In this article by John Mann, he explores the idea of whether there can be a true church without the proper administration of the ordinances.
For the Anabaptist , the atrophied doctrine among Rome, Wittenberg, and Geneva was a biblical ecclesiology. Indeed, a proper ecclesiology was the essence of the Anabaptist movement. Foundational to proper ecclesiology is a proper understanding of the ordinances. It is no stretch to say that theologians since the Reformation have stated that a true church can only be recognized by a proper administration of the ordinances, or with a more Catholic nuance, the sacraments. That is to say it has generally been agreed that where there is no proper administration of at least the Supper and baptism, there is no true church.
To read the rest of this article, click here.
UPDATE:
As promised, the full paper is here.
John Mann says…”Given the witness of the theological voice in history, the burden is placed upon the contemporary theologian to offer proof that baptism is unimportant to ecclesiology.”
Whoever in the world said that baptism is unimportant to ecclesiology?
But the bigger issue is who gets to define what a ‘true’ church is. So churches not administering baptism properly are not ‘true’ churches, according to this article. Fine if that’s how you want to define ‘true’ churches. In my opinion, that stretches the English language past the breaking point.
Our PCA brothers who boldly preach the Gospel and the Word of God in faithfulness to the text of Scripture are not ‘true churches’ but an SBC church where the Scriptures are handled poorly and revivalistic tendencies distort the Gospel is a ‘true church’? Say it like that if you want; I just want it made clear that my priorities are in a way different place than anyone who would think or talk in those kinds of categories.
Maybe ‘disordered’ is a better way of conveying the idea than saying they are not true churches.
Brent
Tomorrow I will put up John’s full paper. This was only an exerpt from twenty pages. I believe in this part, though, John’s focus was centered on what the reformers and the Anabaptist, Hubmaier said when they were working on breaking away from Rome.
Is it not just a little ironic that the two people that Mann quotes as advocating a connection between “true church” and a proper administration of the ordinances would be people who would not be considered members of true churches by the BI crowd? Funny.
So, let’s do some exercises in logic here. Harkening back to our Communion discussion of the past couple of weeks, and Communion being one of the ordinances, is John saying that a Baptist church that practices any form of open communion for those from other denominations who are in attendance is not a true church, even though they practice scriptural baptism? If so, then, if you combine John Mann’s paper with Dr. Yarnell’s view of the visiting Assembly of God couple who would be denied communion, then any Baptist church that extended it to them would not be considered a “true church.”
Am I wrong to connect the dots this way?
I wondered why it was only 3 pages long and seemed to cut off in mid-sentence. In fairness, it does say ‘To read the rest of this article…’ I’m sorry if I jumped to some unwarranted conclusions that will be cleared up by the final 17 pages.
Alan
Read the paper tomorrow in it’s entirety to see if the dots connect.
Robin,
I did click on the “to read the rest of this article” and read the file.
Just a suggestion, and please don’t take this the wrong way. Things never come across the way that you mean them to online and I am afraid that this will come across harsher than I mean for it to, but I’ll try anyway.
In the future, if you are going to put up a post that you do not intend for us to question or interact with until the whole thing is put up the next day, could you tell us that up front? I would save the time reading it and interacting with it until I know that the whole thing is up there. It isn’t really a fair practice, I don’t think and it comes across as though you are trying to tease out the arguments ahead of time.
Just a suggestion. I’ll add a :) so you know I’m not mad! :) :) :)
Alan and Brent
After I posted this, John thought it would be a better idea to post the entire paper alng with the small article. Since my Internet is down, I cannot upload the entire document. In case you are wondering I am responding with my phone. After the comment from brent, I responded with the info that I would put the entire paper up. I decided to leave your comment up and let you connect the dots tomorrow.
So, I thank you for your grace and patience as you seek to encourage a fellow brother.
Thanks, Robin. I should have known that there was a good explanation.
Robin,
I just read what is posted.
Alan may have a valid point here.
I will use a seasonal illustration to make the point.
“We begin to chew on a wing, when suddenly, the bird is rushed from the table, leaving us with nothing but the stuffing. How can hardy men attest the fair was worth eating or the bird was just “foul” and not worthy of the feast?
:-)
cb
Sorry Robin,
I just read of your problems with the “stove.” I am sure the bird will be tasty when done.
:-)
cb
CB
That depends on if we are talking about KFC or Churches.
:-)
Robin,
Excellent.
:-) :-) :-)
That was really good.
I bow to the victor and will be off to bed soundly defeated this night, laughing myself to sleep which is needful after this long and weary day.
cb
I can’t wait till everyone busts out the Bible and debate that text…who cares what the Anabaptists thought?
…what did Paul think? Let’s debate that!
Robin,
Thanks again for the opportunity to contribute to SBC Today. It is always my privilege to be a part of what you men do so well.
John,
One thing I know, you’re one smart dude! Whether you agree with him, or not; I think that we all have to agree with this…do we not?
Alan,
Let me see if I undertand you right. You’re saying that any baptism…as long as it was after conversion and by immersion…is a valid baptism? And, anyone who is saved and baptised by immersion should be invited to take the LS with your church? Is that correct?
David
Dear IF
Here is a quote from pages 1-2 of the paper. I believe it addresses your concerns.
“The Baptist heritage is a heritage worthy of perpetuity because it has Scripture as its source and history as its evidence.”
John, excellent point!
David and Robin,
Thank you.
Irreverend Fox,
Scripture was at the center of the debate over baptism. The Anabaptists advocated using Scripture for developing a biblical view of baptism while others relied more on tradition.
Brother John Mann,
There is a lot to discuss in your findings as you have prepared this paper, ….but I will try to just focus on one or two of the summary judgments you assert as you bring this thesis to a conclusion. I certainly agree with you that baptism and the Lord’s Table… among many other things as well… are what the church now freed by Christ are to partake in….so I think I understand that you believe baptism and the Lord’s Supper are essential, as I do as well, and by not practicing these things we are not following Christ.
One thing that I need clarification on is….It appears that you believe there are two churches. A true “local church” and “Universal churches”. Can you explain to me which of these two churches are not a part of Christ’s body? If I am reading you correctly, you believe that there “are” other churches that are not “true churches”.
You state,.. “A resurgence of the Great Commission will also only find failure, for the Great Commission cannot be left intact without a doctrine of baptism, one of the two mandates in making disciples”. Beyond challenging your mandates,…which I believe there are many, not merely two,… my question is by what authority do you say that the Great Commission “will also only find failure”? It is my belief that the gates of hell cannot prevail against the church,…so God’s promise, in Christ, of a successful and growing church is never thwarted. In fact, it appears that the Apostle Paul has announced that “all Israel” will eventually join with the Gentile nations near the end. So, I am not following your claim that if baptism is not followed by some, then the Great Commission will fail. Don’t get me wrong here,…I am all for baptism and believe with all my heart that the church is to disciple and baptize all that confess Christ as Lord.
Blessings,
Chris
I do not agree with all that Tsquared said because I think that we spend too much time pushing people away that have a different understanding of what what God did for them, but I do hope that someone here will engage with him. He makes some very interesting points.
David,
Yes. That is what I am saying. Of course, I am not talking about baptismal regeneration or baptism that occurs in cults like the Mormons. I am talking about Christian baptism that is a symbol of the work of Christ in saving us.
On what basis would you withhold communion from someone visiting your church from another denomination who was a believer in Christ?
THIS discussion right here is what causes people to wonder if a form of Landmarkism is in view. This is why it is so important that the views here be fully articulated and understood.
Chris Johnson,
My contention is not that the Great Commission will fail, it is that a failure to maintain a proper view of baptism is a failure to maintain a proper view of the Great Commission, which will ulitmately fail. In other words, baptism is directly linked (indeed it is one half of the method) to the Great Commission. Moreover, to have evangelism apart from teaching and baptizing is an inadequate approach at best to the Great Commission.
Brother John,
One other item I found interesting at the beginning of your paper was the comparison of how baptism was used to define ecclesiology among the state run, magisterial, and radical reformers.
When you said,… “the burden is placed upon the contemporary theologian to offer proof that baptism is unimportant to theology”. Again, I think your premise is that baptism is somehow watered down these days….but I would also contend it is possible for baptism to be raised above the “current” Baptistic thought as well. In other words, has the Baptist, in some circumstances returned to the Catholic or Magisterial view of baptism by imagining that we are baptized “into” the local church and not into “Christ”. Some try to argue that Christ is the church, but I think that would be to bring Christ away from “head” of the church and make Him just like any other in the church. The Magisterial’s had the same method of baptizing people into the church (some saved, some not). The Catholics treated it more as one big unit (with damning doctrine). Are there not some Baptist’s that baptize people into their church and mimick the saved side of the Magisterial Reformer’s formula?
It seems to me that Baptism is given to the believer to “typify” the real thing…. which is the spiritual baptism into Christ, not spiritual baptism into a church.
Romans 6:3-7 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, (6) knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; (7) for he who has died is freed from sin.
In your incorporation argument where you say the church tests the confession of those seeking membership you seem to encourage return to the “believing” Magisterial Reformers” formula while trying to live out the “true church” concept. Certainly, the test of a confession is more than baptism….as Paul and John have said….
Romans 10:9-10 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; (10) for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
1 John 4:13-15 By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. (14) We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world. (15) Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.
It is much simpler to simply disciple and baptize.
Blessings,
Chris
Alan and Tsquared,
I will not engage all that was said, because some of it is off the point, but I will try to respond to that which is substantive to the best of my ability.
1). I am not sure whether those who hold to a “triage” of doctrines would want to place it as a first, second, or third level doctrine. It appears to be a clear command from our Lord, and is therefore worthy of obedience.
2). Beyond my brief mention of Calvin, Calvinism in its present day form is not germane to this paper so I see no need to respond to it. There has been abundant information regarding it in recent days. Perhaps referencing those posts would speak to that particular issue.
3). I am not sure what is meant in reference to Emir Caner, thus I will withhold comment.
4). I do not accept the implication that the mode of baptism is unimportant simply because it follows an understanding of salvation.
5). No, the SBC is not a church. (Though this appears to be off subject as well).
6). The rest seems more a continued debate between Calvinism and Arminianism. Though I would be happy to respond to something that I may have misread given further clarification.
Chris,
You say, “One thing that I need clarification on is….It appears that you believe there are two churches. A true “local church” and “Universal churches”. Can you explain to me which of these two churches are not a part of Christ’s body?”
My contention is that preeminence is given to the local church, as I believe is made clear in the section “Baptism as Incorporation.” The universal church will not convene until the consummation, and thus, our focus should be upon the local church and not the not yet convened universal church.
Brother John,
Thanks for all your feedback!
To the Glory of God all that confess Christ in our local fellowship have been baptized at least once, twice for myself. We are members one of another, and because Christ has made us part of His Body we participate in His wonderful commands, whether it be Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, Worship, Loving One Another, Praying fervently, Loving our Enemies, etc., etc.
We teach that we are baptized into Christ alone, not into the church. So, as we make disciples around our little area in Hermitage, those that confess Christ are baptized into Christ. We are intent that Christ receive all the glory for all that He has done in all things, even in baptism. I hope we are still allowed to fellowship with other Baptist’s. We certainly see them as brothers and sisters in Christ. Some are surely more ornery than others,…(mostly in Alabama and West Tennessee), and I look forward to meeting them face to face some day soon. I bet they would encourage me to partake of the Lord’s Table “before” I embark on the journey.
