament church is “pure speculation and conjecture”. However I would ask David where do you find the scripture for any and all Christians to administer baptism? Please show chapter and verse? The fact is this view is “pure speculation and conjecture”.
The command to baptism was given to somebody in Matthew 28:18-20. When you look at 1 Timothy 3:15, I Corinthians 12:28, and Matthew 18:17, it is clear the responsibility was given to the local church. That is why Baptist call baptism a church ordinance.
Comment by Ben Stratton — May 23, 2008 @ 2;32 pm
Tim,
I have never said anywhere I do not believe in the local church. I believe that the local church is the appropriate place for exercising church discipline. It is also important that there be fellowship and mutual recognition between local churches of the discipline they carry out. None of this is the equivalent, though, of local churches, and only local churches, having the authority to baptize.
Mike Madaris,
If this is all about missionary candidates submitting to the authority of the Board of Trustees before they can be considered as legitimate candidates; and, if we as Southern Baptists are willing to go to the point of asking people to submit to a meaningless ritual, and call it their true baptism, when they have already been biblically baptized; then I have serious problems with that. If that is the case, we are placing the authority of a group of people over the authority of the Word of God. And, if that is the case, the biblical foundation of all that we stand for and believe is undermined.
That is why there is such a fuss over this.
Comment by David Rogers — May 23, 2008 @ 2;35 pm
Ben,
I will admit that the view that any and all Christians may administer baptism is just as much speculation and conjecture as the view that only the local church may do so. The fact of the matter is that Scripture does not speak clearly to this issue. However, I think the burden of proof is on those who would place more restrictions, rather than on those who would place fewer restrictions.
Regarding Matthew 28:18-20, 1 Timothy 3:15, I Corinthians 12:28, and Matthew 18:17, you are going to have to connect the dots a little for me. You saying “it is clear the responsibility was given to the local church” does not make it so. Actually, the only one of these verses that says anything about baptism is Matthew 28:19, and I do not concede that the evidence is clear that the Great Commission is given exclusively and specifically to the local church, as opposed to all of Christ’s disciples, in general.
Thus, if neither view is specifically spelled out in Scripture, it seems to me the best option is to grant liberty for each to follow his/her own conscience.
Comment by David Rogers — May 23, 2008 @ 2;46 pm
David,
Please point me to Scripture to show me how a “group” of people are taking authority over Scripture.
I believe that this group of people is acting in accordance with Scripture. No one is making anyone be Southern Baptist, but if you want to be SB, if you want to be a SB employee, if you want to be a SB missionary, there are some things that you will have to adjust to and accept. If a person is not willing to do these thing and follow these “guidelines,” let them go “be” something else. It’s not that they are bad people or that they are lost, etc…, they just may not be SB as I and seemingly most of the SBC define ourselves.
This arguement over baptism and the authority of the local church seems to be in the thought or run the lines of that of tongues. I believe that tongues is still possible but unnecessary. I believe that tongues was a sign to that first generation of the validation of the call of God to salvation. After the church began to be established and the testimony of believers and their changed lives were evident, tongues was not a major tool of God. It was still an issue, see I Cor., but it was a problem to be dealt with not a blessing for the church.
At first, baptism was done more by “individual” Christians because of the lack of the “local” church, but as the church became established there was no need for baptism to be practiced outside the church. We are Southern Baptist, and I don’t see a problem with requiring those who want to be EMPLOYEES of SBC to be held to a more strict requirement. I believe the bible teaches that those in leadership will be judged or held to a greater accountability. What’s the difference?
