Well, it’s that time again, and here for your amusement is episode 3 of the SBC Today podcast. We were down a voice or two this week, but what we lacked in quantity, we made up in no appreciable way whatsoever. But we did have fun.
In this episode, we begin with a bit of talk about the GCR Taskforce and the NAMB trustee meeting. At the time of recording the GCR Taskforce had not yet begun their meeting, and the NAMB trustees were in executive session, so there really wasn’t much to discuss. We ended the program with prayer for both groups.
We also talked about polyamory, which is every bit as strange as it sounds. And in the middle, taking up the bulk of the time, is a discussion about the local church, the Great Commission, and baptism.
We hope you enjoy these podcasts. You can listen using the player below, or subscribe in iTunes and have them automatically downloaded each week when they’re ready. And while you’re at our iTunes page, give us a rating and/or a review. We welcome your feedback and suggestions, which you can leave in a comment on this post or by email. Just click on “About” at the top of the page, and you’ll find email links for each member of the team.
As always, here are links to some of the things we discussed.
Brother Wes,
I really enjoyed the discussion that you, Robin and Scott were engaged in on this post. It does help to hear your conversation, in order to form more of the context and explanation for the arguments presented in the previous posts.
I thought Robin did a good job of explaining the role of the church in baptism…even trying to explain the one off baptisms that occur in the cities, homes, and highways. The concept that you speak of seems to hinge on the principle that we teach our church family. We teach everyone that is a member of our body (all those that confess Christ as Lord) that they are expected to disciple and baptize, because discipleship and baptism is what the church is commanded to do. So in like manner, as you have described concerning Philip and the Apostle Paul, our members are instructed and free to baptize as they share the gospel and God brings His newly adopted children to Himself through the power of the Holy Spirit.
But at the same time,..this is where I believe the problem seems to crop up. Because,..If I go down the street to another congregation that is cooperating with the SBC and they hold to a theology that only the “professional ministers” are capable and “allowed” to baptize, and it is the church by virtue of a group of people gathered on a Wednesday night set up to organize, verify, and confirm that a baptism is real (and all others are not real or at best suspect), …it is clear that type of theology is foreign to scripture. That seems to be where I have found the friction. Maybe it does come down to teaching what the church (called out ones, that gather) should be doing.
It was fun listening to you guys!
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
Thanks for listening! Glad you enjoyed. Thanks for your continued additions to our discussions here. May we all continue to encourage and challenge one another as we grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Sola Gratia!
Chris
Allow me to clarify a little further, I don’t believe only “professional” ministers are allowed to baptize. Our church could vote for a godly father to baptize his son or daughter. It isn’t limited to the pastorate or professional minister.
I also look at that passage of Phillip and the Ethiopian and again realize that the retelling of the story was not necessarily given to us to teach on baptism as an ordinance of the local church. It was a special time and special circumstances surrounded this event. Let’s face it, when was the last time any of us was transported to Azotus after we baptized someone????? There is no doubt that this Ethiopian was baptized by a missionary, for Phillip was preaching and baptizing to save the lost and start new churches in Samaria when the Spirit instructed him to go south. Narratives don’t always give every detail. Therefore we rely upon other narratives, epistles, gospels, teachings, and prophecies that give us a complete picture. The information given in the episode with Phillip and the Ethiopian in no way contradicts the churches oversight in carrying out the Great Commission.
Robin,
I don’t know if anyone is will still read this, but, you said,
“Narratives don’t always give every detail. Therefore we rely upon other narratives, epistles, gospels, teachings, and prophecies that give us a complete picture.”
Would you mind directing me to the other biblical “narratives, epistles, gospels, teachings, and prophecies” that teach local church oversight of baptism?
I’d love to see an answer to this question.
David and Dave
You asked, “Would you mind directing me to the other biblical “narratives, epistles, gospels, teachings, and prophecies” that teach local church oversight of baptism?”
We have been down this road before and it seems you two and I are not going to convince each other to our own position. I believe CB Scott has also debated you guys rather convincingly also. Frankly, I don’t have the time to talk with you over this again.
God Bless
Robin,
I am really not just trying to be a gadfly about this. I sincerely want to do what Scripture teaches. I am open to being shown what Scripture teaches.
That I can remember, the only answer I have ever gotten to this question is that, when the Great Commission of Matthew 28 was given to the 11, it was implicit that they were representative of the local church of Jerusalem. If some other answer beyond this was given, you will have to help me to remember.
If this is your answer (the 11 representing the Jerusalem church), can you really, truly say you don’t understand why that does not, ispo facto, convince me? There must be something else beyond this.
If there is some other answer, I would really, really like to know it. I don’t get joy merely out of going against BI teaching. I do, however, want to do my best to understand Scripture, and follow what it teaches.
Hello, David.
Robin is right. You and I have been over this territory before.
I have given much reading to the city church paradigm in recent months. Remember that one?
I would like to ask you if you have ever given much thought to the significance of how 2 John 1 relates to 2 John 13?
Are those two different local churches in Ephesus? Or is John addressing one female in regard to another?
BTW, I was never considered a BI guy. So our dialogue was never between a BI guy and a Plymouth Brethren guy.