:)
So far, our little fellowship hasn’t had to revert to the “regenerate church membership” doctrine. (I still think that is an odd name…as if the church can be something besides regenerate. That quip sounds so much like “Reformation – State Church” rhetoric to me.)
Blessings,
Chris
Alan
You said, “THIS discussion right here is what causes people to wonder if a form of Landmarkism is in view. This is why it is so important that the views here be fully articulated and understood.”
How is this discussion related to Landmarkism? I have shown in my previous posts that closed, strict, or close communion all fit within confessional Southern Baptist beliefs. NOT LANDMARKISM. The one view that does not fit within those beliefs is the open view that will either accept any baptism done anywhere or just someone saying they are saved without any confession by baptism. Frankly you are beating a dead horse with this “sky is falling” Landmarkism tactic.
I was finally able to read the whole paper. While I appreciate the focus on a strong ecclesiology and the importance of baptism, I wonder at the implications of the following statements when it comes to how we view believers from other traditions. Or, do we see them as believers at all?
“In other words, the failure to maintain a true doctrine of baptism is not only to disobey the word of God, but is also to establish a false church and create a false Christ.” p. 4
Have Presbyterians established a false church and created a false Christ? Have Methodists? Lutherans? If so, how do we explain this to our congregants? What are the implications of such a view for how we see the Body of Christ, or what we think of as the Body of Christ?
“To proclaim the death of Christ as salvation for the believing through baptism in a church that does not hold to the security of the believer is to proclaim and incomplete gospel that is unbiblical. The proclamation of an inadequate gospel cannot be acceptable. This makes the death of Christ inadequate for salvation, for it finds works as necessary for salvation. If anything, it is given unto churches to weigh in the balance the integrity of the proclaimed message, the Gospel. Failure to do so is outright disobedience to the commission of Christ. In Hubmaier’s understanding, “if baptism was misrepresented and wrongly performed, it tainted the witness and spread of the gospel into the entire world.” p. 9
If churches that do not proclaim the security of the believer are proclaiming an inadequate and unacceptable gospel that makes the death of Christ inadequate for salvation, then are people in these churches being saved? Are people in Methodist and Assembly of God churches being saved? If so, by what means?
“Baptism into the local congregation” p. 12-13
I am a strong believer in the initiatory aspect of baptism into the community of believers, so I see your point here. However, the idea of being baptized into the local congregation is not far afield from the idea that salvation is held within the local church and can be found nowhere else, making participation with the church akin to salvation and right standing with God. I am not saying that you are saying that, but that is an error that could occur with this type of terminology.
We are baptized into Christ and He is the head of the church. Baptism has an initiatory aspect in that it announces our participation in the life of Christ and that we have joined the company of the Redeemed. Our relationship with the church only occurs because of our relationship with Christ and should never be seen indepenedent of that. Again, I am not saying that you are saying that, but others easily could.
I am very familiar with Anabaptist theology and studied them a great deal in seminary. There is much of value in their perspective on believer’s baptism and the free church. I agree with them greatly. However, Baptists have never wholly ascribed to Anabaptist views. A closer relation would be Mennonites or even the Amish in many ways.
If you are going to espouse the implications of what is presented here, you will need a great deal more than a reaffirmation of baptism. You said it well when you spoke to our individualism. You would have to root that out from the core of our theology and church practice, which would not be all bad. Much of it would be a great blessing, actually. However, you would have to tear the SBC apart to do so. I am interested to see what will take place as these views gain a greater hearing.
Robin, you misunderstand and frankly, I am confused about your reaction. I am not beating a dead horse at all and I am hardly the one who has been crying “Landmarkism.” My point is that what is being said here is what many people think of as Landmarkism, whether it is or not. THAT is why what is being said here must be clearly articulated so that people can see what you guys are really trying to say. The fact that people read your stuff and cry “Landmarkism” is part of your problem. It is your job to communicate your views clearly, not mine. I was just highlighting why clarity on this was so important.
Having Ben Stratton write guest posts hardly help your case either. If you read what I am actually saying, I am not accusing you of Landmarkism or anything else. I am asking questions so that I can more fully understand your views. The answers are up to you.
During the IMB debates of 2006-2007, I was constantly accused of advocating Pentecostal theology because I made room for and defended the existence of Private Prayer Language. I repeatedly and with great detail explained that the two were not the same thing. Belief in PPL did not a Pentecostal make. Rarely did anyone listen and the next time I turned around, I saw the exact same people threatening “Pentecostalism.” It was exhausting and I wondered why people were incapable of reading or following logical thought. So, I understand your frustration and being called a Landmarker when you are trying to explain that you are not. Knowing how false accusations feel, I am telling you that I do not want to call you a Landmarker and I just making an attempt to understand where you are coming from.
The fact that others read your words and call you a Landmarker is outside of my control, but it is not a dead horse that I am beating.
Alan,
Before I respond in total (#28), please answer a question for clarification. Do you believe that sprinkling is a true (ie Biblical) practice of baptism?
Why is that relevant? I would think that your answers would stand on their own despite what my position is. I am just curious as to the implications of what you are stating here.
Alan
I don’t believe the issue is clarity. The fact that I have articulated with sound argumentation that closed, strict, or close all fit within the framework of confessional Southern Baptists, but not open and people still want to decry Landmarkism only shows how some refuse to acknowledge truth.
Second, your statement here, “Having Ben Stratton write guest posts hardly help your case either.” So, according to your logic, having opposing views like Dwight McKissic or Chris Johnson contribute to SBC Today in the past doesn’t help us either. Or is only allowing people to whom you are sympathetic acceptable? Who is narrowing the tent now?
One correction, Chris wrote posts in the past that we were all in general agreement with, but it is clear that we differ on this topic. That doesn’t mean that Chris can never post on SBC Today again as a guest author. It also doesn’t mean he has carte blanche access either. I don’t even have that and I help manage this blog!
The issue is this, we have heard that all are welcomed to the table (no pun intended), but if you carry the label of Landmarker, you are treated like person with leprosy and if one goes near that person like SBC Today did, then we must have the same disease. I guess some of us are honest enough to say the tent should only go so far while others speak of widening the tent with a wink and secretly banning those they consider diseased.
Alan,
Please accept my apologies, it was not my intent to put you into an awkward position.
To answer your questions…
First, the quote that you mention is a paraphrase of the quote of Hubmaier, which precedes my restatement.
Secondly, as far as churches that do not proclaim the perseverance of the believer and the state of the salvation of their members, that is not for me to decide. I am simply calling all that I can to do the most excellent that we can possibly do in the proclamation of the Gospel. In other words, I encourage my congregants to pursue a life of holiness and sanctification. I also encourage them to be the best they can be at sharing the Gospel in a biblical manner. For me to do so is not for me to question their salvation. Moreover, when I seek to edify others who are not my congregants to pursue excellency in doctrinal accountability, it is not the same as questioning their salvation.
In sum, I am not issuing a call to salvation, rather I am encouraging us to obedience. The Bible has more in it than “come and be saved.” It also teaches, “be obedient.” For me to encourage a biblical practice of baptism is not for me to say “come and be saved” rather it is for me to say “come and be obedient.”
Lastly, I am not espousing returning to an Anabaptist theology to point of being Mennonite. For me to use one doctrine of the Anabaptists as a launching point is the same for someone to quote John Calvin or Martin Luther: it can be done without advocating being a Presbyterian or Lutheran.
Again, I apologize for making you uncomfortable with my question.
Robin,
I don’t care if Ben Stratton posts here or that he is a Southern Baptist. I am saying that because he did and it was not billed as an opposing viewpoint, confusion erupted. I am also not confused about whether or not you are a Landmarker. You say you are not and I accept that. My point was that others are confused, so clarity is important here.
Can we drop the Landmark thing? I really did not intend to stir that up. My point was just that precision was needed in this conversation because some people were getting confused.
Alan
Fair enough, it is dropped.
Robin
Alan
Sorry, I need to pick up one more thing. I was in general agreement with Ben’s post that being a closed communionist does not make one a Landmarker. Now, concerning his views pertaining to Landmark ecclesiology, that may be a different story.
:-)
Alan
Concerning John’s question about sprinkling for baptism, why are you hesitant to answer this? Do you believe it is a valid form of baptism? It was a simple question, can you answer it?
John,
Thank you. I was not uncomfortable with answering your question. I just did not see the relevance of it. I will gladly state that I consider sprinkling to be unbiblical and that baptism by immersion is very important. We take it very seriously in our church.
Thank you for all that you shared in your answer. I do not disagree with any of your emphasis there and I share it myself. Clarification on the points where I had questions was helpful. Thank you, John.
Robin,
Thank you.
Now, about my original question regarding Communion . . .
Alan
I was two seconds too early. Thanks for the response and forgive my impatience.
I read the three page except pretty carefully, and the entire paper less so because of time demands. But I feel I must share a few impressions.
First, I felt like I was reading some paper from the distant past–the 1950s if not the 1850s, what with terms like “popery” and “paedobaptists” floating about. Maybe that was referencing the language of Hubmaier et al, but I was unclear if it was, or was the author’s language. And as far as a push for eccumanical accomodation–well, Robin, accused me of that once before, but I have never done so, nor have I witnessed any Southern Baptist doing so in Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, or Alabama (states where I have lived and/or ministered).
Second, there seems to be a lack of clarity in some terms (although admittedly, it might be my lack of time with the entire document). For instance, while it is made plain that Hubmaier (and others) decried improper baptism, there seems to be a lack of period documentation over what were they referring to. The implication seems to be over its mode, but I fail to see that anywhere in a source quote. He could have been referring to that, but also he could have referred to its meaning, its theological foundations and/or implications, and a lot more. If I recall correctly, the Puritians eventually came up with a “Half-way Covenant” for a generation which lacked their passion, possibly their personal experiences of Christ, and for the lack of source documentation quoted, something like that may have been what Hubmaeier decried.
Finally, there are some leaps of logic present. Perhaps they are intuitative leaps, but in a paper like this, logic is to be valued over intuition. For instance, in the third page of the excerpt, we have, “. . . the theologians of old all agreed that the establishment of a proper church was directly related to the administration of baptism.” It is too universal a statement, and should be modified with something to restrict “theologians of old” with only those specificially quoted–although this is fairly minor. The more significant leap is the inclusion of the word “administration,” and the subsequent construction on this word of the importance of the local church and what constitutes “proper administration.” I did not see anything previous to this about “administration,” especially as that word tends to used by BI people. And if Hubmaier used it in that way, it should be quoted and referenced.
I find myself agreeing largely with Alan Cross on this one.
Because He lives,
John Fariss
Brother Robin,
You know I always follow the biblicist pattern… even when you disagree.
:)
Blessings my friend,
Chris
Chris
:-)
John Fariss
“And as far as a push for eccumanical accomodation–well, Robin, accused me of that once before”
Me?
John Farris,
1). It was probably both his language and mine.
2). I did not spend much time on mode, etc because the focus of the paper, according to the thesis the focus is primarily on “Authority.”
3). The “theologians of old” is directly related to Calvin, Luther, Strong, etc. as referenced earlier in the paper.