Comment by Mike Madaris — May 23, 2008 @ 2;54 pm
Mike,
As Southern Baptists, we operate our denominational entities according to democratic principles, ostensibly under submission to the guidance of Scripture. In the long run, if the SBC, or its entities, insist on enforcing guidelines that I consider to be unscriptural, I (and many others) may well be forced to find other channels through which to serve the Lord and carry out my (our) calling. In the meantime, though, if I am convinced that the guidelines are unscriptural, I believe it is my prerogative, and even duty, to demonstrate, from Scripture, why I believe such to be the case. As Southern Baptists, we are a “people of the book.” If the majority end up being persuaded that my argument from Scripture is not convincing, then you are right, it will be time for me to face the consequences. But, I don’t think that means I should just quietly walk away in the meantime, or go along with guidelines that I believe are unscriptural, just in order to “keep the peace.” And, I think the jury is definitely still out as to whether the majority of Southern Baptists support the new guidelines of the IMB or not.
Comment by David Rogers — May 23, 2008 @ 3;06 pm
Stand strong Tim. Your post is biblical.
David Rogers,
Have you read the stuff you promised me you would?
Why don’t you go over to IMPACT and help me with the really unsound stuff Lew is spouting. Hopefully you don’t agree with him.
cb
Comment by cb scott — May 23, 2008 @ 3;25 pm
CB,
Yes, I have finished Dever’s chapter on ecclesiology in Akin’s “A Theology for the Church.” Overall, I thought it was a very balanced and biblical presentation. The only real discrepancy I can remember that I found with what he says is his apparent advocacy of “closed communion.” Is there any other specific point in his chapter to which you would like to direct my attention?
Comment by David Rogers — May 23, 2008 @ 3;43 pm
David,
Again, please point me to the Scripture you are arguing from. With this, I feel the same as with those who say God doesn’t exist. It isn’t my responsiibility to prove He does, the bible and creation declare He exists, it is the responsibility of those who deny it to prove their argument, which they can’t.
Comment by Mike Madaris — May 23, 2008 @ 4;06 pm
Brother David,
I have never said anywhere I do not believe in the local church. I believe that the local church is the appropriate place for exercising church discipline. How does a local church know whom to discipline if one is not baptized under the auspices of a local church? You cannot have it both ways. If the authority to discipline rests in the local church then the discipline must be connected to some authority for one to gain entrance into the local church.
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — May 23, 2008 @ 4;15 pm
Mike,
As I read through the NT, and especially the book of Acts, I don’t find anywhere where baptism was ever administered in the context of an official gathering of a local congregation.
It seems to have many times been mainly a more private affair – e.g. the baptism of the eunuch; Saul/Paul’s baptism in the house of Judas; the baptism of Cornelius, his relatives, and friends that apparently took place in his own home; the baptism of Lydia and her household at the riverside; the “midnight” baptisms of the Philippian jailer and his household; and the baptism of John’s disciples in Ephesus. Also, the remaining relations of baptism, while evidently a little more public than these, never say anything specific about a “church assembly” being convoked, nor about anyone from a local church ever conferring authority on someone to baptize. These things must be “eisegeted” into the text.
Additional passages I would add are:
Mark 7:6-13 (the general principle of basing our practice on traditions that are not clearly taught in God’s Word)
“He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: ” ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.’ You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.” And he said to them: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift devoted to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”"
Acts 4:19
“But Peter and John replied, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God.”"
1 Corinthians 4:6
“Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.”
Revelation 22:18 (the general principle of adding to God’s Word)
“I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.”
Also, as I wrote to Ben in an earlier comment, “However, I think the burden of proof is on those who would place more restrictions, rather than on those who would place fewer restrictions.”
Comment by David Rogers — May 23, 2008 @ 4;27 pm
Tim,
This is the source of the mt comment.
Title: Hard Sayings of the Bible Author: Brauch, Manfred T., Bruce, F.F., Davids, Peter H., and Kaiser, Peter H. Jr.
F. F. Bruce was for many years prior to his death the Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester in England. He was the author of numerous biblical commentaries and other books, including The Canon of Scripture, New Testament History, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free and The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Manfred T. Brauch is professor of biblical theology and president of Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary near Philadelphia.