It was a dialogue between a Southern Baptist guy and a Plymouth Brethren guy. Now, we both know who the Brethren guy is and who the Baptist guy is, right? :-)
cb
C. B.,
I just read 2 John 1 & 13. I tend to think John is referring to 2 different local churches here, but see no need to assume they are both in Ephesus. As a matter of fact, it would seem a bit superfluous to me to write a greeting in a letter from one local church to another, if both were located in the same city. Also, my conception of city church does not, in any way, rule out the possibility, or likelihood, of different “house churches” within the same city, who were in fellowship, or connection, with one another. Neither do I believe a local congregation must follow a “house church” model to be considered a valid congregation. And, though I love and admire much about the Plymouth Brethren, and many who consider themselves a part of that movement, my own beliefs are much closer in line to the BF&M, thank you.
Do you know any passages, by the way, that would back up local church supervision of baptism?
David,
My question about the “sisters” in 2 John was not about the city church paradigm. Not at all. Therefore there was no need to “stretch” away from what many conservative writers say about it being a local church in Ephesus other than the one john was writing “from” we might say. The fact that he was in poor health at the time of the writing may well be the reason he was writing to a church in Ephesus and sending greetings from another church in Ephesus. We do not know. David, I was not attacking your city church paradigm. No need to defend it……at the moment.
As far as passages; we have gone over that many times. You know Matthew 28: 19-20 is used. along with the clear evidence of the reality of established local churches to which both Jesus and Paul write. In 2 John, it seems that John is relating the existence of two distinct local churches.
When Jesus spoke to the group referenced in Matthew 28 (possibly up to 500 in the group or more as we have discussed in the past when you wanted to limit it only to the apostles) He was speaking to the Church Universal and the “Only” existent local church at the same time. The GC went to “both” so to speak at the same time. Jesus knew many “local” churches would grow from that gathered group. There is no doubt about that. Local churches have the only Christ vested authority to baptize on earth. You can argue you point all you please, but to no avail.
You argue the city church paradigm by the same argument as do I argue local church authority. You, for whatever reason, have a problem with the authority of the local church. It is not that there is not sufficient evidence, for you use the same methodologies to relate the existence of the city church.
cb
C. B.,
Thank you very much for at least engaging me on this.
However (as you probably may have already guessed), I don’t find anything to really “hang one’s hat on” in what you say here.
1. I don’t see where you get the idea that the two churches apparently referenced in 2 John are necessarily (or even possibly) both from Ephesus. Perhaps there is some quote from one of the early Church Fathers alluding to this. If so, that would be helpful for me to know, in order to consider the possible weight it should have in my thinking on this. In the text itself, though, I see nothing at all that would lead one to the conclusion that John was writing to two different churches in Ephesus. And, even if he were (as I allude to above), I don’t see how that would affect one’s view of local congregations and the “city church.”
2. You mention the “clear evidence of the reality of established local churches to which both Jesus and Paul write.” Of course, Paul and Jesus (through John, in Revelation) write to various local churches (which I take to be the composite of all of the followers of Jesus in a particular city, or locality). But, even if there were separate autonomous congregations existing in the same city, I don’t see how that adds any weight one way or another to the argument that the local church was specifically given the authority to supervise baptisms. Could you please elaborate?
2. I do vaguely remember someone (perhaps you?) suggesting that, when the Great Commission was given in Matthew 28, there were not only 11 present, but also “up to 500″). Once again, I don’t see where anyone could find this in the actual text of Matthew 28. Could you please refresh my memory on the evidence adduced to posit the presence of up to 500 at the giving of the Great Commission?
Also, even if it could be demonstrated that “up to 500″ were present, I don’t see how this necessarily leads to the conclusion that the Great Commission was given exclusively to the local church as opposed to believers (or members of the “Universal Church”) in general. You will need to help me connect the dots on this one.
3. You say “local churches have the only Christ vested authority to baptize on earth. You can argue you point all you please, but to no avail.” However, it seems to me that, if we, as Baptists, take Scripture as our supreme and sufficient guide, we ought to be able to give a clear Scriptural basis for something like this.
That’s all I’m asking for–a clear Scriptural basis.
If anyone else reading this has some more information to help convince me on this question, I am more than willing to entertain it.
Or, if anything I say here doesn’t make sense, or seems skewed in one way or another, I am open to being shown how such is the case.
Thanks,
David
David,
I said I was not attacking the city church paradigm. I also said we do not know where the second church was. My point was that it seems that there were two distinct local churches.
David, it was you who said that only the apostles were present to receive the GC. I reminded you that Paul referenced 500 seeing the risen Lord. (1 Corinthians 51)
You used the 11 to present evidence that the GC was not given to a local church but only the apostles. I said (many times) and continue to say, the GC was given to the Church Universal and to the “only” local church in existence at the same time. Jesus gave the GC to the local and universal church at the same time. All church authority is vested in the local church as it/they represent the Bride of Christ presently.
David, what body exercises church discipline? Is it not the local church? Who receives baptized people into fellowship? Is it not a local church. All authority in vested in the local church and not the individual believer. David, can you alone, as an individual believer, exercise church discipline? The answer to that is no. Do you alone have the authority to go out and start baptizing individuals? There must be an authority above you to take accountability of the newly baptized convert. You alone can do no more than disciple a newly baptized convert. You cannot remove them from a local church.
Authority was given the local church at the time of the giving of the GC by Christ to the only local church in existence. At that moment the universal church and the local church were made up of the same people. As time and events moved along more local churches sprang up as God saw fit. Naturally there was and always will be only one universal church. The Church Universal has only Christ as its head in all things. Christ has placed leaders in local churches. (1 Peter 5:1-4) Christ has moved men of old to write of an organizational structure for local churches. There is no organizational structure for the Church Universal other than Christ is the Head.