Most of these seem to be pointing out weaknesses in my writing style more than weaknesses in my argument. I assure you, I have many more weaknesses in my writing style than you have mentioned.
John,
I think there is much in your paper with which to agree. I certainly agree that the church is much stronger when she greatly values and practices both baptism and communion. I’ve often heard Baptists criticized by other denominations for viewing those as “mere” symbols. I’ve even heard Anglicans decry Baptists for having “no ecclesiology” because there is no connection between one church and another – thus no accountability, or at least only the voluntary accountability that one might choose for itself, which generally ends up being no accountability at all once the conflict arises.
So the sacraments/ordinances and ecclesiology are important. On those things we certainly agree (dispite Robin’s recent accusation that my ecclesiology is “weak.” I’m not sure if that was a rhetorical ploy or if he actually meant that).
Thank you for addressing Alan’s questions because those were some of mine as well. I must say I’m not completely satisfied with your answer to his question about salvation in Arminian denominations. In addition to the quotes Alan gave you also wrote that an improper practice of baptism “will result in the loss of the Gospel altogether.” Frankly it doesn’t appear to me that you need to affirm that an Arminian gospel can save because it appears quite clear that you do not believe it can. At least I’m unclear as to how a lost Gospel which is both incomplete and unbiblical has power to save. Perhaps there are Divine accidents.
At any rate, I believe that is at least something of what Tsquared was trying to get at. In your response to him you say that you aren’t sure how the Calvinism/Arminianism debate has anything to do with this, but it appears to me that your three paragraphs in your paper on pages 7-8 clearly indicate that it has something to do with it for you. What I hear you saying is that at least one of the five points must be affirmed for baptism to be valid. It simply seems that Tsquared is saying that you must affirm more than just that one for the very same reasons you state in your paper – because a proper understanding of the Gospel and its proclamation depends upon it.
I don’t guess I really have a question so much as an observation. On page 7 your argument about baptism proclaiming the Gospel message has an uncanny resemblance to Luther’s argument for infant baptism. You see, Luther believe in predestination and that salvation comes to us at God’s initiation. The baptism of infants, then, perfectly symbolizes the reality that God initiates salvation, for the child is intentionally baptized prior to anything he/she has done on his/her own. Thus, infant baptism proclaims the Gospel.
Now, I’m not a Lutheran and I don’t particularly buy his argument, but I don’t particularly agree with yours either. I believe that baptism proclaims the gospel in a broad sense, but that it doesn’t necessarily proclaim every little detail of the gospel in a specific sense. In other words, baptism proclaims that Christ came to save sinners and that we are joined with him in his death, burial and resurrection to life. There are other aspects of the gospel, such as a specific reference to the cross, or the spilled blood, or the the 500 witnesses Paul mentioned to the Corinthians that are not specifically proclaimed in baptism, yet are a part of the Gospel witness. Thus, for me, while I see the eternality of our salvation through implication in baptism, I do not see it as a necessary component to the proclamation of the Gospel in baptism. In fact, I could probably draw similar implications about Total Depravity and the like from baptism as well, though I don’t know that if one doesn’t see that he/she therefore has an incomplete or unbiblical view of baptism.
Ooooo. I really apologize for that last comment being so long. Sorry about that!
Brother John Mann,
When you and I were at the Baptist Distinctives Conference in Fort Worth a few months back, Paige Patterson made some interesting statements after he delivered really an excellent speech on the two ordinances that peaked my attention. During the Q & A time, which I am always a big fan of, he went into a story about how baptism can be used as an evangelistic tool. He went on to say that he would ask some folks to hold off on their baptisms until the weather warmed up so that they could plan a big baptismal service at the Lake some months later. He mentioned that in one of the services a man that was at the Lake boating noticed what was going on, came over, heard the gospel and was saved. I think many in the room (probably not more than 300, mainly students) was ready to find a Lake and begin to have these types of events as the next evangelistic boost.
Not wanting to embarrass Paige, because those that know me understand that is never my intent, I made my way to the front where he and his dog were taking a few additional questions (I think the dog was just listening,…it was a beautiful animal). I posed a simple question: I asked Paige,…Did you treat these new converts as members while you waited for the Lake to warm (several months)? He looked straight forward,…paused and answered consistent to his understanding of baptism. He said: Well, no, they are not actually members until they are baptized. He did say that he had misspoke during the Q&A and should never recommend waiting to baptize,…in that when one confesses Christ, it is time to find some water. He was right about that.
I don’t know if Paige sent out a letter to the students concerning his errant advise (I didn’t receive one, but I’m not a student either). I do appreciate that he graciously received my question and gentle rebuke.
My point is,… Baptism can quickly become and idol when we begin to take it out of its intended place as identification with Christ.
Blessings,
Chris
Robin,
You are forgiven.
Paul,
Your observations in paragraph #3 of comment #45 are the same as my own. I just decided not to argue with John and instead, to inquire as to what he was trying to say. For all that he affirmed in his answers, I accept and agree. But, like you, I am confused as to the emphasis of his original statements if that is what he meant. I wonder if we are really thinking through the implications of the positions that we are advocating here?
Alan,
For the record, I will accept neither the label of Calvinist or Arminian. I am fine with Baptist. Though the Doctrine of Perseverance is part of Dort, it is not dependent upon Dort as it preceded Dort. Nonetheless, I have no inclination to engage in that debate at the moment. I am afraid that to read any portion of this paper and see Calvinism or Arminianism is to read through the lenses of other topics of discussion.
As to your understanding of Luther’s baptism, he possibly did say it was a preaching of the gospel (I am not sure, but I will defer). Nonetheless, a Lutheran doctrine of baptism is mostly identical to a Catholic doctrine of baptism… it has to do with solving the problem of Original Sin, not incorporation into a local church, as was argued above (#23). Therefore, it is miles away from what I am saying about baptism as proclamation.
For the record (in regards to #23), Calvin’s baptism was not incorporation into the local church either. Rather, it was incorporation into the Covenant. Again, miles away from what I am arguing.
Chris,
I remember well the paper that Dr. Patterson read and have been blessed by it many times over. As to the conversation that took place between you and him, I must leave it between you and him. But, as a student who has sat under him for two different semesters, I have found him to be a humble servant of God at all times. By the way, I assume you have sent letters to members of your congregation when you have mispoke?
Alan,
“But, like you, I am confused as to the emphasis of his original statements if that is what he meant. I wonder if we are really thinking through the implications of the positions that we are advocating here?”
Please forgive me if I have missed something… I am usually very busy, and not very good at multi-tasking. If you will please clarify the statement above I will be happy to clarify any confusion I may have caused.
#49 should have been addressed to Paul and not Alan.
Brother John,
I certainly misspeak at times….I know that is a big surprise to you.
But yes, our congregation engages in an hour long discussion concerning the content of the sermon at the close of the service each Sunday. There is a great deal of wonderful questions and I have certainly had to clarify a few comments on many occasions.
The other thing that I do is to write additional commentary on questions that come out of the hour question and answer time each Sunday.
For instance, I have been preaching through Romans during these last two years, and we are now arriving at the text in what is known as Chapter 13. This Sunday,..Someone brought up a great question concerning “worship” in its relevance to all aspects of service in the church during our Q & A. I am writing a letter to the church encouraging them and expanding on biblical worship.
Thank you for asking,
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
I am amazed at how similar your practice is to my own. Though my Q&A time is on Wednesday’s preceding our time of prayer. I am happy to hear that you as a pastor take the time to clarify questions, as do I. There tends to be far too little theological discussions within our churches. I am also glad to hear that Dr. Patterson took time to answer your question. I hope you have been reassured by his response and mine that the proper practice of baptism is not idolatrous.
I will be out for a few hours. I will pick up here as soon as I can.
John,
Regarding your question in comment #51, I was referring to the way that the positions articulated here and by Dr. Yarnell in previous posts affect how we view the salvation of others. I really do not expect you to speak to that since you said that you cannot know who is saved and who is not. Fair enough. I do not want to mischaracterize you as saying that Presbyterians, Methodists, Assemblies, etc. are not saved because their view of the ordinances is deficient. I accept that you are not saying that. But, the implications of some of the positions being articulated here lead one to that perspective. If they are not members of “true churches,” then what are they members of? If they are not advocating the true gospel or the true Jesus, then what are they advocating? If they do not preach and believe the true gospel, then by what means are they saved?
Again, I accept your word that you are not questioning their salvation. But, the implications of what you are saying here does just that for all who read your words and do not understand your nuanced meanings. I am just saying that we might want to consider some better ways to address those that are of different persuasions on these issues unless we want others to receive the impression that we do not think that they are true believers. That is what I meant when I was referring to implications of the argument, not necessarily the argument that you were trying to make. I base this off your stated response to my direct questions along those lines.
John,
You may freely confuse me with Alan Cross any day as that is always an upgrade for me (though Alan may have something to say about that confusion).
I am not trying to label you a Calvinist or an Arminian. It is not insignificant, however, that while a belief in perseverance predates Dort its connection to other Calvinistic (for lack of a better term) tenets is not unimportant, even prior to Dort. For instance, the largely semi-Pelagian Catholic church of the middle ages advocated no doctrine of assurance and typically only those groups who were more Augustinian did. Admittedly Southern Baptists have been quite capable of divorcing them for quite some time now. All I am saying is that the difference between you and Tsquared is one of degree, not kind, and that is why his comment seems relevant. But this is your post and I respect your right not to interact with his comment.
As to Luther’s views on baptism I will simply refer you to Justo Gonzalez The Story of Christianity. He is a much better historian than am I.
I am also well aware of Calvin’s views on baptism, though I would change the word “incorporation” to “identification” if it were me. It is also Calvin who said that “Baptism does not depend upon the merit of him who administers it. Now, suppose what we have determined is true – that a sacrament must not be judged by the hand of the one by whom it is ministered, but as if it were from the very hand of God, from whom it doubtless has come. From this we may then infer that nothing is added to it or taken from it by the worth of him by whose hand it is administered. Among men, if a letter is sent, provided the handwriting and seal are sufficiently recognized, it makes no difference who or of what sort the carrier is…. Ignorant or even contemptuous as those who baptized us were of God and all piety, they did not baptize us into the fellowship of either their ignorance or sacrilege, but into faith in Jesus Christ, because it was not their own name but God’s that they invoked, and they baptized us into no other name” (Institutes V, XV, 16).
Brother John,
Good to hear you do this as well…. Sometimes I would like to move the Q&A to Wednesday since I only get about 5-10 minutes to wind down and prepare. I love the Q&A because it truly engages our folks, since they are really eager to ask and get things clarified. I had one women ask a question at the back of the room while changing her infant’s diaper,…all at the same time. Men do not multitask as well…so I do not suggest for men to attempt the same maneuver.
You’re right,…Paige was very gracious and engaging. In my experience with him, I have not found him any other way.
You are also correct,… in that obedience to the act of baptism is not idolatrous unless we make it such. To identify with Christ in His death and in His resurrection is an amazing privilege for any believer,…and I can certainly understand why the Eunuch was just a bit excited to find some water and identify with His Lord by His command, and for the three thousand souls added to the church eager to baptize, fellowship and commune during this Pentecost season before they returned to their homes and cities in the nearby towns.