Wayne
Comment by Wayne Smith — May 23, 2008 @ 4;28 pm
Tim,
The local church knows to discipline all those who voluntarily place themselves under the accountablity and discipline of that local church. We normally call that today, in our modern context, “joining a church.”
Comment by David Rogers — May 23, 2008 @ 4;31 pm
Brother David,
How does one “join a church”?
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — May 23, 2008 @ 5;02 pm
David,
Dever is very clear about Baptism being carried out by a local church is he not?
Am I wrong to think your position is that any believer can baptize another believer (new convert) without the sanction of a local church?
cb
Comment by cb scott — May 23, 2008 @ 5;26 pm
Tim,
By voluntarily placing him/herself under the accountability and discipline of that church. If the person is not yet baptized, their baptism will no doubt be a part of this process.
Comment by David Rogers — May 23, 2008 @ 5;27 pm
Brother David,
Why then do we not accept a Mormon baptism?
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — May 23, 2008 @ 5;28 pm
Tim,
Because the great majority of people being baptized by the Mormons are doing so because they have accepted the false gospel the Mormons teach. If, however, someone sincerely is trusting Christ, and the gospel of grace through faith, for their salvation, and the person who baptizes them in response to this faith, happens to be a Mormon, I do not believe their baptism is necessarily invalidated anymore than in the case of someone who is baptized by a “Baptist” pastor, who later is revealed to be immoral or heretical in their views. It is not the administrator that makes a baptism valid, but rather the motive of the person being baptized, the mode of baptism, and their authentic profession of faith.
I would want to really cross-examine the person and make sure they did not really believe the Mormon false gospel when they were baptized.
Comment by David Rogers — May 23, 2008 @ 5;59 pm
CB,
Perhaps you are referring to the quote on p. 787 that says:
“Baptism portrays the Christian’s union with Christ, and therefore with other Christians and the church” and the corresponding footnote that says, “Such testimony should occur in the context of a believing community, whose responsibility it is to test the credibility of the profession.”
In principle, I have no disagreement with this statement. Ideally, and pragmatically, I see many reasons why the scenario Dever describes is the best. However, I don’t see that he says that baptism must exclusively take place under the supervision of a local church. As I wrote in my reply to Mike above, I see that many baptisms in the NT occurred without the direct intervention of a local church. I don’t really see Dever addressing this specific issue. If you can point me to another specific reference, I will take that in consideration as well. Please give me the page number, though.
Comment by David Rogers — May 23, 2008 @ 6;17 pm
David,
I guess we shall have to disagree as to what Dever is saying here. Maybe we can both run into hi one day, buy him a coffee and ask him what he meant.
Is that a deal?
cb
Comment by cb scott — May 23, 2008 @ 8;35 pm
Brother David,
Let me get this straight. You are saying that if a person came to the fellowship of the church from a Mormon church and you spoke with them and they told you they understood that Jesus Christ was their Savior, you would accept their baptism in the Mormon church as a valid baptism?
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — May 23, 2008 @ 10;02 pm
CB,
I would love to get the chance to talk ecclesiology with Mark Dever and CB Scott over a good cup of java sometime. Count me in.
And, I should make clear I am not necessarily claiming Dever would agree with me on this point. It is entirely possible he would not. But, then again, while he provides solid biblical arguments to back up the great majority of what he says, I don’t find where he does the same on this particular point. The bottom line for me is not what Dever, as good of a theologian and expert on ecclesiology as he is, might say, but rather the Word of God alone.
Tim,
Not just saying “they understood that Jesus Christ was their Savior.” I would need to be convinced they really, truly were trusting in the finished work of Jesus on the cross, and in that alone, as the basis of their salvation, and that they understood their baptism as nothing more than an act of obedience to Jesus and a testimonty to their faith in him and him alone. I see the chances that this would occur in the context of a Mormon church to be extremely slim, though.