David, there has to be an ecclesiastical authority to receive baptismal candidates for discipleship, accountability and for purposes of authority. There is no other entity than the local church qualified to do so. The very fact that can be safely assumed due to the fact that letters of instruction are written by many, including Christ, Himself to local churches.
cb
C. B.,
Thank you once again! That is the most complete answer to this question I have received to date.
My answers to your questions are:
1. What body exercises church discipline?
Of course, the answer to that question is influenced by the terminology used–”church discipline”–which does not occur, as such, in the Bible. In Matthew 18, the question has to do, originally with two “brothers” (Jewish or Christian?). It is only at the third stage of the process delineated by Jesus there that the “church” is brought into play. So, if, when we use the term “church discipline,” we are talking about the process delineated by Jesus in Matthew 18, it is carried out both by individual believers, and by churches as a body, depending on the particular stage in question.
2. What body receives baptized people into fellowship?
My answer here is similar to the one I gave to the first question. I, as an individual believer, receive other believers into fellowship with me. A congregation, as a body, receives believers into fellowship with the congregation. Thus, the answer is not either-or, but both-and.
Thus, “ALL” authority is not “vested” in the local church to the exclusion of the individual believer. There is authority for certain things “vested” in the local church, and authority for other things “vested” in the individual believer. I find nowhere in Scripture where the authority to baptize is specifically “vested” in the local church. That is an assumption, based on reading the text through the lens of a certain ecclesiastical system. But I find nowhere where such is directly stated, or even implied.
As a matter of fact, as Dave Miller’s excellent series on this topic over at his blog demonstrates, in every single episode of water baptism actually narrated in the NT, there is never any reference to local church supervision–none.
You also say, “there must be an authority above you to take accountability of the newly baptized convert.” I, for one, am all for local church structures that have built into them accountability for all of the disciples in regular contact with that particular group of believers. However, that does not free me from taking responsibility on my own for discipling the individual believers with whom I have contact. Once again, it is not a question of either-or, but both-and.
Also, I agree that there are specific structural guidelines for local congregations in the NT. There are also many structural questions that are not spelled out in the NT. We are here, as I understand it, talking about a difference between a “regulative principle” approach to ecclesiology, and a “normative principle” approach.
To me, one of the things which IS clearly delineated in Scripture is the importance of the unity of the Body of Christ. Now, there have been many different models and experiments for trying to express that unity down through history, some which have been less successful than others.
But, if we, in the interest of maintaining a system that has very little (if any) clear Scriptural basis (i.e. local church supervision of baptism), set up certain guidelines and practices, I think we need to very careful to not, at the same time, sweep under the carpet the clear Scriptural teaching on unity. And, as I understand it, unity is based on matters of soteriology (who is truly saved, and who is not), pneumatology (who shares the same Spirit, and who does not), and Christology (who shares a common relationship of submission to a common Lord, and who does not), more than on matters of ecclesiology (who interprets Scripture to teach the same church structure as I do).
David,
I just read my last comment to you . I must confess that due to me (at the time) being in a rush to go workout, I did not do a good job of expressing myself. Therefore, I am about to read your response to me. I may have to explain what I meant in some things if I see you misunderstood me, due to “my” poor communication due to slothfulness on my part.
cb
David,
I shall try to take these “concepts” one at a time and deal with them. My errors do play into your response a little as I feared. I hope to clear up those things and answer you effectively. (meaning properly as to what I meant in the first place and trying to answer what I think you are saying)
1. What body exercises church discipline?
Of course, the answer to that question is influenced by the terminology used–”church discipline”–which does not occur, as such, in the Bible. In Matthew 18, the question has to do, originally with two “brothers” (Jewish or Christian?). It is only at the third stage of the process delineated by Jesus there that the “church” is brought into play. So, if, when we use the term “church discipline,” we are talking about the process delineated by Jesus in Matthew 18, it is carried out both by individual believers, and by churches as a body, depending on the particular stage in question.
David, Church discipline always is between Christians. It usually begins due to a problem between “two” individuals who are Christians. later witnesses are brought in and later the entire church. Notice the situation in 1 Corinthians 5. Paul calls for church discipline dealing with the sin of a man involved with a woman. There is no mention of the woman. Why? Obviously she was not part of the Church of God at Corinth, a local church. The man was mentioned only because he was part of the church at Corinth. Paul did not remove the man from the church from where he was. Why? Because that was the accountability of the local church at Corinth. Paul did exercise apostolic authority in directing them to do what they already should have done. He could do no more. Why? Authority of the local church to carry out church discipline on a member. The woman was outside the authority of the church at Corinth (probably an unbeliever) or she would have been dealt with also don’t you think?
2. What body receives baptized people into fellowship?
My answer here is similar to the one I gave to the first question. I, as an individual believer, receive other believers into fellowship with me. A congregation, as a body, receives believers into fellowship with the congregation. Thus, the answer is not either-or, but both-and.
Thus, “ALL” authority is not “vested” in the local church to the exclusion of the individual believer. There is authority for certain things “vested” in the local church, and authority for other things “vested” in the individual believer. I find nowhere in Scripture where the authority to baptize is specifically “vested” in the local church. That is an assumption, based on reading the text through the lens of a certain ecclesiastical system. But I find nowhere where such is directly stated, or even implied.
As a matter of fact, as Dave Miller’s excellent series on this topic over at his blog demonstrates, in every single episode of water baptism actually narrated in the NT, there is never any reference to local church supervision–none.
