Dave Miller wrote a post last week, published at sbcIMPACT, asking questions about the proper approach to baptizing children who have made a profession of faith. Much of his post focuses on his own approach to the question, and in this post of nearly 2,300 words, the word “church” appears twelve times. About half of these occurrences comes in legitimate criticism of the practice of another church, or when Dave is describing the actions of the apostles and others in the church in Acts with regard to baptism. The other half comes in this paragraph:
There is little or no evidence of church oversight of the process of baptism in the early church. This is not germane to my topic and runs the risk of diverting the discussion from the subject of children’s baptism. But [I] see no place in which a baptism was put through the mechanism of a local church before it was performed. Philip did not consult the Jerusalem church when he baptized the Samaritans. Peter probably knew that the baptism of Gentiles would create problems among the apostles, but he did not stop to seek consent before he baptized Cornelius. The evidence seems to lead us to an immediate baptism upon profession of faith. I am not against church supervision of the process, but wonder where the biblical support for that idea is.
What troubles me about this post is not necessarily the conclusion at which Dave arrives. I am personally inclined to agree that baptism should follow as closely as possible after someone makes a credible profession of faith. But I am stunned by his apparent lack of recognition of the authority of Christ given to the church in the Great Commission as it relates to baptism. Baptism, as is well described by the Baptist Faith and Message, is an ordinance of Christ and an ordinance of the church. That is, it is a command of Christ, given by our Lord to His church to administer. What this means is that these questions, while they make for interesting debate and discussion, cannot ultimately be answered by any one of us. They must be answered by the body of Christ, gathered in His name, and speaking with His authority. If we’re going to have a Great Commission Resurgence, there must first be a clear understanding of the responsibilities given to the church in the Great Commission.
Dave makes it clear in his post (in the paragraph I quoted above) that he doesn’t want to get sidetracked in the comments on this post by a discussion of the church’s role, claiming that what he wants to discuss is the appropriate age for baptism. But an understanding of the proper role of the church in baptism will lead us to realize that this isn’t a question that can be answered in a comment thread; you need a church to answer it. As the church speaks with the authority of Christ, it is up to the church to determine whether a child is a valid candidate for baptism.
I am convinced that, like so many of the challenges we face, this is a result of an inordinate emphasis on individualism. Because our society so values individual identity, we let that seep into our understanding of the Bible. We read passages that were intended to apply to the church as though they were intended for us as individuals.
As an example, think about 1 Corinthians 3:16, which says, “Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?” (ESV) How many times have you been taught, or taught yourself, that this is a reference to the indwelling of the Spirit in the believer, and it is an admonition to take care of our bodies? While that is a true and biblical principle, it is not what is being taught by the Spirit-inspired apostle in this verse. Both occurrences of “you” in this verse are in the plural, and this verse is addressed, like all of 1 Corinthians, to “the church of God that is in Corinth.” (1:2)
We must come to the place where we recognize the damage this individualistic focus is doing to the life of our churches. It permeates our thinking, and unless we recognize it and actively combat it, it will continue to harm our understanding, about baptism and so many other areas of the life of the church. Though Dave only manages to squeeze 12 mentions of the word “church” into his nearly 2,300-word post, I could not help but notice the prevalence of self-references:
“I” 43 times
“me” 13 times
“my” 11 times
We hear a great deal today about ordering the relative importance of doctrines. My concern is that if we fail to address this unhealthy emphasis on individualism that has seeped into our views of the church, ecclesiology will be the latest doctrine tossed into the category of “non-essentials.”
You quote Dave as saying: “Peter probably knew that the baptism of Gentiles would create problems among the apostles, but he did not stop to seek consent before he baptized Cornelius.”
I beg to differ with that statement. If there ever was an indiviual who would have the right to determine the appropriateness of Baptism, it was Peter. Even as an apostle and as the undisputed leader of the early church he DID “stop to seek consent before he baptized Cornelius.”
“Then answered Peter, ‘Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?’” Acts 10:46,47
Wes: Paul spent almost the entirety of his ministry trying to rid the church of the many prejudices that existed. The Jews did not want Gentiles to become Christians. There was also a great prejudiceness against Samaritans, tax collectors etc. These were the prejudices that Christ sought to erase, which is why he conducted his ministry as he did. In many cases the church at the time of the first century would have objected to many who were baptized.
Wes’ post here does not deal substantively with the arguments I made at SBC Impact, but deals with my perspective and character. I could defend the ideas that I put forward, but it is not for me to defend myself against the charge of being self-absorbed. I can only ask the reader to go to SBC Impact, read the article and see if Wes’ criticism is fair. It was my intent to start a discussion of a very difficult issue. I would only ask you to make up your own minds if I was somehow self-glorifying, as Wes insinuates. That was not my intent. You will have to make that call.
I can only wish that Wes had dealt with the content of my article, not engaging in some of sort of textual psychoanalysis.
1) As to all the “I” “me” and “my” statements – there was a reason for that. I was giving a personal testimony of a struggle with a difficult issue. Is it appropriate to baptize a young child? I dealt expositionally with 8 passages of scripture and talked about the meaning and purpose of baptism extensively. But I related my experiences and struggles. I gave my opinions (thus, the personal pronouns).