Now that you have asked me a theoretical, hypothetical question, let me ask you a real life question, okay? Do you feel the “self-baptism” of John Smyth, the father of the Baptist movement, was legitimate. Why or why not? How about the baptism of George Blaurock at the hands of Conrad Grebel, before Grebel himself had been baptized as a believer?
Comment by David Rogers — May 23, 2008 @ 10;20 pm
David,
I have never seen in the Book of Acts or the gospels where communion was done by a local church either. But just because it is not specifically mentioned with exact detail doesn’t mean that as the church became more organized that it wasn’t done in the church, by the church, for the church.
In your last comment to me you used as a Scripture source Acts 16 which contains the story of the conversion of the Philippian jailer. In which verse does it specifically say that he was baptized, who performed the baptism, and where does it say that there was not already a body of believers meeting in an organized fashion? You are using the absence of some specific details concerning baptism to justify your position. I can argue my point of view from the exact same passages. You will have to be more specific.
I believe that a similar debate took place during the Anabaptist/Baptist movement in church history. One of the difficulties they faced and dealt with was believer’s baptism vs. the practice of infant baptism practiced by the Catholic Church and the Church of England. I believe that the Church of England actually “ran them out of the country.” (It’s been a while so my history may be slightly off as to the exact group, but I do remember the story.)
I don’t know that this will be settled on this side of eternity. I don’t believe that you will change your position, and I know that I will not be swayed either. I do know that Scripture does say, unapologetically, that as Christians we are to submit to the authority God has placed over us, good, bad or indifferent. God has placed them in that position and it is His responsibility and His alone to deal with the authority. (He used Babylon to punish the Jews and then He punished Babylon for its wickedness after the fact. But it was God in control all the time.)
Comment by Mike Madaris — May 23, 2008 @ 10;37 pm
David,
In your comment to Tim you reference the self-baptism of John Smyth. That is the story I mentioned above. But that is in reference to a very specific, special circumstance, like that of the speaking in tongues on the Day of Pentecost and at the house of Cornelius. It is not a situation that is faced today. The baptism of the Ethiopian Eunic was a very special, specific circumstance, not like anything being faced today (as far as I know of). So I don’t believe that it is wise to build an entire theological doctrine on baptism on this. Isn’t it prudent to use those who have gone on before to help us understand and determine our practice on such matters?
Comment by Mike Madaris — May 23, 2008 @ 10;45 pm
Mike,
Regarding the Lord’s Supper, the following passages taken together seem to me to clearly indicate the assembly of Christians meeting together as its normal context.
Acts 2:42. “They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.”
Acts 2:46. “Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts.”
Acts 20:7. “On the first day of the week we came together to break bread.”
1 Corinthians 10:16-17. “Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.”
1 Corinthians 11:20-22. “When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!”
1 Corinthians 11:33-34. “So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.”
In Acts 16, it seems quite clear that the only ones present were Paul and Silas, and the previously unconverted family members/household of the jailer. Unless you consider Paul and Silas together to be a church assembly, it is clear that no church meeting was convoked to witness this baptism.
Also, it seems to me that if our spiritual forefathers had followed your advice about submitting to authority, and using “those who have gone on before to help us understand and determine our practice on such matters,” we would all still be Roman Catholics.
Comment by David Rogers — May 23, 2008 @ 11;52 pm
MIke, This debate is wearisome to me. You said,
The baptism of the Ethiopian Eunic was a very special, specific circumstance, not like anything being faced today (as far as I know of).
Well, get with the program brother! The Gospel of Jesus Christ is being proclaimed with your CP dollars around the world in places you can not imagine. I know here in my own country of service believers who live hours and hours from any other believer. They are bapized in remote areas by faithful servants and they are live in isolation from the body- not through disobedience but through difficulties of living among an unreached people. You guys keep saying, “Show me in scripture where…” and when David does show you you say, oh well that was then this is now. The book of Acts is happening today my friend. The Gospel of the Kingdom is being proclaimed and the gates of Hell are not standing against it. My only concern is that those who are supposed to be holding the ropes and sending out more laborers have lost sight of the mission and are debating minutae instead of throwing every resource at the task.