You also say, “there must be an authority above you to take accountability of the newly baptized convert.” I, for one, am all for local church structures that have built into them accountability for all of the disciples in regular contact with that particular group of believers. However, that does not free me from taking responsibility on my own for discipling the individual believers with whom I have contact. Once again, it is not a question of either-or, but both-and.
Also, I agree that there are specific structural guidelines for local congregations in the NT. There are also many structural questions that are not spelled out in the NT. We are here, as I understand it, talking about a difference between a “regulative principle” approach to ecclesiology, and a “normative principle” approach.
To me, one of the things which IS clearly delineated in Scripture is the importance of the unity of the Body of Christ. Now, there have been many different models and experiments for trying to express that unity down through history, some which have been less successful than others.
But, if we, in the interest of maintaining a system that has very little (if any) clear Scriptural basis (i.e. local church supervision of baptism), set up certain guidelines and practices, I think we need to very careful to not, at the same time, sweep under the carpet the clear Scriptural teaching on unity. And, as I understand it, unity is based on matters of soteriology (who is truly saved, and who is not), pneumatology (who shares the same Spirit, and who does not), and Christology (who shares a common relationship of submission to a common Lord, and who does not), more than on matters of ecclesiology (who interprets Scripture to teach the same church structure as I do).
David, it is here that I fail to communicate properly my intended purpose.
I said; “What body receives baptized people into fellowship?” What I should have stated as a question was: What body receives baptized people into fellowship for accountability and the exercise of biblical authority in their lives?
Your response has merit as I asked the question the first time. But let me speak to your response in order to clearly articulate my position.
Yes, you do receive believers into personal fellowship. That is a biblical mandate. (It is also a problem in the church because so many church members do not receive new members into personal fellowship. I think you would agree. Corporate fellowship, yes, but into personal fellowship, no. This failure has weakened many churches)
Yet, for accountability and the exercise of biblical authority in their lives it must be a local church who receives people into fellowship. You alone, cannot exercise biblical authority over another person relating to matters of a local church. You may go to another person with a concern, but you cannot remove a person from the body alone. Nor can you receive a person into the body alone. David, someone has to recognize the baptism of a person in order for them to be received into fellowship of a church. That cannot be just one person alone. If that were the case, then churches would not be fellowships or assemblies of equal believers before Christ who is not only Head of the Church Universal, but, in fact, should be Head of every Church Local with (s)hepherds seeking to lead churches according to His Word and instilled vision for that specific local church.
I will end here because everything else you have said hinges upon you responding to my poorly communicated statement about fellowship.
cb
David,
I am about to leave for a High School football “war” (In Alabama it is a “war” and not a “game.” We do not play games down here when it comes to football.) to watch future SABANATION warriors become fine tuned for a future time when they destroy other Football Nations as members of the elite team representing the SABANATION before any and all opponents, especially from Tennessee.
If you choose to respond, I will be gone for a while. I will again engage if you are still desiring such.
cb
C. B.,
I think I understand the distinction you are making here between local church discipline, accountability, discipleship, fellowship, etc. and individual discipline, accountability, discipleship, fellowship, etc. I agree that only a local church, as a whole, with the mutual participation of all of the members (at least in an ideal sense) can carry out correctly local church discipline, accountability, discipleship, fellowship, etc.
But, to me, that still begs the question on whether or not water baptism is specifically an element of local church discipline, accountability, discipleship, fellowship, etc., or, possibly, as well, of individual discipline, accountability, discipleship, fellowship, etc.
Since Scripture does not specifically address this question–at least as far as I can tell–we must try to discern as much as possible from the examples of baptism we do have in Scripture, none of which are tied in (as narrated) to local church supervision.
It is possible that other baptisms in the early church were tied in to local church supervision. But the NT does not narrate these cases. It is also possible that, at least in some of the cases narrated in the NT, there was an element of local church supervision. But, the NT, for some reason, does not bother to inform us of that, if such were the case.
Seeing as how I believe Scripture is both inerrant and sufficient, I believe that, if local church supervision were really something that was important for us to know about and maintain as Christians, and as church members, then the NT would have been more specific in its instructions regarding it. Seeing as how it is not specific, and the only information we do have about specific baptisms appears to be without any reference to local church supervision, I conclude that the Lord did not intend for us to be bound by such a regulation.
I also believe that we should seek to carry out, as much as possible, all of the “one anothers” of the NT with each and every Christian we know, or happen to cross paths with, not only those members of our particular local congregation, including confronting them with sin in their life.
Water baptism, as I understand it, is a symbolic testimony of our identification with Christ, in his death, burial, and resurrection. It is also an act of obedience to Christ’s command. However, although church history has traditionally also seen it as an initiation rite into the Christian community (whether understood universally or locally), I don’t see anything in Scripture that specifically backs this up. Of course, Spirit baptism is our initiation into the Body of Christ (universal), though (1 Cor. 12:13).
Of course, if we really follow Christ, as His disciples, we will want to be baptized in water, and we will also want to fellowship with His other disciples, especially in the location where we live. We will also want to submit ourselves to the accountability and discipline of other fellow disciples. None of this necessarily implies local church supervision of water baptism, though, from my point of view.
As to Sabanations, opponents from Tennessee, and such, I only have one thing to say: GO GATORS! UNDEFEATED REPEAT NATIONAL CHAMPS! Everyone else are just posers.
David,
I am glad you agree “that only a local church, as a whole, with the mutual participation of all of the members (at least in an ideal sense) can carry out correctly local church discipline, accountability, discipleship, fellowship, etc.”