My goal was to foster discussion, to let people with different opinions interact. I wanted people to read my opinions on a difficult issue without acting as if I thought I was the fount of all truth. I stated my opinions and my struggles. Wes reads an unhealthy individualistic, self-absorption into this.
Wes, how do you state a personal testimony without using personal pronouns?
2) You quoted me, “There is little or no evidence of church oversight of the process of baptism in the early church. This is not germane to my topic and runs the risk of diverting the discussion from the subject of children’s baptism. But I see no place in which a baptism was put through the mechanism of a local church before it was performed. Philip did not consult the Jerusalem church when he baptized the Samaritans. Peter probably knew that the baptism of Gentiles would create problems among the apostles, but he did not stop to seek consent before he baptized Cornelius. The evidence seems to lead us to an immediate baptism upon profession of faith. I am not against church supervision of the process, but wonder where the biblical support for that idea is.”
I stand by that statement. In EVERY instance of baptism in Acts, a person was baptized immediately following their conversion. There was not a single instance in which a church exercised authority over the process of baptism in the book of Acts. Conversion was followed immediately by baptism. There was no vetting process, no discipleship or indoctrination classes – just get saved, get baptized.
I would love to see you interact with that. You say that baptism is fully under church authority, right? Why is it, then, in eight out of eight examples in the book of Acts, there is absolutely no evidence of church oversight of this process. When someone got saved, they got baptized. There is no evidence that they went to the elders to get permission or anything like that.
I would love to hear an explanation for that anomaly.
3) I actually agree that we, as Americans, are too individualistic and need to see the importance of the Body of Christ. But salvation remains an individual decision, does it not? I’m not sure what you are advocating here, Wes, but we still believe that salvation is an individual response to Christ, I assume. We are not saved through the church, but through Christ. I would argue that baptism is (biblically) into Christ first, into the Body of Christ (which seems clearly to me in the NT to refer to that one Body).
I would just ask you to show me one scripture that says that baptism is primarily (or perhaps even secondarily) into a local church body. We are baptized into Christ and his church. It is fine that local churches have set baptism as a requirement for membership – a biblical derivation.
These are the issues we will have to settle as we go forward. I do not begrudge you your view of local church oversight and authority over baptism. I continue to believe your view not biblical, but it is an issue about which we can agree to disagree – or at least I hope so.
Matthew,
Very good point.
Wes,
It seems that in our time we have forgotten that Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her (Eph. 5:25). We need a renewed emphasis on personal responsibility and corporate accountability in our lives.
Sola Gratia!
Matthew, Peter operated completely on his own. He did not consult the apostles of the church in Jerusalem. He just baptized the Gentiles.
Peter was not the first pope (at least that is not what we believe). He did not have sole authority to make decisions for the church. That would certainly not be in line with a congregational view of church polity.
Notice that when this issue reached full fruition, a Council was called (Acts 15) to deal with the issues. Peter acted alone, apart from the authority of the “church”. He even went back and defended his action to the church later in this same episode.
But the significant thing is that he baptized first, then defended his action and got the approval of the church second.
Dave,
I agree with you that Peter was no Pope. The fact that he DID consult the gathered believers before baptizing Cornelius ought to give pause to the Roman Catholic view.
You are absolutely correct that he did not have sole authority to make decisions for the church. No man does. I think that goes right along with the point of Wes’ post.
My point was that the text does not affirm your position that “Peter acted alone.” Indeed, he turned to the gathered disciples and asked for their approval in Baptizing Cornelius. You can debate whether they were acting as representatives of the Jerusalem church or just as the group of believers who were gathered there at Cornelius’ residence, but Peter absolutely did not act alone.
Scott: I believe the word church in the verse you quoted to be speaking of the universal church aka every born again Christian past, present and future from every tribe, nation, tongue. Not the local church.
Matthew, you make a good point. However, it seems to me to be a little bit of an exegetical leap.
Peter was shocked that Gentiles had received the gospel (isn’t that the whole point of the vision God gave him). What he was doing was not having an impromptu business meeting to approve the baptisms, but making an observation that Gentiles had given evidence of salvation and now needed to be baptized.
I suspect this is one that we will view through the prism of our larger viewpoints on baptism.
Brother Dave,
I will allow Brother Wes to defend himself as to his analysis of your article. I do have some concern as to the direction you take for the basis of your argument.
You defend your article with the main defense of the baptism of Cornelius and the Ethiopian eunuch. However, your defense takes a look back at the first century church through eyes of the 21st century church. If the church began with the first century Christians, something I believe you would agree, then Peter would be operating under apostolic authority. Here is the place, I believe your argument breaks down. If you are a cessassionist then you would agree that the apostolic gifts and thus authority has ceased. Thus, Peter would be in full right to baptise without any church directive. However, you note that Peter went back and defended his actions with the Jewish Christians–those part of the church–so his actions were accountable to the 1st Century church. If you are a continualist then you would say the gifts, not authority, of the Apostle is extended today to Missionaries. (I truly do not know how one can say the gift of Apostle is evident today but the authority of the apostle has ceased, but that is another argument for another day.) I think you would also agree that a missionary is sent out by a church. Thus, the church sending the missionary out is the church the missionary is accountable, and under that accountability the missionary is free to baptize because they are trying to begin a church. If you hold to Phillip baptizing the Ethiopian eunuch as evidence that any person can baptize any other person anytime one desires, then I would respond with one statement. The next time that takes place and the Spirit of God miraculously transports the baptizer from that place to another region, I will affirm that baptism.