Blessings,
Chris
Since this is about the Lord’s supper and not church membership, which in our church is by letter or by immersion baptism, what of a new convert who has not been brought up Christian or Baptist, they don’t know what Baptism is, they are not at the point to be baptized, but they have been converted through Christ alone.
Where in scripture is it that they are not welcome to the Lord’s supper. Would the thief on the cross have been welcomed had he lived and not been executed?
John,
I wasn’t trying to be critical of your writing style. On the other hand, one’s writing style is directly related to one’s argument. I suppose one may have an excellent argument but be unable to articulate it, if by “have” you mean an unspoken mental picture of your argument which therefore can satisfy and influence only youself. However, communicating that is part and parcel of sharing your argument with others. And after all, as the Bible says, “Iron sharpens iron.”
Re: #2, when you write about the authority of baptism, what exactly do you mean? And re: #3, what exactly do you mean by the “administration of baptism”?
John Fariss
Original Article, last page: “Until the church reclaims her prophetic voice, she will never experience a true Great Commission resurgence nor a regenerate church membership.”
Among the things needing to happen for a Great Commission resurgence, a revival of strong convictions on the issue of baptism is not at the top of the list.
The funny thing about this whole discussion… I’m no less convinced than anyone here about the biblical correctness of believers baptism (by immersion only). But at the same time, I feel more affinity toward a infant-baptizer willing to accept our differences on the matter and move on than you baptists who want to make such a big deal about it.
The Gospel is what is central. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are pictures of the Gospel, and important pictures of it. But they are not themselves the Gospel and thus are not determinative when categorizing ‘true’ and ‘false’ churches.
Brent said,
“The Gospel is what is central. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are pictures of the Gospel, and important pictures of it. But they are not themselves the Gospel . . .”
Sounds like something that Jesus said about the Scriptures: “You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life” John 5:39-40.
I think that Brent makes a good point. Jesus saves. The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation for all who believe. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are pictures of the Gospel, not the Gospel themselves. Some believers have gotten the picture wrong and no one is saying that we shouldn’t get it right, but that does not necessarily mean that they have gotten the gospel wrong.
Alan,
I also believe Brent is correct about the gospel.
Yet, I also believe baptism is important in the initial obedience to Christ after being saved. I think you do also.
I also think there is only one biblical mode of Baptism. That is to be “baptized” in the strict meaning of the word. I think you believe that also.
Now, I believe we differ as to who has authority to baptize. I believe only a local church has the authority to baptize. Do we differ here?
cb
cb scott says…
[enough about the Gospel, can we get back to the points where we disagree??]
Haha. I’m just kidding with you, cb. Half kidding at least. Why are you so worried about what Alan Cross (or anyone else for that matter) thinks about that question or whether or not you disagree?
It just seems like you’re not happy unless you’re in an debate with someone.
Brent,
Is not my question not related to the substance of the post?
Also, Alan and I go back to the beginning of this.
Actually, I think John Mann has already answered the question about the gospel.
Lastly, here:-) If any other person had asked Alan the question would you have responded as you did?
Brent, and now very seriously, I have never made a statement even close to saying; enough about the gospel in jest or otherwise.
cb
Alan,
You wrote:
“Having Ben Stratton write guest posts hardly helps your case either. . . . I don’t care if Ben Stratton posts here or that he is a Southern Baptist. I am saying that because he did and it was not billed as an opposing viewpoint, confusion erupted.”
If you go back and read my original post on “Restricted Communion and the Opponents of Landmarkism” you will find there is nothing in the article that a conservative Southern Baptist would disagree with. I don’t see how you could call that article “an opposing viewpoint”. I would even venture to say that if someone did not already know I was a Landmarker, they would not be able to tell just from reading this article.
What amazes me is not a single blogger has attempted to answer my original post that said that all Southern Baptist from 1845 to 1945 rejected open communion. Rather men like yourself and Les Puryear have attempted to discredit me because I am a Southern Baptist landmarker. Hopefully in the future you will try and actually respond to what is in the article, rather than waving the landmark flag.
Ben,
I was not attempting to discredit you. I apologize that my statement was careless and came across that way. I take full blame. I was simply trying to say that observers could easily be confused over the nature of this conversation if they just looked at it on the surface. I only pointed to you being a Landmarker because it caused some confusion, not because what you said wasn’t right or did not have merit. Forgive me.
CB,
I would think that all baptism would happen within the context of a local church. Where churches do not exist, they should be planted. If you have 5 believers, let that be a church and help them evangelize more. Plant new churches from that. Much harm has come to the Body of Christ through an undue emphasis on parachurch ministries and non-existent ecclesiology the past 50 years and I hope that is corrected. I am a pastor of a local Baptist church and I have given my life to the church in service.
Where I might differ with you guys is that I fully see the authority to minister, baptize, etc. being in Christ, not in the local church. What I mean by that is that any authority that the local church has is only the invested authority that comes directly from Christ. “All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me, therefore go . . . ” I always want to keep Christ central. Too much talk of the authority of the local church and you quickly (very quickly) move into despotism and a focus on the church instead of our Lord. It almost always happens that way, actually, human nature being what it is.
I’d much rather talk about the authority of Jesus Christ and our service and obedience to Him in covenant community. If Christ is head of the church, then every believer can know Him and grow up in Him. The leaders of the church are servant leaders who exist to help the body mature and grow in grace and the knowledge of the Lord. They in turn, minister to others and the whole thing keeps replicating. I could go on and on, but I’ll stop now.
Brother Alan,
Your comment to cb in #66 is well stated. If you’re a golfer, the comment is like hitting a drive 340 yards in the “sweet-spot”. That is achieved by swinging through the ball squarely at 110 mph swing-speed, flush on the clubface, at just the right angle, in the place designed by the maker for maximum efficiency.
Christ is preeminent, and will remain our fullness for all eternity.
Colossians 2:8-12 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. (9) For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, (10) and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; (11) and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; (12) having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
Good Word!
Blessings,
Chris
Alan,
Thanks.
See, fellows, Alan is a confessional Baptist.
He just talks West Coast, GGBTS language. :-)
cb
Debbie (#58).
Please click on the link for the paper again. Perhaps your server took you to the wrong site?
Brent (60)
“Among the things needing to happen for a Great Commission resurgence, a revival of strong convictions on the issue of baptism is not at the top of the list.”
It seems to me that ours is not to decide which things are unimportant and which things are important. As I said in an earlier post that I did for SBC Today, ” Therefore, it is irresponsible at best and unfaithful at the worst for the believer to decide which of the “all things” we will teach. To only communicate the Reader’s Digest version of the “all things” is ultimately to forget the first part of the Commission, “All authority has been given to Me.” Baptists much communicate all of the truths of God’s word because to do so is to live out our confession that Jesus is Lord. “
Brent and Alan,
I don’t think the issue is one of “who has the right authority, Christ or the church?” Rather, I think the issue is “where has Christ invested that authority?” It is not an either/or matter. In Acts 15:1-4 Paul and Barnabas were held accountable by the church at Jerusalem. In Acts 13:1-4 they were called by the Spirit, but sent out by the church. Why did they stand accountable to the church in 15? Because they had been sent by the church. (ref: 2 and 3 John for further validation of missionary activity by the church).
I don’t want to drift too far from the subject at hand, but if someone were to come into your office on a Friday evening at 4:30 and tell you that Jesus had told them to preach to your congregation, how would you determine whether or not you would let them? If you outright say ‘no’ are you not possibly subverting the authority of Christ? According to your understanding of ‘authority’ you could be. I would hope that you would examine the man’s confession, probably by testimony, denomination, and/or a written confession of faith (BFM, etc). You could also ask which other churches he has spoken at. Of course, the most qualitative way would be to call and talk to his own local church. Now, suppose he says, “well, I don’t attend a local church, I just float around from church to church.” I would hope that you would not allow him to preach to your congregation. What is the determinative factor? His existential experience of what “Jesus told him” or his confession as it relates to service in the local church? Again, to say the local church holds authority is not to say that Christ does not, rather, it is to say that Christ has given authority to the church for the testing of a man’s confession (Note: testing his confession is different than judging his salvation). There MUST be some measurability of that confession. Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russell, etc. claimed the authority of Christ to some degree. So what is the testing of the validity of his “message”? His recounting of his existential experience or the testimony of another local church? I opt for the latter.
(cont.)
If the church has the authority to send out for missions, they also have the authority to test a man’s confession prior to baptism — and to hold them accountable when that confession is broken.
John,
Thanks for sharing what you did about authority. I get real nervous when people start saying that God told them this, and God told them that…as in direct revelation. We have God’s revelation in His Word. Otherwise, you could have people like this…..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmUJcBBT38I
David
David,
It is frightening what goes on in the name of the Lord. May God save us from a Bible-less religion.
John,
You leave out a lot in your analogy and that is really not what I am talking about at all. In referring to Acts 13, you leave out where it says in verse 2, “While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” You make it sound like the Antioch church was conducting interviews for who would go on the mission field where the Bible clearly states that the Holy Spirit was leading the church through guidance. If you want to call that an existential experience, that is fine, but I call it Biblical.
If the man in your example came into my church and announced that God told Him to preach, would Jesus being the Lord of the church not also be able to guide our church in how to handle the situation? First of all, even if someone with perfect Baptist credentials showed up and said God told him to preach in my church, it doesn’t mean I would accept it. He would come off very prideful to me and he would be violating relational integrity. But, apart from that, I do believe that the Holy Spirit directs the affairs of the church because Jesus is the head of the church. We can actually pray and ask God what to do in situations.
I do not deny that the local church has authority given it by Christ. Where have I ever said that or given any indication that anyone could just show up and preach if they said they had a word from the Lord? That type of straw man argument is not necessary, especially on a site where any reference to Landmarkism is opposed vehemently. At the same time, the authority in the local church is directly responsible to God and should always seek God for what to do in any and every situation. The authority is not based on human wisdom but on spiritual wisdom. 1 Corinthians 1 and 2 tells us that those two things are very different. Many Baptist churches do not understand the difference and it has led us into all kinds of man-based error.
As for your Acts 15 example, yes, Paul did submit to the church, as he should have. We are to submit to authority and to one another. The Bible says that. At the same time, Galatians 1 and 2 is very clear that Paul’s authority came directly from Jesus Christ. The Jerusalem Church recognized this and the authenticity of Paul’s message and they were in agreement. This happened because they were both led by the Holy Spirit and were brought into unity. If they had interviewed Paul for his Baptist credentials, he would have failed. He was not baptized by a local church, but by a man named Ananias who received direction from the Lord in a vision. We see no mention of the authority of a local church for the baptism of Paul, yet he was accepted by the Apostles and the Jerusalem Church. I am not advocating Ananias style Baptisms, but even in the two examples that you choose, your argument does not hold up.
We have the Word of God and it is sufficient to guide us and lead us. We also have the Holy Spirit to teach us the Word and apply it to our lives and ministries. We have the authority of Christ given to His Church to represent Him and act as His body. These aspects of church life are not to be pitted against one another and one is not to be exalted at the expense of another. Just because people in the past have abused their authority in the church, does not mean that we eschew all church authority. Far more evil has been done in history from people claiming to be acting under the authority of the church than ever has from people claiming to be acting under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But, both are dangerous if they are not tied to Scripture, led by the Spirit, and intertwined in community.