And I understand that to you “that still begs the question on whether or not water baptism is specifically an element of local church discipline, accountability, discipleship, fellowship, etc., or, possibly, as well, of individual discipline, accountability, discipleship, fellowship, etc.”
Therefore, I think that we are at a place wherein reason must take some advantage of our communication. (on both sides)
David, is not the mandate of baptism part of obedience to Christ? Are we not as participants in local church life ordered to teach everything Christ commanded? Christ mandated us to teach the “Way” according to Him. Baptism is part of that teaching. Therefore who should naturally administrate the teaching and the practice of baptism? The Church would be the answer. David, we both know that the Church Universal is not of such a nature that it can administrate the teaching and practice of baptism and maintain order, authority and accountability. We also both know that the Church Local is a biblical entity. It is real. It is biblical. It is commissioned by Christ. We both know that all things must be done in order, in an accountable fashion and under the authority of Christ. Would it not then stand to reason that a local NT church be the acceptable and most reasonable earthly authority to administrate baptism under the authority of Christ?
David, you said: “Since Scripture does not specifically address this question–at least as far as I can tell–we must try to discern as much as possible from the examples of baptism we do have in Scripture, none of which are tied in (as narrated) to local church supervision.”
David, It is here that, in my opinion, we are at the greatest disagreement. I believe that the GC does in fact, give the local church the authority for baptism. I base this upon the fact that it stands to simple reason that both the Church Universal and the Church Local were receiving the GC at the same exact time. Christ knew there would grow from that commissioning many local churches which would make up the Bride of Christ (Church Universal) and the accountability to carry out the GC would be upon those local churches until His return. At that time the GC will cease, local churches will be nonexistent and the Bride of Christ will do as is planned in the mind of the Trinity for all eternity.
David, you said; “It is possible that other baptisms in the early church were tied in to local church supervision. But the NT does not narrate these cases. It is also possible that, at least in some of the cases narrated in the NT, there was an element of local church supervision. But, the NT, for some reason, does not bother to inform us of that, if such were the case.”
David, Most all baptismal narratives we have reference to in Scripture are in the Book of Acts. That period was in the formative years of the early church. Church doctrine was in “discovery” then also. In my opinion, there are some things in Acts that are not so easily understood. (Maybe we could study Acts by committee someday) :-)
David, I agree that we should seek to carry out all the “one anothers” of the NT. We should also confront one another with sin in our lives. At the same time, I believe the ultimate authority for sin in the life of a believer under the authority of Christ is the local church to which that believer belongs. (I think we fail to inform local churches of conduct unbecoming in particular members and this has weakened the witness of the “Bride of Christ” (Church Universal) in the whole world.)
Lastly, I see God at work in the life of Timmy Tebow. His father and I worked together to start the BTEA back in 1985 in the PI. Had Pam (Timmy’s mother) listened to the doctors, Timmy would have been aborted because there was no way he would have been healthy or well at any time in his life. Timmy Tebow is a living testimony to the power of Holy God in the lives of obedient people.
BTW, his sisters can whip him with their hands tied behind them. :-) I cheer for Timmy except when he plays the SABANATION. I kinda wish he would go on a mission trip during those games. :-)
cb
CB,
Thanks for continuing this dialogue. It is helpful to me. It would be even more helpful, if others who read this blog (especially those who identify with the “BI” perspective) could confirm whether or not they follow your line of reasoning here, or if they have some additional line of reasoning or insight from Scripture to contribute. In any case, I am happy that at least you are giving me something to respond to here. Below are my answers to the questions and observations you make in your last comment…
CB: David, is not the mandate of baptism part of obedience to Christ?
David: Yes, of course.
CB: Are we not as participants in local church life ordered to teach everything Christ commanded?
David: Yes, but not only as participants in the local church, but also as members of the Universal Church, as husbands or wives, as father or mothers, employees, citizens of the country in which we live, neighbors, friends, etc., etc. I don’t see the context for teaching everything Christ commanded as limited to only a local church setting.
CB: Christ mandated us to teach the “Way” according to Him. Baptism is part of that teaching. Therefore who should naturally administrate the teaching and the practice of baptism? The Church would be the answer.
David: This part of your argument, to me, is a non sequitur. I don’t see that the teaching and practice of baptism necessarily needs to be “administrated” by some organization or institution.
CB: David, we both know that the Church Universal is not of such a nature that it can administrate the teaching and practice of baptism and maintain order, authority and accountability. We also both know that the Church Local is a biblical entity. It is real. It is biblical. It is commissioned by Christ. We both know that all things must be done in order, in an accountable fashion and under the authority of Christ. Would it not then stand to reason that a local NT church be the acceptable and most reasonable earthly authority to administrate baptism under the authority of Christ?
David: All of this assumes there is some special type of order and/or accountability to be administrated in baptism. As I see it, it is much simpler than that. It is simply Jesus’ disciples obeying Jesus’ command. I would also ask: Does personal evangelism require local church administration? Does discipleship (in the sense of teaching personal Bible study, prayer, Scripture memorization, witnessing, etc.) require local church administration? Does preaching and Bible teaching, in general, require local church administration?
I realize that all of these things are done, many times, in the context of a local church. They are also done, at least nowadays, in the context of various parachurch ministries. I think we must ask ourselves if there is anything inherently wrong with carrying out these activities in the context of parachurch ministries. I realize some people would prefer that they be carried out under the auspices of local churches. But, is there anything inherently wrong with carrying them out through parachurch ministries? Or even by individual believers, without direct supervision by some organization?