Blessings,
Tim
In reading both articles, I am struck by the different presuppositions in each. Dave’s presupposition is that when one is baptized, they are baptized into Christ. Wes’s is that a person is baptized into the church. If the former, one needs no “authority” to do the baptism other than Christ’s as given in the Scriptures, plus of course the consent of the candidate. With the later, the church’s authority is required, whether given congregationally on an candidate-by-candidate basis or through some leader in whom the apropriate authority is vested, viz., Peter. But because they start with different presuppositions, Dave and Wes come to very different conclusions based on the same evidence (or lack thereof).
Since neither has any flawed logic or exegesis, the question becomes, “Whose presupposition is correct (assuming either is correct)?” I have to much to do today to pull out references and exegete the passages, but perhaps someone else does. Without dealing with the presuppositions, the arguments are just going to go around and around in circles.
My presupposition, like Dave’s, is that people are baptized into Christ. My opinion and a couple of bucks will get you a cup of coffee at most fast food joints.
John
Dave,
First of all, I need to apologize. I did not intend for this post to come across as a criticism of your character, as you mention in your first comment. It is a criticism of the perspective from which you wrote your post, but that perspective is not unique to you; it is something against which we must all be on guard.
I also did not intend to insinuate that you were “self-glorifying,” although that has often been my experience with Yankee fans (paging Mr. Gordon; Mr. Scott Gordon). :-)
Really, my point is that you have taken a difficult question (at what age ought children be baptized), and asked it in a way in which it is impossible to be answered. My point in referencing your post is that you may have an opinion, and I may have an opinion, but neither of those opinions is able to answer the question. Only the local church can answer the question, and to speculate on it as individuals only feeds our individualistic tendencies.
As to the baptisms in Acts, I think that it is not entirely wise to form an entire theology of baptism based only upon them. With one exception, they were all performed by apostles, who, along with the prophets, are the very foundation of the church. In the one exception, Philip’s baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch, there was a very specific missionary purpose to that event. We don’t know that Philip, identified as an evangelist, did not report to the church at his first opportunity, and in any case, to make our points from that episode, we’re both forced to argue from silence on some point. And after the baptism, Philip was carried away by the Spirit of the Lord. I don’t know about you, but that hasn’t yet happened to me following a baptism.
The point is that I think these accounts of baptisms by the apostles (and Philip) are simply descriptive of the events of the early church (long title: The Acts of the Apostles). But as I said in my post, we tend to read the Bible today as if it is all intended to instruct us as individuals, and when we do, we tend then to detach the act of baptism from the authority of the church. I think a theology of baptism that is built upon Christ’s clear instruction in the Great Commission and elsewhere in the gospels will serve to keep us from this error, and this is the point I wrote my post to make.
John,
I also believe that a person is baptized into Christ, and that baptism makes them fit candidates for church membership. Where have I said that a person is baptized “into the church”? I believe no such thing. I do, however, believe that in order for a baptism to be valid, a local church must have heard and examined a person’s profession of faith, because the authority to baptize is not given to individuals, but to the church.
Wes, you said, “I do, however, believe that in order for a baptism to be valid, a local church must have heard and examined a person’s profession of faith, because the authority to baptize is not given to individuals, but to the church.”
I wonder if you could reference scriptures that support that statement.
That was the whole point of my post. We have eight examples in Acts. Those eight are unanimous. There is NO evidence I can see of a church ever examining a person’s profession or exercising the authority you mention. In every example, baptism followed immediately without the intervention or oversight of the church.
Church authority seems to follow, not preceed baptism.
It would seem to me that if you are presenting a scenario that is contradictory to the clear pattern of the book of Acts, you might want to demonstrate a biblical reason to vary from that pattern.
Dave,
In seven out of the eight examples you mentioned, the one performing the baptism could answer “Yes” to all of the above. And anyone I meet today who can answer likewise, I will agree has the authority to act as they did. But I don’t.
The Great Commission is where we find Christ most directly commanding his followers to baptize. Reading complementary accounts of our Lord’s final instructions, we find that they were not told immediately to begin the work of disciple-making, baptizing, teaching, etc., but were told to remain in Jerusalem, waiting for “the promise of the Father.” It was after Peter’s sermon that the church began to work, under the leadership of the apostles and the authority of Christ, to carry out the Great Commission.
All of the commands contained within the Great Commission are to be carried out by believers under the authority of, and with accountability to, the local church. Jesus declares “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” To suggest that a believer can obey the Great Commission by baptizing without relationship to a local church is to separate the head, the source of authority, from the body. It doesn’t work.