I don’t know whether authority to baptize rests ONLY in the local church. I think there are good arguments on both sides. I prefer for it to only be done that way, but I’m not going to scream and holler if its not. Its just not a big issue for me.
As for the guy that shows up on Friday afternoon, I’ve already told him no before I called his church. I’d tell Johnny Hunt, Danny Akin, Al Mohler, or anyone else the same thing. (Now, for those guys, we may schedule a Sunday Evening service especially for them :) .
No one will preach at our church who is not a member of a local church. I would tell them they are in clear and open disobedience to the commands of the New Testament.
I think Alan has said it well, especially in the last paragraph of the above (#75) post.
Brother John,
I know you are not advocating a Catholic doctrine,…yet the Catholic Church on page 54 of their adult Catechism says, “The Catholic Church alone has the authority to rule and to teach”. I have seen Baptist churches run a close second to this kind of thinking. We must always be careful that we do not begin to travel down that same rabbit trail and misplace authority. That might be a great post for the future… “Biblical Authority of the Church”.
One guy has put it this way when responding to the Catholic way of thinking as stated above.
The authority is not in the body, but in the Head.
Ephesians 1:22-23 And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, (23) which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.
Colossians 1:18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.
The ruling is not in the kingdom, but in the King.
Hebrews 7:1-3 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, (2) to whom also Abraham apportioned a tenth part of all the spoils, was first of all, by the translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then also king of Salem, which is king of peace. (3) Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually.
Revelation 1:5-6 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood– (6) and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father–to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.
The authority is not in the church, but in Christ.
Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
1 Peter 3:22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.
The church is not the Savior, but simply the body of the saved.
Acts 2:46-47 Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart, (47) praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved.
Eph 5:22-24 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. (23) For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. (24) But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.
I think he is on the right road to understanding authority.
Blessings,
Chris
to John in #70 where he says…
“Therefore, it is irresponsible at best and unfaithful at the worst for the believer to decide which of the “all things” we will teach…Baptists must communicate all of the truths of God’s word because to do so is to live out our confession that Jesus is Lord. “
The fatal error in your reasoning here is that I’m not talking about leaving parts out. I’m talking about the priority you are placing on one particular view of baptism (or ecclesiology, or the Lord’s Supper, etc…). I agree that its the correct view of baptism. There are just many things I would list as higher priorities in order for a Great Commission resurgence to take place.
If you want to say convincing paedobaptists of our correctness on the issue is of paramount importance, that’s fine. I just think you’ve lost connection with reality.
Brent,
I am not talking to paedobaptists about baptism (maybe a few?), but I am talking to Baptists. By the way, for me to write a post on baptism is not for me to prioritize baptism above all else for the Great Commission. This is a blogpost, not a systematic theology. But point well taken… just disagreed with.
John says… “By the way, for me to write a post on baptism is not for me to prioritize baptism above all else for the Great Commission.”
That’s true, but when you say thing like this : “Until the church reclaims her prophetic voice, she will never experience a true Great Commission resurgence…” You can see how someone may get the impression that you’re putting too much emphasis on it.
And if you’re not talking to paedobaptists, trying to convince them, then what really is your goal here? What would it look like to you if we all ‘reclaimed ‘ our ‘prophetic voice’?
Alan,
I see you are still at the well.
I would like to ask you a question if I have Brent’s permission.
You stated:
“Too much talk of the authority of the local church and you quickly (very quickly) move into despotism and a focus on the church instead of our Lord. It almost always happens that way, actually, human nature being what it is.”
Why do you make this statement?
Are you saying despotism becomes the norm in congregational churches?
Could it not also be said of churches where no authority is recognized mysticism will become the rule of the day?
Maybe I am wrong, but I think John’s “Friday evening guy” illustrates the point rather well.
John, You may really be addressing more paedobaptists than you think. Thus making the need for your post greater than you may realize.
cb
Alan,
That should be:
Are you saying despotism becomes the norm in congregational churches who recognize Christ giving them authority to baptize and carry out the other mandates of the Great Commission?
Sorry I did not complete that question. I thought I had done so when I posted it.
cb
Brent,
My goal is for the SBC to be as biblically faithful as possible. That means, not only do we evangelize, but we summon to obedience. The Bible teaches about baptism, therefore it is incumbent upon us to teach about baptism. It means something… and not just anything.
As for the “prophetic voice” quote, it means that we share the word of God in truth and love. It is not ours to “dumb down doctrine” simply because a particular doctrine may not be unifying. The command to baptize is from Christ… I am of the assumption that there is a reason for it.
Chris,
And when I see a Catholic-type of authority developing, I will write a post. I may even see if SBC Today would want to run it. But until substantive evidence of a Catholic authority is shown within the SBC, I see no need.
John,
So you’d like to see us teach more often on baptism? That seems to be the gist of #83. Or are you saying more than that?
Brent,
I am saying I think we need to teach more often on baptism and how it relates to Baptist Identity. I think this should be taught because it is the biblical practice of baptism, as you stated in #78. My question to you is, “if you believe it is the biblical practice, then why should we not discuss it?”
CB,
No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that churches that spend a lot of time talking about their authority and not the authority of Christ often have problems with authoritarianism and spiritual abuse. We must continually point people to Jesus and act humbly with the authority He has given us to carry out His will. I am not saying that anyone here does not believe that. I am just pointing out a danger.
Yes. There are dangers on the side of mysticism as well and they are well documented. However, the dynamic life of the Spirit that brings balance to all this is often missing because if anything like what happened in Acts 13 were to occur today, many Baptists would cry, “Mysticism!” If you point to Scripture and say that what happened is biblical, you are told that now that Scripture is completed and the Apostles are dead, God does not work that way anymore. So, some things that are actually Biblical are called mysticism and what is claimed as Biblical amounts to a sending agency interviewing candidates. The sending agency is not the local church, by the way, but that doesn’t matter. It is just stamped as Biblical because their Baptism is being investigated in a way that even Paul could not pass because he was not baptized under the authority of a local church.
We are contradicting ourselves and the Bible left and right and call it Biblical. But, yes, I agree. Mysticism can be a problem as well. This is why the Bible tells us to test the spirits.
Chris,
See comment #74 above.
David
Alan,
I am trying to make sense of a conversation we had in relationship to this post and comment thread.
More and more I am convinced blogs do not convey anything near what face-to-face conversations do.
Let me ask this question and you answer it or tear it apart as you may desire. I ask it only in hopes of finding if we actually differ on this matter.
Do you agree with the following:
The authority for Baptism rests with Christ Himself and He instituted the local church to carry out His work here on earth. Therefore, the authority for Baptism rests with the local church. Someone has to receive or reject the candidate for Baptism here on earth and the local church has been mandated that accountability by Christ.
cb
Let me ask
Alan, That should have been “make sense….in relationship to the “substance” of this post…”
cb
CB,
I’m not Alan (though I’ve been confused with him here once), but may I jump in briefly to ask you a question? It is related to your question to Alan. By what church authority did Balthasar Hubmaier reject the baptism of the Catholic church?
Paul
John said…
“My question to you is, ‘if you believe it is the biblical practice, then why should we not discuss it?’”
Discussing it is fine, arguing a particular position is fine as well. The problem is with calling churches ‘false’ that don’t agree with you and me. The problem is with saying this issue is what is hindering a Great Commission resurgence.
Those kind of statements don’t seem to have any sense of proportion. And they are needlessly divisive.
Paul,
It is my opinion Hunmaier rejected the entire ecclesiology of Catholicism. Therefore he rejected their position on Baptism by the rejection of the whole and not in part.
cb
Brother David,
#74,..I agree
Blessings,
Chris
CB,
I agree, but what I’m asking is by what church authority did he reject the teachings of the Catholic church and by extension its teachings on baptism?
Paul,
That should have been “Hubmaier” rather than Hunmaier.
But, I bet Hunmaier did also:-)
cb
CB,
I do not disagree with what you said. Before every person is baptized in our church, I meet with them, hear their confession, correct them if needed, and accept them or reject them on the basis of their confession of faith and life before God. So, would you say that our practice lines up with what you are proscribing?
I guess that I am tripping over the idea that we do what we do based on the authority of the local church. I don’t see Jesus and the church as being the same thing. Our authority is only derived from Christ’s authority. We are very careful to point to Him and His Word and claim nothing for ourselves.
It soumds like we agree, but the problem is mine in that I am tripping over semantics.
CB,
Here is my problem with saying the local church is the one who authorizes baptism. I’m not exactly sure about the details of Hubmaier’s church membership. I know that he was not the first Anabaptist, though he may have been close. I know that Grebel and Blaurock were baptized in January of that year – in the fountain in the town square in Zurich. If I’m reading my history correctly they formed the first Anabaptist congregation in Zurich. Did they form that congregation prior to January 1525 or after?
If they formed the congregation prior to January 1525 then they formed a “false” church since they had all been baptized as infants in the Catholic church. That would mean that this “false” church would not be able to perform a valid baptism, since the administrator is important to baptism’s validity. If they formed the congregation after January 1525 (or even immediately after their baptism) then their baptism is invalid because it was not administered by a local church (the local church not yet being established).
If Blaurock, in asking Grebel to baptize him, was asking him as an individual and not as a duly authorized representative of a local church, then neither of them participated in a valid baptism. It seems like Hubmaier’s baptism was similar – at least we know that he, too, was baptized in that same fountain in Zurich. If he was not baptized under the authority of Blaurock and Grebel’s local church, but simply by someone of like belief, then his baptism was also invalid.
Of course, reality is that they were all baptized by pouring, thus they never really were baptized at all.
Paul,
I may be missing your point here entirely. But, here goes.
I believe Hubmaier was struggling to present an ecclesiology based on the New Testament as were many of his time.
The Catholic position on the baptizing of infants had given him serious problems he could not reconcile with Scripture.
I think, if I remember he left the Catholic Church due to that specific problem more than anything else.
He was seeking to learn biblical truth of the doctrine of ecclesiology when he was writing much of his work.
Therefore to say he was part of a local church at the time of his writing is going to be hard to do.
This was the case with many of those fellows of that time.
cb
CB,
First, I misspoke. Hubmaier was baptized in Waldshut by Wilhelm Reublin. Hubmaier was not baptized into Reublin’s local church but remained a member of his own church, at least for the time being (a Catholic church, by the way).
I bring up Hubmaier and other Anabaptists since John has so heavily depended upon them in this post and in his paper. I guess my point is that the realities of the practice of these very Anabaptists who are being used to make the point about local church authority and baptism did not believe baptism was a matter of local church authority.
I guess the only question I have left is this: were the baptisms of men like Hubmaier, Grebel and Blaurock valid baptisms? It appears that, according to the criteria being argued in this post, they were not. If that’s the case then their being appealed to to make this case seems not only odd, but downright contradictory.
But I will add this: I agree with Hubmaier, et. al. over against the thesis of this post.
Paul,
Would you agree that Hubmaier, along with others such as Grebel of who you mention were in a time of struggle to establish a biblical ecclesiology.
I have always believed had it not been for Menno Simmons having to run for his life all the time he would have written more and with greater biblical insight than Luther or Calvin. Especially in the area of ecclesiology do I believe he would have done so.