If it is inherently wrong, then practically all parachurch ministries should be done away with, including all of our seminaries. We would need to all go “strictly Landmark,” and not allow for anything beyond strictly local church ministries. If, however, we allow for the practice of these various ministries outside of the strict supervision of local churches (which I believe we should), I believe it would be inconsistent to not also allow for the practice of baptism outside of the strict supervision of local churches.
CB: David, It is here that, in my opinion, we are at the greatest disagreement. I believe that the GC does in fact, give the local church the authority for baptism. I base this upon the fact that it stands to simple reason that both the Church Universal and the Church Local were receiving the GC at the same exact time. Christ knew there would grow from that commissioning many local churches which would make up the Bride of Christ (Church Universal) and the accountability to carry out the GC would be upon those local churches until His return. At that time the GC will cease, local churches will be nonexistent and the Bride of Christ will do as is planned in the mind of the Trinity for all eternity.
David: With all due respect, I do not find a basis for your assumptions here. They appear to me to all be based upon circular reasoning. Yes, of course, Jesus knew that local churches would develop after giving the Great Commission. He also knew that many aberrations in ecclesiology, such as the Roman Catholic hierarchy, the Protestant state church, the Landmark movement, and many assorted sects, cults, and denominations, would develop. But none of this necessarily infers local church supervision of baptism.
CB: David, Most all baptismal narratives we have reference to in Scripture are in the Book of Acts. That period was in the formative years of the early church. Church doctrine was in “discovery” then also. In my opinion, there are some things in Acts that are not so easily understood. (Maybe we could study Acts by committee someday)
David: Acts is what we have. I think that is by God’s design. I agree that, as a hermeneutical principle, we must distinguish between narrative and didactic passages. We can follow the example of the early church to a point. But there are contextual issues that are not the same, which will sometimes necessitate a different application of the underlying principles involved. However, a great deal about what we know about the practice of baptism we get from the narratives of Acts. We must base our convictions on the information we have in Scripture. In regard to the rest, we must be careful to “not go beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6).
Once again, Dave Miller’s series on his blog gives what I consider to be an extremely well-researched overview of Scriptural teaching on baptism, including the narrative passages in Acts, as well as other passages. To really get into a complete discussion of the biblical material, I believe it would be helpful to react on a verse-by-verse and passage-by-passage basis to what Dave has written over at his place.
CB: David, I agree that we should seek to carry out all the “one anothers” of the NT. We should also confront one another with sin in our lives. At the same time, I believe the ultimate authority for sin in the life of a believer under the authority of Christ is the local church to which that believer belongs. (I think we fail to inform local churches of conduct unbecoming in particular members and this has weakened the witness of the “Bride of Christ” (Church Universal) in the whole world.)
David: C. B., I agree that we should inform local churches of conduct unbecoming in particular members, and that inconsistent practice of church discipline has indeed weakened our witness as Christians. But, at the same time, I believe we should also inform parachurch groups of conduct unbecoming in group participants. Lack of discipline and accountability in these groups has also done much to weaken our witness as Christians before the world.
CB and David,
Great dialogue you guys are having here. One thing that continues to surface in your discussion and in most all discussions it seems is the confusion of the terms used to describe the church. Is she universal, local, both/and, either/or, all of the above,…etc.
Isn’t the church the “ones” that are called out…all of them, not a portion of them. Many people try to diminish one portion over another portion. Only Christ can remove the lampstand though. I mean,..how can the church be anything other than the church, especially since Christ is the chief cornerstone. Christ is not multiple/local or divided is he? There is one chief stone on which the other stones reside. Allbeit that these other stones come together in various places… to worship God in spirit and in truth. Some seem to do that using the gifts of the Spirit, while others make more use of man’s skill and to form the organizations.
The Great Commission though, is to go forth “making disciples”, “baptizing them”. The commission is not to “make local churches”. The gathering of the church at the local is a supernatural urging upon the church, informed by way of the Holy Spirit, in obedience to Christ’s Word. The making of disciples supernaturally flows from and in the church, urged to gather together for edification, by the Spirit. If we assume that the Great Commission’s command is to make the “local church” organization,…we will naturally come to the conclusion that we must administrate the activity, instead of feed the sheep.
Is there one place in scripture that teaches us to “make” the local church. Or has Christ said, that upon this rock “I will build my church” (all those that the Father gives Him)…and that includes all that are called….so that when all that are called gather in His name, each individual looks to Christ alone for the substance and evidence of that testimony. A testimony that the Apostle John says is made by God, and is greater than man’s.
1 John 5:5-11 Who is the one who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? (6) This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. (7) For there are three that testify: (8) the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. (9) If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for the testimony of God is this, that He has testified concerning His Son. (10) The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son. (11) And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.
Have some in a “local church” taken preeminence over the testimony of God? It appears that scripture always works from the position that the church is “all”, and gathering to obey. Our communities would do well to understand this from a biblical perspective, instead of isolating themselves by a list of rules and policies deemed worthy for membership or club like organization. Light shines, it is not isolated.
The Apostle Paul put it in the larger context….
Ephesians 3:8-10 To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ, (9) and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things; (10) so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places.
The wisdom of God is made known through the church….which fundamentally is all of us that confess Jesus is the Son of God….and we gather with others in places where we live and work to bring edification to one another to the glory of God.
Blessings,
Chris
David,
Local churches are not, by Christ’ design, “organizations or institutions.” Local churches are, by Christ’ design, living organisms made up of those birthed into the Bride of Christ (Church Universal) by the will of God, through the atonement of Christ, sealed by the Holy Spirit unto the day of redemption.