Bringing in some of the thoughts of “older” Baptists might be good here:
“Who is a Lawful Minister of Baptism? Where you may observe that the persons bid to go are Disciples enabled to teach the doctrine of the Gospel for the conversion of souls to faith, and repentance. For it is clear That they who are bid to teach are bid to baptize also. So from this Commission I gather that a disciple enabled to bring down God to a soul, and to bring a soul again up to God, is a lawful Minister of Baptism. For that is the tenor of the New Covenant, Heb. 8:10. ‘I will be to them a God, and they shalt be to me a people; and I am my beloved’s and my beloved is mine,’ Canticles 6:3″ [The Doctrine of Baptism And the Distinction of the COVENANTS by Thomas Patient--1654]
“XLI THE person designed by Christ to dispense baptism, the Scripture holds forth to be a disciple; it being no where tied to a particular church officer, or person extraordinarily sent the commission enjoining the administration, being given to them as considered disciples, being men able to preach the gospel.” [The First London Confession, 1646]
“To identify with Christ is to identify with his people. Our union with Christ also brings union with his body, the church. A believer cannot be united with the Head of the body without simultaneaously being united with the body.” R. Stanton Norman, “The Baptist Way, p134.
For the argument to simply concern the act of the ordinance is shortsighted. It is an ecclesiological debate. We do not baptize parallel with the church, we baptize because of the church.
Wes, thanks for the response. I don’t disagree that the Great Commission is an assignment local church. However, I guess I don’t see the implimentation of authority and oversight in that command that you see – that it puts baptism completely in the hands of the local church.
I would see the GC as a command for the universal church, not specifically or exclusively for the local church. We get back to that in about every ecclesiological discussion, don’t we?
We do indeed, Dave, and I’m convinced it is foundational to so many of the challenges and disagreements we face in our convention. It seems to me that this appeal to the “universal church” as something novel in the broad scope of church history. I know I sound like a broken record here, but I think it is largely a product of the seepage of American individualism into our thinking about theology. The reason you don’t see historic theologians arguing the authority of the church to administer baptism is that it was never questioned until recently.
This is as good an excuse as any to share again my favorite story from R.G. Lee. A woman approached him before a service to tell him she wished to sing a solo. When Dr. Lee inquired about her church membership, she replied that she was a member of the universal church, and not any local congregation.
“Well, Madam,” replied Dr. Lee, “I suggest you go sing for them.”
My problem, Wes, and with this I am checking out on this discussion – which I have enjoyed – I am afraid that many of traditions are based on history more than they are on scripture.
I don’t want to downplay history, or be disrespectful to pioneers in the Baptist movement, but the whole Baptist movement is based on accepting scriptural evidence over many centuries of historical practice.
Scripture speaks clearly (to me, at least) that Baptism is by immersion after salvation. It is a symbol of salvation, not a saving act itself.
The other elements of the BI view (defined in Dr. White’s paper), espeically the emphasis on the administrator of baptism, fail to find support from the sacred text.
With that, I will wish you a good day. May the Yankees win and Boston lose!
I agree that scripture speaks clearly about baptism being my immersion after salvation, and that it doesn’t itself effect salvation. I also believe that scripture speaks clearly, not only about the mode, the meaning, and the subject, but also about the authority by which it is to be administered. This doesn’t mean that only church officers can baptize, this means that anyone the church authorizes to baptize can baptize.
Your assertion that my view “fail[s] to find support from the sacred text” is just that: an assertion. It does not become true just by virtue of having been asserted.
Wes,
My appologies; I stand corrected.
From what you wrote, it sounded as though your presupposition was that one is baptized into the church. Would it be fair to modify that to say you believe one is baptized into Christ, but only through the oversight (or perhaps authority) of the local church? And if that is a fair assertion, it is fair to take it a step farther and surmise that authority to exercise any ordinance or commandment of Jesus must be filtered throught a local congregation? If even the first of these is correct, your disagreement with Dave still can be traced back to differing presuppositions.
In honesty, I am not playing word games with you, just trying to understand your perspective.
John
Wes,
If the entire great commission was “given” [in the B.I. sense] to the local church, then the local church must authorize the entire great commission–disciple making, baptizing, & teaching.
If only a part [i.e., baptism] of the great commission was given to the local church, then how can one justify only a part and not the whole?
God Bless,
Benji
John,
I’m not sure I like the phrase “filtered through,” but I do believe that all of what Christ has commanded in the Great Commission must be carried out by believers who understand themselves to be accountable to a local congregation. The church is, as the KJV says, “the pillar and ground of the truth.” I am subject, not just in teaching but in baptizing, disciple-making, and every other Great Commission activity, to the authority of my local church. The church is the guardian of orthodoxy, and engaging in these practices outside that accountability inevitably leads to error.
Wes,
Good discussion on baptism. Obviously it’s needed. However, taking Dave to task by counting I’s, me’s. etc., is juvenile and silly. There are probably plenty of self-centered posts on my blog and SBC Today to cause all of us to check the beam in our own eye before taking the splinter out of Dave’s.
Les
Not to beat a dead horse, Wes, but that is why I qualified my assertions with “to me, of course.” It is also why I used the personal pronouns which you highlighted here.
Wes,
Here might be a better way of saying my last sentence:
If one wants to say that only a part [i.e., baptism] of the great commission was given to the local church, then how can one justify only a part and not the whole?
Benji,
Your comment appeared while I was typing my response to John, but I think it is at least partly answered there. I’m not sure what “the B.I. sense” is, but I absolutely believe that everything commanded by Christ in the Great Commission is to be carried out by believers under the authority of, and with accountability to, a local church. I wrote in a previous post about a man who lives near me and has a television Bible-teaching “ministry.” He proudly asserts his lack of connection to any local church, and he teaches a version of the Marcionite heresy that says that only the Pauline epistles contain doctrinal instruction for Gentile Christians, and that the rest of the New Testament is only of historical interest to us. Teaching is a Great Commission activity, and it must be done with accountability to a local church, or this is the kind of thing that will result.