Remember, we are not talking about believers baptism, we are not talking about baptism by immersion, we are not talking about baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We are talking about- as far as I can tell- the belief of the baptizer (which is never one time referenced in Scripture) and Church membership which is never mentioned in connection with baptism. Church membership is very important. It is mentioned again and again as we are commanded to love one another, serve one another, work with one another- I am all for it. But baptism- Biblically- is only in reference to Jesus Christ. Men have used and are using Christ’s baptism to control others and that is dangerous and wrong.
Mike mentioned the authority issue earlier. Again, with the baptism guideline we are not talking about Mormons- that is a strawman- we are talking about members in good standing of Southern Baptist Churches. Men and women have submitted to the authority of their local Churches and been accepted into fellowship only to be told by the IMB that that is not good enough. And the reason given is…. I have not figured that out yet.
Comment by Strider — May 24, 2008 @ 12;15 am
Strider:
Comment by Debbie Kaufman — May 24, 2008 @ 2;01 am
Brother David,
As far as I can tell, according to historical records that I know of, both Smyth and Grebel had separated and formed their own group of believers that you and I would call a ‘church’.
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — May 24, 2008 @ 3;54 am
Tim,
According to the BF&M, neither one had formed a NT church, since a NT church is a group of “baptized believers,” and no one in their group had been baptized yet. Or, do you understand this differently?
Comment by David Rogers — May 24, 2008 @ 10;40 am
Brother David,
Are you now saying that you disagree with the BF&M’s definition of a NT Church?
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — May 24, 2008 @ 4;10 pm
Brother David,
Also, your arguments are really getting nit-picky. You seem to be straining gnats in order to swallow camels. I believe that you, as well as I would agree that both Smyth and Grebel were both in areas that neither of us will have to worry. Thus, to use the argument that we can baptize anyone without the authority of a NT church based on Grebel and Smyth’s actions is somewhat pedantic. Don’t you agree?
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — May 24, 2008 @ 4;14 pm
Tim,
No I do not disagree with the BF&M’s description of a NT church. Do you?
Regarding Smyth and Grebel both being “in areas that neither of us will have to worry,” read Strider’s last comment.
I do not think my point is overly pedantic if it helps to make my point.
Do you not think it was overly pedantic to ask my about a baptism in a Mormon church?
Comment by David Rogers — May 24, 2008 @ 4;58 pm
Brother Strider,
I do not want to engage yours and Brother Mike’s discussion, but I believe I just can’t help myself.
Your concern for those of us holding the ropes is a little outside of the realm for the argument. It seems that your thinking has fallen prey to the implementation of dividing missionary from supporting churches. Holding the ropes? I WILL DO!!! As a part of holding the ropes I will also make certain that the ropes I am holding are attached to those that we sent, and have not been re-attached to those that do not believe as the majority of SB believe. Especially when it come to ecclessiology.
As to the authority argument and Mormons being a straw man, I feel that you have pushed the envelope again. Mormons baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, at least that what I was told by my late aunt that was a devout Mormon–she even made the trip to Salt Lake City to get baptized. If one truly accepts Christ and gets baptized in, and starts going to, a Mormon church he/she would need to be baptized if attendance was desired in a Baptist church. We are not speaking here of a person that believed the Mormon doctrine of Jesus Christ. We are speaking of a person that understood who Jesus is and accepted His free gift of salvation. For some untold explanation the person begins attending a Mormon Church and gets baptized into the Mormon Chruch. We are speaking about the belief of the baptizer. What the baptizer believes has a lot to do with the baptism.