Of course, that is an opinion I cannot prove and may be condemned to the third level of hell by lovers of both Calvin and Luther.:-)
Paul, you and I have the luxury of a biblical ecclesiology wrought by buckets of blood from the veins of good and faithful men of history.
I see the question John’s use of non-Baptists as did Alan and well understand why Alan would pose the question
Yet, it must be remembered, those men of whose writings we read were “pioneers” of sorts in developing a biblical ecclesiology after realizing the “established” church had a very faulty one.
Paul, those men did exactly what men do today when they realize the “church” or “denomination” they belong is inconsistent with Scripture on matters of doctrine. Naturally, those early pioneers did it on a far more grand scale and at far greater risk.
Did not even my hero Zwingli throw Hubmaier in jail once?
Those boys went through much when they realized the Catholic church was not based upon Scripture as plainly revealed upon one’s reading of the Sacred Text.
Does any of this make sense?
cb
Paul,
Not just Hubmaier, et al, but did the Apostle Paul’s baptism in Acts 9 line up with what is being promoted here?
Alan,
It can be argued Paul was baptized under the authority of a local church.
See you later. Got to go to my local church with a proper ecclesiology:-)
Thanks, Hub, Menno and all you other boys of the past for paving the road:-)
cb
Alan,
That is a question that deserves to be addressed. I agree with you that it would not line up with what is being said here. CB indicates that it is, but I’d like to see how that case is made. One the one hand we have a story of Ananias, “a disciple” in Damascus, who appears to take it upon himself to baptize Paul somewhere in or near his home. There are other disciples in Damascus mentioned in Acts 9 and perhaps Ananias met with them prior to baptizing Paul and received permission to do so. Maybe Ananias’ home was the gathering place for the church and perhaps he called his local church friends to come witness the baptism. Maybe Ananias was not just a disciple, but a leader in the church in Damascus.
There are a lot of maybes here and a lot of implications that are, to me quite frankly, questionable. We should certainly avoid pressing the Scriptures to say something that supports our position one way or another. I believe it was Luther who said, “Where the Scriptures speak, I will speak. Where the Scriptures are silent, I will remain silent.” To me, a plain reading of Acts 9 leads me to believe that Ananias, a disciple, baptized Paul by the authority of the vision he received from God. I suspect that even if Ananias’ local church (if there was such a thing) rejected the idea of baptizing Paul he would have done it on the basis of God’s word to him anyway.
It’s pretty apparent that Alan and Paul have pointed out the most glaring inconsistency of the “local church has the only authority to baptize” view: after biblical baptism was lost in church history, there is no way to recover it without violating the principle.
So even in their view, there are exceptions when baptism is NOT through a local church.
Alan,
I forgot to address your response to me in comment #97. I realize that is rude a and I am sorry for the oversight. You are always one to answer questions and I think you deserve the same courtesy.
There are those who come here and throw bombs and never respond to questions.
I had thought we were in pretty much agreement. And I think we are. I think you are right about semantics being a problem here. I do not think it is all on your part. I think we all falter in that regard. That seems especially true on blogs.
Now for a response to your comment.
I do not see Jesus and the church as the same. Christ is the head of the church. The “body” should follow the head. Jesus as Head of the church gave the mandate of the GC. We are to be obedient in its fulfillment.
Jesus gave the GC to no other entity on earth other than the church. Local churches are manifestations of the Body of Christ on earth. Christ authorized us to carry out His commands. We do so through the local church.(a local church, local churches)
If a local church claims authority beyond what Jesus has granted (mandated) it has gone toward the despotism you referenced earlier. If a church dismisses any of that which Christ has commanded us to teach and be accountable for it may begin to go toward the mysticism I referenced earlier.
Therefore it is incumbent upon a church to seek and practice a biblical ecclesiology.
cb
Paul,
I agree with you that all of those things are possible. You are right. I also agree that you do not get all of that from the text. We are thinking the same way here.
The point is that this whole view of the authority of the church in baptism is not based on rock solid Scriptural grounds. Acts 9 proves that. Scripture does not contradict itself. I would also wonder about the churches started during the persecution of Acts 8 and the church in Antioch in Acts 13. Did those baptisms begin under the authority of a local church? If not, then were they valid? The objections go on and on.
This is a system of theology that has some merit and it is not wholly untrue. Of course the church is involved in Baptism, and where possible, it should be catechizing its baptismal candidates. That is just good discipleship. But unless someone can show me a greater Biblical mandate for what is being presented here than the Great Commission, I think that you are losing some controdictory texts on the cutting room floor.
Again, I am not trying to diminish the derived authority of the local church. I have already bemoaned the proliferation of parachurch organizations and individualism. But, I think that we must recognize that authority to disciple and baptize comes from Christ and it is given to His followers to do His work. The church is people under the Lordship of Christ, not an institution. Yes, it is visible, but I believe that it is far more dynamic than we understand.
Brent,
Actually Paul and Alan have not “pointed out a glaring inconsistency” here.
Remember history records the events and actions of people who either write themselves or others write of their actions and the events surrounding them.
Nothing was lost. There were those who practiced a biblical ecclesiology who have little written about them.
Also, Alan and I agree on much here. Frankly, I am pretty sure Paul and I agree on much of this also.
I think if we were in the same room (Alan, Paul and I have been) you would come to a different conclusion as to what is being said.
cb
Paul,
Notice I said;
“It can be argued Paul was baptized under the authority of a local church.”
“Argued” being the operative word here.
I will go out on a limb here with something I was taught. “The Book of Acts is not where we get a developed ecclesiology. The Book of Acts gives us a history of the church in its beginning and empowerment.”
“Out ecclesiology seems to crystalize in the Epistles.”
Now, I may be labeled a heretic for saying that. But, of course, that happens at least once a day in Blogtown:-)
cb
Alan,
“The church is people under the Lordship of Christ, not an institution.”
I agree with this statement in full if by “institution” you mean it is not an institution instituted by human action.
The church was instituted by Christ in perfect agreement of the Trinity.
The church is an institution of God.
cb
CB
I agree with your assessment in #110. Acts shows us a developing Ecclesiology.
cb says…
“Nothing was lost. There were those who practiced a biblical ecclesiology who have little written about them.”
What?! You’re advocating successionism? I didn’t know you guys existed anymore. Sorry if I’m late to the party and everybody already knew that was your position. Is that the position of most the BIM guys around here?
No Brent. I don’t believe Cb is meaning successionism. But I will let him answer that. I do not adhere to that or any other trail of blood senario. I do believe God always had a witness here, even during the height of the RCC, but I do not follow anything comparable to JM Carroll’s succession theory.
Brent,
I take it you are joking. I hope you are.
I have already typed “miles” of blog posts and comments that will prove I do not advocate a successive ecclesiology.
I asked Alan a question in #89.
“The authority for Baptism rests with Christ Himself and He instituted the local church to carry out His work here on earth. Therefore, the authority for Baptism rests with the local church. Someone has to receive or reject the candidate for Baptism here on earth and the local church has been mandated that accountability by Christ.”
He answered to the affirmative in #97.
“I do not disagree with what you said. Before every person is baptized in our church, I meet with them, hear their confession, correct them if needed, and accept them or reject them on the basis of their confession of faith and life before God. So, would you say that our practice lines up with what you are proscribing?”
We both agreed that much here is semantics.
If you have some bone to pick with me that is fine. Let me know what it is and we will dance.
You wrongly accused me last evening and now you do it again.
My comments have been consistent with the substance of the post. You attacked my participation in this comment thread in your comment #63.
I responded in #64. You did not have the courtesy to even answer the question I asked of you there. What is your problem? You can state it here or anywhere you please and we will deal with it.
cb
Alan (@ #108),
I agree wholeheartedly with everything you’ve said.
CB (@ #110),
You’re a heretic (just in case you haven’t met your daily quota). :D
CB and Robin (@ #110 & 112),
I’ve heard that before. I think I’ve probably taught others that before. If I haven’t I’m pretty sure I should have. I don’t have any problem whatsoever saying that what we find in Acts isn’t necessarily normative for the church. However, I would have a problem saying that if someone today were to do something that the church did in Acts we would be mistaken to call it “wrong” or and “invalid” practice, or “false.”
Thus, I can say with Alan that in the overwhelming majority of cases baptism will take place within the local church context, and should. But I will also not call Hubmaier’s baptism or Grebel’s baptism invalid simply because those baptisms were not authorized by a locally constituted church. In the same way I would not call the baptism of a soldier in Iraq invalid just because a Presbyterian chaplain performed the immersion. I would not call an Assembly of God immersion of a believer an invalid baptism because it didn’t pass a doctrinal test on Total Depravity (or Perseverance, or one’s millennial position, or one’s preferred form of church government or one’s view on the church/state relationship, etc.).
It seems impossible to escape the necessity for some sort of organic successionism of believer’s baptism authorized by a “true” church otherwise. At least B H Carroll was consistent on that point.
Whose version you follow isn’t really the issue. If you’re saying there have always been baptist/baptistic churches, isn’t that the essence of successionism?
At the point people want to start arguing that, then we know serious historical discussion has left the building. You’re just saying what you hope was the case, not what the evidence actually points to. It’s a blind leap of faith.
Brent,
I will simply say there is a whole lot of history you have not yet read.
I am sure you will, for you seem like a bright person.
The “Trail of Blood” was cast aside by me long ago. I never believed it. Yet, I have read it and much of its “kin folks.”
You speak wrongly here. But that is your choice to make.
cb
OK…JM Carroll…whichever Carroll that was.
[BTW, please let it be known that when I typed that last comment we were only at 112, so I missed all the ensuing discussion about successionism and I'm not charging anyone with being a successionist. I do, however, think it is a difficult position to escape if every baptism requires a proper administrator from a "true" church and that is why I say Carroll was consistent. I think he saw the necessity of that position (and then went and got creative with the historical record to bolster his point).]
cb, for some reason you think I have it out for you or something. Which is kind of funny, I haven’t really paid a whole lot of attention to what you’ve been saying on here. My comment last night was in jest, and I said I was kidding.
And tonight I wasn’t even talking in your direction until you mentioned something that sounds to me like you believe there have always been a continuous line of baptists throughout all church history. To quote:
“Remember history records the events and actions of people who either write themselves or others write of their actions and the events surrounding them.
Nothing was lost. There were those who practiced a biblical ecclesiology who have little written about them.”
There is a question mark, so its pretty clear I asked if you were advocating successionism; so its fine if you’re not. But that quote sure sounds that’s what you mean.
Don’t be so paranoid thinking I’m always directing my comments at you. Very few of them have been.
Brent,
I did not say there were always Baptist churches.
I am saying there were people who believed the New Testament.
For you to surmise that I am speaking of Baptist churches here is for you to make as shallow a judgement of me as you did John in comment #78 when you said:
“I just think you’ve lost connection with reality.”
John had not nor has not lost connection with reality. You just simply did not understand him based upon the foundation you have at the moment.
cb
cb, So then, you admit biblical baptism was lost?
(While I wait for cb’s response…)
If cb says ‘no’, then he’s advocating successsionism.
If cb says ‘yes’, then he knows that there had to be someone who was first to recover baptism, and since they were the first, they could not have baptized under the authority of a local church.
Something tells me I’m not going to get a straight answer out of him.