Wes,
You said “I do believe that all of what Christ has commanded in the Great Commission must be carried out by believers who understand themselves to be accountable to a local congregation.”
How does this harmonize with the BF&M which states:
“It is the duty and privilege of every follower of Christ and of every church of the Lord Jesus Christ to endeavor to make disciples of all nations.”
Notice that it makes a distinction between individual Christians and churches made up of Christians. It doesn’t say “every follower of Christ under the authority of local churches”, but “every follower of Christ ‘and’ of every church”.
Aside from confessionalism, it seems as though you are saying the authorization of Christ expressed in the New Testament Scriptures is NOT sufficient. It seems that you are saying the individual Christian not only needs to be authorized by Christ to obey His commands but authorized by the local church as well.
I think what James P. Boyce said below is worthy of reflection:
“Thirdly: So also is a church,—as the figure of a body in its relation to the head implies,—a merely executive body, charged with the duty, not of making laws but of obeying them. The head makes the laws for the body. And so the Scriptures represent Christ as the only law-giver, the only head of the Church. It would be a monstrosity for a body to have more than one head ; and so is it for the Church to submit to any other authority than that of Christ, whether it is that of a king, a pope, a prelate, or the clergy. The members of the natural body, too, all occupy the same relation to the head. No one assumes the functions of the head, or acts for the rest, or delegates its powers and responsibilities to another; but all alike receive the biddings of the head) and act as a whole in obeying them, though each one has its appropriate office to perform. And such is the Church as described by the inspired penmen. They tell us it has “but one Master, even Christ,” and that its members are ” all brethren,”—Matthew xxiii : 8 ; that it is ” built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone, that is, upon the authority and inspired teachings of these as set forth in the Sacred Scriptures. And hence any ” church ” not built upon this foundation—that is, not conformed in its structure and operations to these instructions—fails to come within the definition here laid down of a true church of Christ.”
You can read it in its entirety here: http://www.carmichaelbaptist.org/Sermons/boyce2.htm
God Bless,
Benji
I absolutely agree with what Boyce said in the quote you provide, but it seems to me that in your comment leading up to that, you are trying to make some separation between the head and the body.
You ask how my view harmonizes with that one statement from the BF&M, and I would answer that 1 Corinthians 12:13 harmonizes it quite nicely. There is no such thing as a believer who is obediently carrying out the commands of Christ who does not see themselves as part of a local expression of the body of Christ. Just ask R.G. Lee… :)
Wes,
How does it seem to you that I am trying to make some separation?
In 1 Corinthians 12:13 Paul says “We” and thus includes himself. However, Paul was not a member of the local church at Corinth.
1 Corinthians 14:23 states “If therefore the WHOLE CHURCH be COME TOGETHER into ONE PLACE, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that YE are mad?” (caps mine)
Paul here speaks absolutely of the local church at Corinth assembling–WHOLE church–and separates himself from the complete local church by not saying “WE are mad”, but “YE are mad?”
I’m not advocating lone ranger Christianity for the individual Christian. However, I do have a problem with “double authorization”. I think the single authorization of Christ is sufficient. If someone wants to take the idea of single authorization to justify some sin or heresy, then the local church is “singly authorized” to practice church discipline on that person.
Blessings,
Benji
What about the case of the man I mentioned who teaches heresy, and proudly proclaims his lack of affiliation with any local church? Which church is “singly authorized” to exercise discipline? Is it the “universal church”? How would that work?
Wes,
Is it your position that the individual Christian as a member of a local church must receive double authorization to obey Christ, but the local church only needs single authorization to authorize?
Wes,
In comment #30 I was referring to a member of a local church who was attempting to justify sin or heresy.
I guess I don’t understand what you’re asking in 32. What do you mean by “double authorization”? For that matter, what do you mean by “single authorization”? I’m confused.
Brother Benji,
You appear to be involved in double speak. You question of double authorization or single authorization is something you have pulled out of thin air. No one is saying that there needs to be two authorizations. What we are saying is that the commands of Christ are single. It is a single authorization of a believer to be involved in a local congregation and that believer to carry out the commands under the lordship of Christ who is Lord of the church. The church universal is only visible in the local congregated assembly of believers.
The argument that you and Brother Dave present is one that separates the body (the church made up of individual believers) from the head (Jesus Christ).
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Wes,
Even though there is not evidence to dispute the truth that the authority to baptize is given by Christ alone as a command to his disciples (of which we are as well), you seem to presuppose (I don’t want to put words in your mouth)…. that because Christ chose disciples in Jerusalem and commanded his disciples to wait for the giving of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, that this same authority and command (to baptize) given to the disciples is a command that is only effective when authorized by an organization…which then leads to a presupposition that… the reason why the disciples are waiting for the Holy Spirit is that they were waiting to be recognized as an organization at that time and receive authority granted to the organization. I believe the reality is slightly different than those presuppositions, because the implications of the commands point to Christ and the Holy Spirit, not an organization. The local churches are consequences of the promises given to the disciples,…in other words, the promises are not controlled in accordance to the consequence of any organization.