It is true that there are tares among the wheat within local churches (There are no tares in the Church Universal.) It is due to the presence of tares in local churches that we have some of the problems of which we both have addressed.
None the less, I think you make some assumptions based upon an institutional or organizational paradigm for local churches. That may not be the case. But some of your arguments are, seemingly, based upon the struggles of local churches rather than the true purpose of local churches.
David, this part of your comment is what gives rise to me making the statement above:
You said,”With all due respect, I do not find a basis for your assumptions here. They appear to me to all be based upon circular reasoning. Yes, of course, Jesus knew that local churches would develop after giving the Great Commission. He also knew that many aberrations in ecclesiology, such as the Roman Catholic hierarchy, the Protestant state church, the Landmark movement, and many assorted sects, cults, and denominations, would develop. But none of this necessarily infers local church supervision of baptism.”
David, all those examples you present are due to the presence of “institutional and organizational” thinking and development in church history rather than living as an “organism/organisms” under the leadership of Christ, according to His Word, empowered by the Spirit.
Naturally, we must admit that those things you mention represent the struggles of local churches from the beginning. Churches will encounter “struggles” until Christ returns and gathers up those who make up the Bride (Church Universal) and leaves the tares behind. There is no doubt about that.
Yet, in my understanding, our focus (here in this dialogue) is not upon the struggles down through history of the Church and “its” local (churches) manifestations thereof, but rather, we are discussing ecclesiology and in particular the accountability and authority for baptism.
David, if we spread out to far with the “what ifs”, we will loose focus on the “one another” accountabilities we have as part of the Bride of Christ (Church Universal) and its manifestations (local churches) for carrying out the Great Commission as mandated by Christ.
I would also like to ask you to consider that we have been speaking of the local church and its accountabilities. We have not been dealing with parachurch ministries. it is my opinion that that would be another topic all together. My reasoning for that is that parachurch ministries are just that; “para”church ministries.
David, I still contend that within the mandate of the Great Commission is the authority for biblical baptism and that can only be fulfilled by the earthly manifestations (local churches) of the Bride of Christ (Church Universal) under the ultimate authority of Christ our Lord.
cb
Chris,
Read comment #21. I think you will find my position as to some of the things you reference in your comment.
I also think, from the content of your comment, you may be giving a greater focus upon the “struggles” of the manifestations (local churches) of the Bride of Christ (Church Universal) than upon a search for a proper and biblical ecclesiology and the accountability and authority for baptism in particular.
cb
David and now, Chris :-), (Maybe others will join, hopefully. And if they do, may they join without throwing rocks)
I will be out the remainder of the day. Let me say, I have enjoyed the dialogue thus far. I don’t know much more that I can add, but I will check back later. If we have exhausted this at this point, I am sure we will all “reload” and meet again somewhere else on another day and engage this this topic again.
cb
Chris,
I, in essence, agree with everything you say here. Technically, I do not believe there are two separate entities–the Universal Church, and the local church. I believe it is more correct to view local assemblies of believers as local expressions of the the One True Church. We must, however, face the fact that the NT, on many occasions, speaks of these local expressions as “church” itself, and at times speaks in terms of “the Church,” and at other times, of “a church” or various “churches.”
I do think it is a valid point that C.B. makes that, due to the present non-organizational status of “the Church,” it is impossible for it to “administrate” baptism. My point to him, however, is that it is really not necessary to “administrate” baptism in the sense I understand him to be using that term. I guess that Philip “administrated” baptism, in a sense, with the Ethiopian eunuch, and Ananias “administrated” baptism, in a sense, with Saul, etc. (see Dave Miller’s series for further examples). But, what you do not find in the NT is presenting baptismal candidates for votes before a local assembly, that those who baptized others had to be officially approved as legitimate baptizers by some local assembly or another, nor the idea that, in some way, a proper “administrator” of baptism is a factor in determining the validity of that baptism.
C. B.,
I don’t really find anything I disagree with in your last comment either. When it comes down to it, though, I still contend that there is no Scriptural evidence for the idea of “presenting baptismal candidates for votes before a local assembly,” the idea “that those who baptized others had to be officially approved as legitimate baptizers by some local assembly or another,” “nor the idea that, in some way, a proper ‘administrator’ of baptism is a factor in determining the validity of that baptism. And, nothing that you have said here so far convinces me otherwise.
Back to the original point of this present conversation:
Robin, in his comment #3, makes the claim that we should not base our view of baptism on the narrative of the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch by Philip alone, as this may well be an exception to the rule. As he says, “Therefore we rely upon other narratives, epistles, gospels, teachings, and prophecies that give us a complete picture.”
As a general hermeneutical principle, I agree with what he says here. We must interpret individual passages within the context of Scripture as a whole.
However, my contention is that Scripture as whole does not justify the BI teaching on local church supervision of baptism anymore than the passage on Philip and the Ethiopian does by itself.
Now, it seems that you are discounting, not only the narrative of Philip and the Ethiopian, but also the other narratives in the Book of Acts (which make up the bulk of the information that we have in the Bible on the practice of baptism), as the basis for our views on this subject.
I admit, however, that I am not infallible in my understanding of Scripture, and am willing to be taught by those who see something there different than what I see. The only thing I ask is that they at least point me to Scripture itself, and make a reasonble explanation of why they interpret certain Scriptures the way they do.
And so far, I have not seen anything on the “BI” side of things that comes anywhere close to the case presented in Dave Miller’s series on baptism to making a sound Scriptural argument for that particular point of view.