:)
Brent,
My comment was relating to you saying something was “lost.”
We only have the history we have as people have recorded it.
Also there are stories of some who did not write much who had trouble with the “wandering” away from Scripture of the church about a number of things.
That was the bases of my comment to Paul in #93
“It is my opinion Hubmaier rejected the entire ecclesiology of Catholicism. Therefore he rejected their position on Baptism by the rejection of the whole and not in part.”
There was an exchange between us after that. Obviously you did not read it. Had you, I don’t think you would have alluded to me holding a successionist view. Anyway. I hope you would not. For had you read my comments and still formed that opinion it would have said far more of you than of me.
Brent, I don’t “always think your comments are directed at me. That is foolish. I do think you are directing a comment at me when you use my name or quote me. That is all I have based my comments to you are founded upon.
It has nothing to do with being paranoid. It has to do with being able to read. Nothing more.
Now, I would like to get back to the post if we can. I hold no ill will toward you. Can you say the same?
If so, lets leave the Trail of Blood boys to Ben Stratton. He is the authority there:-)
cb
Brent,
I did not say Hubmaier was baptized under the authority of a local church.
You are drawing a conclusion based on something that does not exist.
Many of those fellows of that time were not even baptized. They were afraid to be baptized. They were seeking biblical truth.
I am saying it was not a time when all was well for guys who spoke against the established church.
Even Luther did not go as far in may things as he would have wanted.
Yet, we simply do not know what happened in all of human history relating to the hearts of men who saw wrong in the established church.
The church did not become corrupt overnight.
Men who were in the church as was Hubmaier began to question. We know his story. We do not know every person’s story. That is all I was and am saying.
I hope I have made my position clear.
cb
cb,
So then you’re admitting that there is sometimes a necessity to baptize in a manner that is not under the authority of a local church?
I guess cb’s gone to bed, as I am about to as well.
My point with the last question:
Once you admit that there are valid exceptions to local-church-authority-baptism (and there obviously are), then the whole idea of this post: ‘The Local Church as the Authority of Baptism’ has to be thrown out the window.
It may be that only in exceptional circumstances are we allowed to depart from it, but, as the saying goes, ‘now we’re just haggling over price.’
Brent,
I have not only known of baptisms happening without authority of a local church, I have baptized people without the authority of a local church.
I did not have a proper understanding of biblical ecclesiology.
Actually, that has been much of what I was saying and what, I think, Paul and Alan were speaking of when in exchange with me.
Hubmaier was at one time a Catholic Priest. He became convicted that Infant Baptism was not biblical. (I think I have the story right. If not, I am not trying to make this up. I don’t read this stuff every day)
He began to question people. He got into trouble. His ecclesiology was forged in fire. (literally, I think. His wife was hanged or drowned for having the same convictions maybe)
Many people died seeking a biblical ecclesiology. I believe we as Baptists have as close a biblical ecclesiology as is humanly possible.
If that is not the case, we need to all join the ranks of Hubmaier and seek one. For we must strive to obey Christ in all things. The New Testament is our only legitimate guide.
It is my conviction the NT teaches what I believe. I also believe most Baptists believe the same as do I about this matter.
If I ever come to the place I understand them not to have a biblical ecclesiology I will leave them to themselves and seek the truth and try to practice it.
I do not have to be a Southern Baptist.
I do not have to be a Baptist.
I must be faithful to Christ.
He is the ultimate authority in all faith and practice.
That is where I have come in my journey. I think my history will justify me making such a statement.
BTW, if you feel I was late or hesitant in answering you; I was also helping one of my boys with a paper on Jay’s Treaty and trying to keep that simple enough for 10th grade:-)
cb
Brent,
What is your position on paedobaptism?
I did not admit there are valid exceptions. I do admit understanding of that which is valid is sometimes lacking.
I also believe we have no valid reason to be lacking anymore regarding Baptism.
That is what I believe. If I come to a place I no longer believe that to be true, I will resign my ministry assignment and no longer call myself a Baptist.
If I do not I have no integrity or honor. And I was taught honor long before I came to faith.
I think that is what gets me in so much trouble as a Southern Baptist:-)
cb
Brent,
Relating to comment #23.
Maybe you were joking and I hope so.
But, I will declare this in case you are not.
You cannot find one person who has been reading Baptist blogs in the last three years who can, with truthfulness, say I have not responded with a straight answer about any serious matter placed before me.
Honesty counts and I seek to have it in all things without regard to its consequences. Baptist history has and will record that also.
I trust you sleep well.
cb
That should be #123.
Sorry.
cb
John Mann and SBC TODAY guys,
I am sorry that my presence here has messed up a good post and comment thread.
I apologize to you.
John,
The post is good. I would have questioned a few things, but I think Alan covered that of which concerned me. It was actually minor. In general I believe this post to be what most Baptists have and do believe in general. Joe T. Odle wrote something very similar over 35 years ago.
Robin,
I actually believe my challenging Wade Burleson on some things on his and other blogs creates tension when I comment anywhere now with some people.
If that is the case, then so be it. You guys can delete me again:-)
cb
Brother cb,
I still like your contributions to these posts (some guys are just bullies to redheads).
The authority to baptize is given to the church.
Its just,…some folks see the church as simply their small group of familiar souls where baptism (immersion) is legislated and they find the church becoming increasingly invisible or universal the further they wonder from home. Others and even some of the former see the church as all believers that Christ has in His body, obedient to making disciples and baptizing, while recognizing order at the local level. Both are right more or less,…the former group is less biblical only from the standpoint of legislating baptism….the later group is more biblical following the pattern set before us in the book of Acts and the Epistles.
Biblical baptism (immersion) has never been a matter of legislation; it has always been a matter of obedience and is done in order.
I have been in the Baptist camp for more than 38 years. If legislating baptism (and its definition) was truly effective, the rolls of the churches would equal the participation in worship on every Lord’s Day. Sadly, this is just not the case. Baptist’s do need a real return to biblical doctrine and order at the local level. Baptism is not the heart of the problem,…the heart of the problem is the heart of the Shepherds and the preaching of the gospel.
Certainly,..the lack of concern does not come from the men blogging here, but the solution is not in legislating baptism (I know that for a fact)… it “is” in knowing, loving and feeding the flock that Christ has provided to you. What would also work well… would be to call up your local Pastors in and around your city, begin meeting and praying together at least once a week, and pray that God would teach you to preach the gospel and love your people with Christ. Some of you probably already do this…keep it up!
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
For the sake of clarification, I am not aware of anyone seeking to necessarily “legislate” baptism assuming you mean “legislate” as I am thinking of it.
If we didnt have a legitimate Church around to baptise people today, then we’d have to start one. Like the Reformers and Hubmaier, maybe they had to do what they did, because there was no legitimate Church around…that they knew of…to give them true baptism.
Like, if CB and I lived in an island country, grew up there, and all that country had was Roman Catholicism. And then, CB and I got saved from just reading the Bible. So, we decided to baptise each other….to give each other a true baptism…according to the Bible’s teachings. Then, we’d have to do that in order to start a new Church. I’d be the Pastor, and CB would be the Asst. Pastor in charge of the SR. Adults. :)
But, the baptisms would be valid; would they not? I mean, in an extreme situation like that, then we’d have to start a Church…a true Church. Thus, what’s the problem with what the reformers and the anabaptists did? in relation to what John Mann is saying? in relation to a baptism needing to come from a true Church?
Brent is saying that if Hubmaier and others were not baptised by the authority of a Church, then the whole “‘The Local Church as the Authority of Baptism” arguement has to be thrown out the window? Why? Why would it have to be thrown out the window? In fact, it seems to me that that only strengthens the arguement of a true Church having the authority to baptise. There was no true Church around, so they began to baptise…scripturally baptise….and start a Church… a true Church.
Of course, Hubmaier and sixty others were baptised by Reublin. So, maybe Hubmaier’s not the best example of what I’m trying to say, but I think that yall get the picture.
David
Also, I understand what Paul is saying to a degree. What doctrines would we say are essential for saying that a person was baptised by a legitimate Church and has a legitimate baptism? What doctrines are crucial to say that a person who was baptised by immersion on thier profession of faith has a legitimate baptism?
I’d like to hear the answer to that one.
David
I don’t have a problem saying that the church is “an” authority for baptism – even the primary authority for baptism. I think the island scenario David mentions, along with the stories of the Anabaptists, are some tremendous examples of valid baptisms that are performed apart from the authority of a local church. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the church hasn’t been invested with authority to baptize, it simply means a locally constituted church is not the only authority for a proper and valid baptism. It is certainly what is to be preferred and in the vast majority of cases I’m familiar with it is the normal practice. It simply isn’t the only valid practice.
As to the question, I believe what the Anabaptists were saying is that what is required is a credible profession of faith in Christ. Period.
Brother John,
I agree that the men on this blog (there could be a few exceptions) would not necessarily say it is legislating either.
But history is clear,… baptism is probably the poster child for attempts in legislation.
I have always opined, that when baptism is presented clearly to those that are confessing Christ, the response is like the 3000 souls added to the Body of Christ as we see in Acts,…or it is like the response of the Eunuch, or the prisoner, or the families that heard the Word, believed and were baptized. In all the cases of scripture there is obedience to the command because of clear teaching (discipleship). The bible speaks of no person or persons that have ever legislated the inclusion of someone into the body of Christ at the local level through baptism. Those that believed were simply baptized.
I had pastors for years use Acts 2:41 as their proof text for the Lord adding people to his church by water baptism. Those pastors simply put more words into the text than exist and their proof text quickly becomes a pretext for aberrant doctrine.
Acts 2:41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls. (NASB)
Many pastors teach it like this:
Acts 2:41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls to the local church at Jerusalem. (not scripture)
Clear teaching concerning the gospel of God, being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, and the receiving of Holy Spirit is critical for the maturing of the local church and we see this in the brief account of the local ecclesia, “The Church at Solomon’s Portico (That’s one church name you don’t see everyday), which was finally announced as such in Acts 5 by the Apostle …. At least by Acts 5 it appears that Luke finds it important to begin showing the importance of the local order of the church, which was certainly beginning to occur and organize all over the region as the Pentecost feast wound down and those that confessed Christ returned to their homes.
That must have been quite challenging… trying to organize that bunch of predominately Jewish converts and fighting the religious authority all at the same time. Our churches probably look like a walk in the park compared to that….unless they have become the religious authority.
Blessings,
Chris
Regardless of whether or not there was a “true church” during the time of Hubmaier, et al is not the issue (I am conceding the point only for the sake of argument). The issue is whether or not a proper and Biblical baptism is being performed today. Assuming, for the sake of argument, there was no true local church present at the baptism of some of the Anabaptists, it is irrelevant to the point at hand. To point to the “errors of Hubmaier” (as I myself did in footnote 3) as invalidating the totality of Hubmaier’s ecclesiology is akin to casting out Calvin for his supporting of the execution of Servetus. In other words, the failures and weaknesses of history is no justification for our failure to deal with the issues of the present. If baptism is best performed under the authority of the local church (as I think most have agreed) then it seems to be something worth moving towards.
John,
Your last comment is a great one. I also agree with what Chris said in part of his comment before you:
“when baptism is presented clearly to those that are confessing Christ, the response is like the 3000 souls added to the Body of Christ as we see in Acts,…or it is like the response of the Eunuch, or the prisoner, or the families that heard the Word, believed and were baptized.”