A couple of things come to mind. Did the command to wait for the Holy Spirit bring into the mind of the disciples an organizational empire or earthly kingdom and was that concerned answered (Acts 1:6-8)? I believe some believers argue and try to legitimize that it does to some extent. Or, was the command to wait for the Holy Spirit actually marking out the prophetic manifestation of the promise given by Christ according to the significance of Pentecost (a great number present to hear the gospel) so that His chosen disciples and other (future) disciples would understand with amazing power the person of the Holy Spirit. So that, when the disciples are baptized into the name of Christ, they understand the significance of that baptism (identity with Jesus Christ) and the power of the Holy Spirit (the promise). Certainly the chapters of Acts 2, 18 and 19 bring this into light very well for those baptized only into John’s baptism.
The commission to go into all the world is based upon the ecclesia (called out ones, church) following the commands of Christ. The organism (Christ as the living head) of the ecclesia is formed and built by Christ alone and is not predicated upon the authority of an organization, it is predicated upon the authority of Christ as a living organism obeys His commands. And these organisms are hosted at the local level to glorify God and bring edification. So, Christ as the head remains on the body, of which we are members one of another. Obviously the Catholic “church” would disagree with the organism and lean heavily toward the organization,…but then of course, I believe they are in error with the doctrines they defend.
Blessings,
Chris
YANKEES WIN! THAAAAA YANKEES WIN!!
Wes, I do not believe it arrogance when one’s favorite team has the most World Series titles! :-D
John Mann,
You have made an excellent point in your quoting of Dr. Norman. Why would anyone consider being a follower of Christ without being an intentional, visible part of the body for whom Christ died. Now I know Debbie K. has ventured in to support the universal church. Wes has adequately answered that preference by his story from RG Lee. Certainly the church will find a universal expression one day. Until that day, Christ’s churches must live out His commands in local, visible expressions…including corporate accountability. That is the focus of the New Testament. That must be our focus as well.
Sola Gratia!
Chris,
I draw the same conclusion from Wes’s statements: it is (at the risk of oersimplifying things) a matter of organizational structure and authority vested into that structure.
Wes, a couple of things: first, you said, “The church is the guardian of orthodoxy, and engaging in these practices outside that accountability inevitably leads to error.” You surely don’t suggest that a church is a guarantee against doctrinal error, do you? And does this mean that an individual is not to evangeize unless specificially authorizedto do so by a local church? If so, how does that work, in practical terms? Second, you seem to affirm the concept of the Church Universal. I seem to remember that some of the BI folks deny there even is such a thing. Could you unpack your understanding of it a little more?
John
Chris,
My only point of disagreement with what you have written here is that I am convinced by scripture (Matthew 16, 18) that Christ did indeed found an organization, and that he gave his Commission to that organization, to be carried out by that organization. To affirm otherwise would prevent any prohibition on any para-church organization, or indeed on any individual, from administering ordinances and doing the other things that Christ commanded His church to do.
It seems that what your words would do is to form some separation, not between the Head and the body, but between the members of the body and the body.
John,
I absolutely do believe that a church (as described in the Baptist Faith and Message) is a guarantee against heresy (see 1 Timothy 3:15).
I don’t think I’ve said that “an individual is not to evangelize unless specifically authorized to do so by a local church.” If I did, I miscommunicated, because I certainly don’t believe that. Every member of Christ’s body is a recipient of Christ’s command to make disciples. But they are only obedient to that command in so far as they recognize themselves to be a member of that body.
I don’t know of anyone whom you would identify as “BI folks” who would “deny there even is such a thing” as a “Church Universal,” for to do so would be to be in disagreement with the Baptist Faith & Message, a document all the members of this blog, at least, affirm. It well describes my understanding of it:
Scott: Were there denominations in the Bible? There are times when church refers to local, there are times when it refers to universal. The verse you quoted is universal and it’s what we add to every time someone comes to Christ.
Wes,
Thanks for the info.
I must say: I’m confused (not an uncommon occurrence). A church as defined by Article VI of the BF&M cannot err in its doctrine, at least it cannot err as far as heresy? What of “churches” (and for sake of argument, I am using that term as defined by any protestant church) that do not meet Article VI? Do you even consider them churches?
John
John,
Don’t read more into my (sometimes confusing) words that what I intend by them. Is it possible for a group of people calling itself a “church” to err? Of course. But I believe the description of the church that Paul gave to Timothy, and so I believe that a church wherein the members are focused upon Christ, and led by the Spirit, is the guardian of correct teaching, and will always identify false teaching and correct it so as to safeguard the gospel.
I also believe the BF&M’s Article VI to be a biblical definition of the church, which prohibits me from “using that term as defined by any protestant church.” So I would simply say that if an organization does not meet up with that description, it can’t rightly be called a New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ, since that is what the BF&M claims to be defining. So as to groups that don’t meet that definition, I would say that there may very well be a “church” there, but that not all that they would call “the church” is truly the church.
Wes,
This is what I mean. Let’s use baptism for example.
1. Christ authorizes a disciple to baptize in the Great Commission.
2. The local church authorizes a disciple to baptize.
That is the double authorization that I refer to. If that is not what you are saying, then please let me know.