Sister Debbie
Brother David,
Yes I do hold to the BF&M as to the definition of a NT church. It seems that you called that into question over a unique situation when we are speaking about gaining an understanding of what baptism means. I am merely arguing that such a practice as Smyth and Grebel is not consistent today. It seems that the logical conclusion of your argument would state that one who truly received Christ would find his/her lost friend and say they had received Christ and needed someone to baptize them. Thus, the friend would offer their services and the new convert would oblige and we would then count that baptism as a valid baptism.
As to your argument for the Ethiopian eunuch, I would agree with Brother Mike. We are speaking of a special situation. Brother Strider points out other unique situations, however, one forgets in his argument we are speaking of M that have been commissioned by local churches to be on the mission field. The Baptism being performed on the mission field is under the auspices of the local church, until a local church can be established.
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — May 26, 2008 @ 5;28 am
Tim,
We may just have to agree to disagree for the time being on this. It doesn’t look like we are getting anywhere in convincing each other. But I would like to at least end my contribution to this particular comment thread by urging us all to look carefully at the what the Bible actually says, with an open mind to the possibility that all of our traditions are not necessarily based on the Bible. Also, I would like to point out once more that my argument is not based on the example of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch alone. As I said to Mike, “As I read through the NT, and especially the book of Acts, I don’t find ANYWHERE where baptism was ever administered in the context of an official gathering of a local congregation.”
Comment by David Rogers — May 26, 2008 @ 11;11 am
Brother Tim,
Sorry I didn’t get over here sooner. These discussions are always very good to expose errant tradition. Where in scripture did you say that baptism is equated to causing someone to be a member of the body of Christ or place its primary quality or definition as “membership”?
Is there even one place where water baptism is made to be the entrance requirement to the church? Or, on the other hand, ….is the command of Christ for believers to baptize and to be baptized? Those two questions are clearly not speaking about the same reality. One assumes that the church is “made” by baptism (especially if you can create a universal and local scenario). The other assumes that the church (Ephesians 2, Matthew 16-18, 28, Acts 2) is baptizing. The biblical account accords with the church baptizing, not forming from baptizing. You can’t have one without the other. The biblical account is that the church is called and then baptizes……Christ made that clear in His command.
As I read through the string,…it seems you believe that a local church is somehow birthed by water baptism. When all along,…the church has always defined itself by confessing Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and then met or organized at the local level to worship, praise, teach, disciple and share the evangel. The biblical account has predominately shown that those who confess Christ were baptized immediately, (in some instances baptism was not mentioned, yet there is no reason to believe that baptism was omitted)….yet not for local “membership” rights, but identifying with Christ (Romans 6, Colossians 2). The act of baptism identifying with the death and life of Christ is the only way scripture reflects baptism. All other additional meanings that are brought into broaden the definition of baptism are by inference.
Blessings,
Chris
Comment by Chris Johnson — May 26, 2008 @ 6;27 pm
Brother Tim,
A follow on from the previous…..
Scripture teaches every believer to obey the command to baptize and to be baptized,…but scripture “never” uses these commands as logic to control or limit access already given freely to the bride. To contrive the commands of our Lord as control mechanisms or bars to clear for inclusion into or with the body of Christ is to misread the command and further misunderstand the role of the bride. The New Testament is abundantly clear that baptism is immediate to those that profess Christ….identifying in His death and in His life (the entire book of Acts is the testimony). The command is extremely clear and all satisfying in Christ alone. Christ as head of His church (bride) provides the command to all those that confess Him as Lord.
The clear command to baptize drives the believer toward the gospel (imputation of Christ’s righteousness), not some organizational chain of command . That has been the problem with how some try to define baptism in recent days. Some would contend that the primary definition is focused on the church, and not on Christ. But that simply is not the testimony of His Word (Romans 6, Colossians 2)
Romans 6:3-5 “Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? (4) Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. (5) For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection,”
Galatians 3:27 “For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.”