Which is why I have yet to understand how anyone could resist the importance the church having the authority (accountability would be another word)? When presented correctly – people get it and follow through with it.
Paul (#137) hits the nail on the head with this one:
“I don’t have a problem saying that the church is ‘an’ authority for baptism – even the primary authority for baptism.”
John,
Apparently you do see the relevance of Hubmaier because you are the one who brought him into the conversation. We are also not debating every aspect of Hubmaier’s theology (as in your Calvin example), but his theology and practice of believer’s baptism, which, again, is relevant. We are not attacking Hubmaier’s ecclesiology. We are pointing out that Hubmaier himself would not have a valid baptism according to the tenets of your paper. You know, the paper in which you appeal to Hubmaier, the paper linked to in this post which carries the title “The Local Church as the Authority for Baptism.”
In fact, in my very first comment here I indicated that there is much to agree with, and that is still true. There are also some things with which I disagree and I am simply trying to play on the field that you set – the historical field of the Anabaptists and Balthasar Hubmaier. Thus, I don’t quite understand the statement, “The issue is whether or not a proper and Biblical baptism is being performed today.” Well, of course that is what we are all after. To build your case, however, you appeal to history and Hubmaier. I hope you do not think we are somehow getting off topic when we appeal to that same history in an attempt to demonstrate that it doesn’t appear that that history is saying what you have said here that it is saying.
Tim G,
From where I sit my problem isn’t with the local church having authority to baptize, per se. What I do want, however, is to allow room in this discussion for the validity of the baptism of others who do not meet the strict requirement that their baptism took place under the authority of a local church. I want to allow room to say that Hubmaier’s baptism wasn’t invalid because it wasn’t performed under the authority of a local church. I want to allow room to say that the Apostle Paul’s baptism wasn’t invalid because it wasn’t performed under the authority of a local church. I want to say the same for the Ethiopian eunuch and the 3000 at Pentecost. And I want to be able to say those things without reading my own theology back into the text and create a scenario we aren’t told about where the church of Jerusalem (which really didn’t yet exist on the day of Pentecost) was the local church authority, or where some unnamed church in Damascus served as the authority for Paul’s baptism, etc. Those texts speak of no local church authority but they speak clearly about baptism. I want to allow them to speak as they are, not with my marginal notes added.
John Mann,
One more and then I’ll give it a rest. If whether or not there was a true church for Hubmaier is irrelevant then I am mystified as to why I find these two quotes in your paper:
[Summarizing Hubmaier]: “Moreover, where there was a false practice of baptism, it could be said there was a false church.”
and,
[Summarizing Hubmaier again]: “the failure to maintain a true doctrine of baptism is not only to disobey the word of God, but is also to establish a false church and create a false Christ.”
Now, you make those statements in the section titled “The Local Church as the Authority of Baptism.” If that is irrelevant then why did you use those as a basis for your argument? If it was relevant to support your thesis then it is certainly relevant to challenge your thesis, right?
Paul,
The issue is not “who was the authority of baptism when Hubmaier was baptized?” The issue is “was Hubmaier’s writings about baptism correct?” Where I want to argue the propositional truths of Hubmaier’s writings, you want to debate the perception of meaning behind the event. One is static, the other fluid, and therefore incompatible.
In other words, I take Hubmaier’s words for what he said over and against my perception of what he did.
John,
So, are you saying that what Hubmaier practiced is irrelevant to what he believed? In other words, “Do as I say, not as I do?”
By the way, I don’t think what Hubmaier believed was static at all. If it were he would have remained a Catholic. He would have also stuck with pouring (which was the mode of his own baptism) rather than soon advocating immersion.
I will say this, though, if all we’re talking about is words and how we live those things out (or how others lived them out in the past) is irrelevant then I’ve wasted my time here, and so have you. But I don’t think that what you mean at all, since what you are advocating is not just a correct understanding of baptism, but a correct practice of it as well. This is why Hubmaier’s practice is still relevant. For the same reason yours and mine is still relevant. It speaks to what we believe. Also, what he did is more than perception. I’m simply reading the history, not giving you my impressions of it.
Having re-read your section on “The Local Church as the Authority of Baptism” my impression is that you should retitle that section. The content doesn’t argue that point at all. What you argue is that the proper practice of the ordinances is evidence of a true church, not that a true church is the only authority for properly administering the ordinances. I don’t think you proved the point of your heading because I don’t even think you tried. I’m not knocking you on that. I would never argue that the church (Catholic, Protestant, Anabaptist, etc.) has never viewed a proper view and practice of the ordinances as being a sign of a true church. I think that point is beyond refutation and you certainly articulated it well in that section.
Paul,
If confusion remains, there is only one of three reasons: My inability to articulate, your inability to understand, or meaning being arrested from the author and given to the reader. Either way, I will allow the paper to stand on its own, for good or ill.
The authority to perform baptisms should reside in the local church, as I am proposing, for the purposes of proclaiming an accurate gospel, initiating one into the local church, and identifying one with Christ. I can do not better than that.
John,
If I’m misunderstanding your words then I apologize. I can assure you I am only trying to deal with the words you have written. I’m not trying to make you say something you’re not.
Thanks for a great discussion!
Paul,
Do you think that a baptism is valid where a mother baptises her child in the backyard swimming pool right after leading that child to the Lord? with only his brothers and sisters in attendance?
Do you believe that if Bubba and Leroy are out fishing on Reelfoot Lake, and Bubba leads Leroy to the Lord; then Bubba should baptise Leroy right there…on the spot? Would that be a valid baptism to you? to your Church?
David
Paul,
On this we agree:
“By the way, I don’t think what Hubmaier believed was static at all. If it were he would have remained a Catholic. He would have also stuck with pouring (which was the mode of his own baptism) rather than soon advocating immersion.”
Actually that has to be the case with most all the “step-child” reformers.
This was my point last evening. Those guys had to work on the run very often.
If they had gotten to do as Luther and Calvin, maybe we would be able to read the conclusion of their “run, hide and write for a proper ecclesiology.”
I also agree with John in his statement:
“If baptism is best performed under the authority of the local church (as I think most have agreed) then it seems to be something worth moving towards.”
I actually believe Baptists have moved toward that. As a matter of fact, I believe we have been parked there for a long time.
I mentioned Joe T. Odle having written very similar to what John has written over thirty-five years ago.
Even as far back as 1948 Georges Florvsky said: “….the church had hardly passed its pretheological phase.”
A solid ecclesiology has been a long time in the forging. Some of that was literally by fire if we consider Hubmaier’s death among others.
I do think we, as Baptists, have an ecclesiology as close to the biblical model as possible.
John has used the “pioneers” of a biblical ecclesiology to make his point (I think it is a good one) about our ecclesiology as Baptists.
John’s position is not a new idea for Baptists. These are not new ideas he is presenting. They have been around for a long time.
Of course John cannot engage me in dialogue here. He might be roasted as was Hubmaier if he does.
:-)
cb
David,
I’m not exactly sure how to give an answer to the specific scenarios you mention. Are those things happening? If they are I’m not hearing about them in any of our Baptist churches in Oklahoma, and to be honest I’d rather address real-life situations rather than very rare or never-occurring situations that have been made up to stretch the limits of what we’re reasonably talking about here.
Let me just say this, and hopefully it will address something of what you’ve described here. Hubmaier and for that matter the early Baptists in England were not baptized apart from a local church body because they simply thought it was a “neat thing to do.” No, they did so because there was no local church practicing what they believed to be New Testament baptism. Perhaps that somewhat addresses the mother who baptizes her daughter in the swimming pool. Why would she not practice baptism in the context of her local church? [I'm not really asking you to answer that as I can invent a number of reasonable and many unreasonable scenarios on my own.] The point is the primary reason sounds like it might be simply because it would be a neat family remembrance. But baptism isn’t about creating neat family remembrances.
Now Bubba and Leroy are both adults, but again, my question would be why does Bubba want to baptize Leroy in Reelfoot lake? What do they have against the church? Anything? Are they practicing baptism in that lake right then and there because they don’t believe in the baptism in the local church? Is it a protest (similar to the Anabaptists)? Can they find no credible (“true”) church for baptism? Both being adults I would tend to think that the reason would have less to do with creating a “neat” experience and more to do with Leroy saying, “Bubba, I must be obedient to Christ and I must be obedient to him right here and now! As soon as Sunday rolls around I will join one of his churches, but as for baptism I cannot leave these waters having come to faith in Christ and not be obedient to be baptized.”
Now, that sounds more like someone who understands the nature of baptism to me. He understands identification with a local church, though he doesn’t confuse baptism with that identification. He understands baptism as identification with Christ and he’s ready to “get it on,” so to speak.
Now, if they’re just intent on forming the church of Bubba and Leroy then I’d have some other questions. But you asked if my church would recognize that baptism, so I’m assuming that Bubba is already a member and Leroy is wanting to become one. In that case I’d just have to sit down with Bubba and Leroy and we’d talk things out. When they come to talk to me about that I’ll be sure and let you know how it turns out.
CB,
I’m not disputing the point you’ve been making. I do know, however, that Hubmaier and his Anabaptist brethren (pun intended) came to a position of immersion soon after their own baptisms by pouring. I have yet to find the source, however, that tells me that once they did they declared their previous baptism (as believers) invalid and submitted to immersion. Perhaps I haven’t read enough. If they did not, however, then it appears that they did not allow the mode to determine baptism’s validity. Neither did they constitute a local church and then submit to baptism again to make sure it was valid. I think, had they believed such was necessary, there was nothing in the circumstances of the day to prevent it.
But maybe they were just wrong about the need for local church authority for valid baptism. I’m just saying that if they were then I would have expected John’s paper to say so rather than to quote them approvingly as if they were right. I’ve admitted that I may be reading him wrong, but it seems to me, as I read the paper, that they are being used to support his thesis, not to undermine it.
Paul,
I’d like to hear how that conversation goes.
Also, I’d say that the two scenarios should work out in a Church baptising the new converts…a true Church. If there were no true Churches around, then I’d have no problem with them baptising to start one.
CB,
Did you read my comment in #136? I didnt want you to miss it.
David
Paul,
I confess I have never read they renounced the “pouring” either. (of course, I have not read every source or even 1/2 of 1/2)
Could it be though, since their basic issue was related to Believer’s Baptism verses Infant Baptism they did not see the issue of immersion as do we at this time?
cb
Vol,
I just read it.
I will be glad to be the assistant.
Therefore, it is your problem to deal with all the new converts when they complain about the fee we charge for membership dues upon being baptized.
My job will be just to “hold the purse” as they say.
:-)
cb
CB,
:)
David
Oh, great. Now David and CB are talking about starting a Catholic church. ;)
CB
To the contrary, if I am ever in danger of being roasted, I will send a couple of men to personally escort you to the party :)
Paul,
I have never been to the Vatican in Rome, just the one in Nashville.
But they tell me the Vatican Bank has more gold in it than the one in Nashville.
Therefore, if it were simply a choice based on finances alone, weell……you know…”
:-)
cb
John,
I will bring a fire truck and save you. For your posts have value in lengthy comment threads on a rainy day in Birmingham.
:-)
cb