1. Christ authorizes a local church to authorize which member will administer baptism.
That is the single authorization that I refer to. Again, if that is not what you are saying, please let me know.
Tim,
God bless you brother. I think you need to cool down in your rhetoric [James 1:19].
In Christ,
Benji
Benji,
I’m not sure why you offered your admonition to Tim to “cool down” his rhetoric. I detected no anger in his words, only a straightforward response to what you were saying. I agree with Tim.
I reject outright what you have offered in your first #1. Christ does not authorize “a disciple” to baptize. He authorizes His church to baptize. The church is made up of disciples, baptized believers. It is not an inanimate object. Therefore, your #2 fails insofar as it imagines some outside entity authorizing a disciple. It is disciples. But “a disciple” on their own does not possess the authority to exercise, only as they are in a relationship of accountability to a local church.
Wes,
The rhetoric of “double speak” is a bit much. If I am unknowingly being inconsistent with what I am saying, then fine. In love please show me where I am inconsistent. But to charge me with “double speak” is to now charge me with having a bad motive–deceit. The Scriptures speak against being quick to think the worst of another [1 Cor. 13:7].
You and I have been having polite conversation. We have not gotten “personal”. We have stuck to the issues. Tim, however, [and now you] have decided to charge me with double speak. I don’t think this is acting in Christian charity on your part.
Now, as to what you were saying:
“He authorizes His church to baptize. The church is made up of disciples…”
OK, so Christ authorized the church made up of disciples to baptize. But that, according to your view, does not mean that all of the disciples that make up the church can now literally baptize. They must be authorized by the church made up of disciples to baptize. And when the authorized disciples baptizes, he represents the church so that it is the church baptizing.
Is this right? If so, then that seems to be double authorization to me.
1. Christ authorizes the church made up of disciples.
2. The church made up of disciples authorizes who will literally baptize.
Therefore, when the authorized disciple administers baptism the church is administering baptism.
Right? Wrong?
Benji,
I apologize for the implication of intentional deceit. I certainly do not think that is what you are doing, and I don’t think Tim was doing that either, and I’m sorry that I came across that way. I think he was just trying to be descriptive of the manner in which what you were communicating seemed to mean two different things that were really one, and that’s all I meant in echoing him. No judgment of motive, at least from me.
I believe that the church administers baptism, acting on the authority of Christ given to it in the Great Commission. When a disciple actually undertakes to administer that baptism, he is not doing so because he was authorized by the church, but because of he is a part of the church which authorized the baptism. Not everybody will fit in the baptistry (well, maybe here on Wednesday nights), and someone has to actually carry it out. But it is not as a result of a separate authorization, but as a result of the church having heard the testimony of the new believer, finding it to be credible and consistent with an experience of the new birth, and speaking with Christ’s authority in welcoming that new believer into the body. This is the ideal, and normal way it ought to happen.
I do believe that a church may pre-authorize one of its members to baptize under its authority, as in the case of a pastor or other member ministering in prisons, or a member they are sending out as a missionary. But I believe that special responsibility carries with it the duty for that person, so authorized, to report back to the church on how they have carried it out. But in either case, baptism is act of obedience on the part of the new believer, carried out by the local church based on the one authorization (and indeed, command) of Christ to baptize.
Wes,
Apology accepted and I thank you for your response. I think I am going to chew on it some. Thanks again.
God Bless,
Benji
Brother Benji,
First, for me to think you are being deceitful is the last thing on my mind. I certainly do not desire for you to think that of me and I do not think it of you. When I used the term “double-speak” I was merely trying to describe your argument.
Second, please forgive the lateness of my re-appearing in the comment thread. After I made the comment I took Rebekah to the pool and stayed until the last minute. I left there and went straight to church and when I came home I spent time with Gail. Never came back to the computer until now.
Third, I am not angry with you and do not desire for this comment thread to be disrupted by any misunderstanding. So I will just step aside and wait for another comment thread.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Wes,
Thank you for the reply,…. I have been fairly busy up until now, but I wanted to focus a little more on the control of an organization relative to that of an organism, because you bring up an important point that para-church organizations have no power or authority. That is a fact. Para-church organizations defined as agencies and groups such as “Focus on the Family”, Southern Seminary, SWBTS, Soles for Souls, etc. All of these para-church organizations are designed for a good cause, and yet have different charters for different purposes. They are not the church and should not pretend to be the church at anytime. That is due to the imperfection of organizations and charters.
The church though, by definition is an organism and has but one mission commanded by Christ and through the power and promise of the Holy Spirit. If the church is captured as an organization by definition, then the charter of that organization controls the message, means, and ways and the organization can be very destructive (Roman Catholic as an example). But Christ has designed His church so that this “potential of destruction” (gates of Hell) is not possible. The church (called out ones) is bound by the commands of Christ as a living organism, where baptism of those confessing Christ is never separated from the Head. It is a red herring or a straw man argument to believe that when a person confesses Christ and identifies with Christ through baptism in the presence of another believer or believers at that moment, that the “validity” of that baptism hinges upon the authorization of an organization. It can’t hinge upon the authorization of the organization because the validity actually hinges upon the truth, command and obedience to baptize given by Christ. Some may pretend that an organizational authorization has to occur, and argue that even a baptism that is done according to the command is not good enough for a particular organization and that a certain organization may even reject the baptism by voting it down. Yet the command of Christ and the obedience to His command is far more powerful than that assumption of error to nullify the obedience to His Word.