It is not clear enough to use the refractive that Christ is head of the church, so therefore the two (both He and His bride) are the same. Not so, Christ is head, and His church is the bride in Him. The bride is always dependent on the Groom (Christ) even through all eternity. The church benefits immensely, no doubt, but the church “herself” is not Christ. The command given by the Groom to baptize and to be baptized is informed by the gospel, not by the church. The church are the ones to baptize because they are inherently (adopted) capable of knowing the command of the Lord, and willing to obey His commands in joy. This is the clear testimony on baptism throughout the book of Acts.
I would contend if baptism is defined and defended as more about control, access limitations, and church admission… it would certainly appear, by testimony of the Apostle Paul, that any such definition clearly misses the mark (although I can empathize with the emotion to think in that way). Nevertheless, scripture is unequivocal in its defense that baptism provided for the bride is given to her as identifying her with the death and life of the Son of God, Jesus Christ alone. To argue for a different litmus, redefines the clear intent of Christ’s command for his bride as something other than immersion into Him. When the called out ones correctly teach the command to baptize and to be baptized the result is unity to those who gather to worship, praise, teach, disciple and evangelize at the local level.
Blessings,
Chris
Comment by Chris Johnson — May 26, 2008 @ 8;38 pm
Brother Tim,
Sorry to take up so much space….but baptism truly is a remarkable thing!
A candid look into God’s Holy word in Acts 2 reveals that baptism is directly connected to Christ alone. It is also abundantly obvious and clear that the “church” are the only ones that are being baptized and are commanded to baptize. The “souls being added” segment has always been seized by “some” (not all) well meaning Baptist theologians to create a hinge or connection; turning baptism into a door of entrance for a church, instead as revealed in every instance in the book of Acts as an act of obedience into Christ. The Apostle Paul then corroborates that Christ-realized actuality in Romans 6, Colossians 2, Galatians 3, and 1 Corinthians 12. It is abundantly clear in every passage throughout the New Testament that baptism is because of and in identifying action to Christ alone. The “image of some door” of entrance or “some mechanism” to how one is recognized in the forming of the body is never seen throughout the entire book of Acts. In fact there is evidence that baptism was seen as identifying with other things in the mode of Christianity such as John’s Baptism …where some were given the true meaning of their baptism…in Christ alone and baptized immediately thereafter (Acts 19).
There are previous sightings of the church in the gospel of Matthew where baptism was absent because Christ had yet to go to the cross….but we learn that was about to change. So, before Christ’s death and after Christ’s resurrection, …baptism has never been presented in scripture as some entrance exam or litmus test of inclusion into some corporately housed memberships of Christ? Christ and the Disciples taught baptism with a more superior aim and purpose, and that is clearly revealed throughout the New Testament and is type cast from the Old Testament! Baptism was given as identifying with Christ alone in his death and in his life.
Baptism is a precious and amazing order identifying with the death and now life of Jesus Christ alone. That is how Matthew and the book of Acts defines it…. Jesus clarifies the difference in the commission…..
Matthew 28:18-20 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. (19) “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, (20) teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
He includes the full triune baptism identifying his children with the one true God…..and that He would be with them “even to the end of the age”. That is a baptism of inclusion for His adopted and a baptism of promise to His church that is never denied and a promise that hell commands no power. It is Christ and Christ alone.
The act of Baptism is a Baptist hallmark. A sign and act of obedience… in that those affiliated with the SBC and Baptist minded churches throughout the world, baptism being an ordinance of the church identifying with the death and life of our Savior Jesus Christ. There is no other meaning than the meaning that will focus our attention on Christ alone as testified by the Apostle Paul and the disciples of Acts 19 as evidenced throughout all of the sacred text. Christ is preeminent as the defining attribute of baptism and we should be careful to keep Him as the most excellent one into which we are immersed forevermore. So, I agree with you that it is without a doubt willful disobedience to be without Christ’s baptism as one that has been called, and adopted into His church.
Blessings,
Chris
Comment by Chris Johnson — May 27, 2008 @ 5;01 pm