A good question to ask… is …What believer is not authorized to respond in obedience to the commands of Christ? A person that is connected to Christ is never void of the body of Christ (church). He or she may not understand how to fit into the body….but our first reaction to them is not “come back to me when you understand your role better and we might vote you in as a member”,.. our response is “welcome to the family of God, let me do what I can to edify you and help you understand what God has planned for you through the power of the Holy Spirit in this body according to His Word.”
I have actually seen a church that claimed to be Southern Baptist, not allow for mission work. There was a group within the church that had a desire to follow the great commission command to share the gospel in the world and plant churches (mature believers) and then they went to their leadership to express this desire, ….this particular church (due to sin in the leadership)… instead of encouraging this group to follow the commands of Christ, were told that if they did plant churches, the “churches” that they planted would not be legitimate churches since they would not be authorized by this particular church. This type of activity grieves the Holy Spirit. A church is not a church simply because they vote, have charters stating they are such as an organization or a Pastor with a new “vision” for growth. Christ as the head determines the existence of His body in all places through obedience to His commands, and He removes things as well .. (Revelation 1,2,3)
There will always be folks that are renegade and errant baptizers that may not even be Christ followers. But the inability of those “organizations” to follow Christ is not an excuse to prop up yet another “organization” to artificially demand an authorization committee to validate baptisms. The Apostle Paul would not be pleased with such behaviors that abrogate the obedience to Christ’s commands for His church (the living organism) as it echoed in the spirit of what he wrote in his letter to the Galatians.
Galatians 1:6-12 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; (7) which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. (8) But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! (9) As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! (10) For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ. (11) For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. (12) For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
Blessings,
Chris
Tim,
You said “I certainly do not desire for you to think that of me and I do not think it of you. When I used the term “double-speak” I was merely trying to describe your argument.”
The problem is that an online webster’s dictionary definition of “doublespeak” says that this kind of speaking is “used” to deceive. In other words, doublespeak [according to this definition] is about a person intentionally trying to deceive.
Therefore, to try and separate the language from the person using the language is not valid according to that definition.
Accordingly, since you say you were not thinking that about me, then I would encourage you to find a different term to describe what you are trying to describe.
Feel free to disagree with me. However, let us both try and protect one another’s reputations in love.
God Bless,
Benji
Brother Benji,
We began this because I disagreed with you on an argument that you put forth. You did not counter my argument you immediately involved yourself as the blog cool down police and announced to the entire blogging community that I was angry. Now the only way for you to “one up me” is that you disagree with me on a word in my argument. I am not here to “one up” in the argument. However, if you go further to look at the origin of the word “doublespeak” you will find that it originated from two different words–equivocation and evasion. Equivocation means either to practice deceit. It also could mean to avoid committing oneself to a particular point–something I believe you are trying to do in your argument. Evasion is a word that comes from elusive which means to intentionally evade grasp–something else that I believe you are trying to do. Webster takes these two words that come together to form doublespeak and defines it, as you have pointed to, as being deceitful. However, you did not point to the entire definition. It also defines this deception as having for its purpose to conceal. By your introducing the “double command” argument, I believe, you presented this argument in order to conceal what was being argued from the start.
Now, you readily accepted Wes’ argument but felt it necessary to point out the Webster online dictionary to me for my use of the word, even after I apologized and told you that it was not my intention to point you as a deceiver. The only reason I can think for you having this response to me is that you do not desire for me to engage in debate with you. If it is your position not to debate with me, then say so and I will stay out of comment streams I see you engaged in. If you do not mind my engaging in the comment streams then stop pulling out individual words and using them to tell everyone I am angry. How, is my using “doublespeak” a point that I am angry and need to cool down again?
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
I do not “have” to interact with everything that you say. If I want to interact with “part” of what you said, then I have that right. Or do I not? I was having a fine conversation with Wes [who I would think represents your viewpoint on ecclesiology] and you decided to join in with charging me with the appearance of “doublespeak”.
If I may be candid about it, I do not have to “win” in an argument with you about ecclesiology on this comment stream. I would rather talk with Wes or “Baptist Theologue” about ecclesiology than you. And I doubt you could represent the ecclesiological viewpoint [I believe all of you share] better than them.
Wes got straight to the point and said “I apologize for the implication of intentional deceit” and I accept his apology and its over.
However, you now say “Webster takes these two words that come together to form doublespeak and defines it, as you have pointed to, as being deceitful. However, you did not point to the entire definition.”
The entire definition is not the point. The point is that the definition involves deceit which you seem to be unwilling to apologize for.
And I would rather talk to people about issues instead of people who bring up things like “doublespeak” or “blog cool down police”.
Doublespeak was too hot of rhetoric in my opinion. If you disagree with that, then I’m not sure there is much more we can say to each other.
I don’t hate you. I can’t control you. By the Spirit’s strength, I intend to control myself.
Grace to you,
Benji
Brother Benji,
Have a nice evening and I pray that your worship tomorrow is grand.
Blessings,
Tim
Pingback: Podcast Episode 3 :: SBC Today