David,
I have been detained from leaving at the time I had intended. (As you know, ministry often means delays and “hurry up and wait” so I have a few unexpected moments, therefore I will quickly engage your thoughts)
First and in my opinion, I believe the GC is the Scriptural basis for my position. Therefore, I believe I have made my argument from Scripture.
Secondly, I do want to take issue with an assumption you may have made as to my position. (That assumption may have its foundation in dialogues you have had with others and if so I completely understand.)
You said, “I still contend that there is no Scriptural evidence for the idea of “presenting baptismal candidates for votes before a local assembly….”
David, it may surprise you but therein we agree.
I do not believe a local church should “vote” in an “up or down” manner about the baptism of a convert. I believe that as we fulfill, as individual believers, the GC and evangelize people with the biblical gospel that our job is not yet complete.
I believe that when a person is converted and has professed Christ as Savior and Lord, we are accountable as part of a local body of believers (local church) to bring them before that local body and let them share what has happened in their life. Then , if the new convert desires, he or she can be baptized under the authority of Christ by that particular local church serving as witness to the biblical baptism of the convert, establishing them as part of that fellowship. There is no vote. We are not “electing” that person into the family of God. That is the work of God and not man. The authority of the local church is to recognize as a witness and an accountable body what Christ has wrought in the life of a person.
By being baptized by a particular local body that new believer has placed himself under “mutual” authority (the word “submission” is not a bad word here either as in “mutual submission” one to another) with the other believers in that local body under the ultimate authority of Christ.
Also this “proper ‘administrator’ of baptism” thing that is promoted by many is not something I see as biblical. The only proper administrator that I can see is the manifestation of the Church Universal which has always been the local NT church. Local churches are earthly manifestations of the Bride of Christ. (Church Universal)
David, my contention is that lone, individual believers do not have a biblical authority to baptize. I make that contention based on the same thing you and Robin seem to agree upon and you made mention of:
You said, “Robin, in his comment #3, makes the claim that we should not base our view of baptism on the narrative of the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch by Philip alone, as this may well be an exception to the rule. As he says, “Therefore we rely upon other narratives, epistles, gospels, teachings, and prophecies that give us a complete picture.”
As a general hermeneutical principle, I agree with what he says here. We must interpret individual passages within the context of Scripture as a whole.”
Therefore, it is my contention that the only reasonable earthly authority to baptize (under Christ) is a manifestation of the Church Universal. And the only manifestation of the Church Universal is made up of local churches.
Now I really have to be gone. So until later:-)
cb
CB,
I am happy to hear your further explanation of your own beliefs on these matters. It seems like you and I may be closer on this than what I assumed. Sorry for jumping to conclusions. ?
Where it seems we do still disagree, however, is in finding specifically local church supervision inherent in the Great Commission. I think local church supervision of the various elements included in the Great Commission is often a pragmatic and positive thing, which does not directly go against the intention of our Lord. But, to demand local church supervision as a sine qua non of baptism, or any other element of the Great Commission, in my opinion, goes “beyond what is written” and takes us into the area of human traditions and manmade systems taking on equal authority with Scripture.
Also, I would technically make a distinction between someone submitting to water baptism, and becoming a member of a local congregation. I think it is good and well that local churches ask evidence of bona fide water baptism as a requirement for membership. And, that often the two actions may coincide (the actual baptism, and the admittance into membership). However, I think they are still technically two different actions, which do not necessarily hinge the one upon the other.
I believe we are baptized by the Spirit into the Body of Christ at large. But I do not make the correlation that we are baptized by water into the local church. We are baptized by water, rather, in obedience to Christ, and in identification with Christ, in his death, burial, and resurrection. We are admitted into membership of a local congregation on the basis of our testimony of faith, which is sealed publicly by our baptism in water.
This to many people will, no doubt, seem like squabbling over tweedle dee dee and tweedle dee dum. However, I think it is an important distinction to maintain when trying to understand our positions on these things.
Also, I am not so sure that I would agree that the ONLY manifestation of the Church Universal is made up of local churches. Now, if by local churches you mean the composite of true believers in a given locality, that is, no doubt, true. It is, in fact, a truism. However, I believe there are authentic members of the Universal Church who, for whatever reason (valid or not) are not at the same time members of the organizations we normally call local churches. Personally, I think it would be best that we all be “members” of “local churches” in the “traditional sense” of the word. But, if someone is a bit off-base here or there in their practice, that doesn’t, in my understanding, eliminate them from being a legitimate part of the One True Church, the Body of Christ.
David,
You said,”We are admitted into membership of a local congregation on the basis of our testimony of faith, which is sealed publicly by our baptism in water.”
How could you get anything other than that from the substance of my last comment? That is exactly what I said. I was trying to say it in such a way that you would see what I was talking about, but I obviously missed my goal.
Now let me go on to say we are in diametric opposition here relating to the following statement you made:
You said, “Also, I am not so sure that I would agree that the ONLY manifestation of the Church Universal is made up of local churches.”
David, what other earthly manifestations could possibly constitute the earthly presence of the Bride of Christ (Church Universal) other than local churches? (What do you mean by the “ONLY manifestation” statement?)
By local churches I mean that which I described earlier as:
“Local churches are, by Christ’ design, living organisms made up of those birthed into the Bride of Christ (Church Universal) by the will of God, through the atonement of Christ, sealed by the Holy Spirit unto the day of redemption.”
Tell me where we differ here.
And of course, our main difference is our view of local church authority. I believe it to be very evident in the GC. You obviously do not see it as being so clear. I do think you hold that it is possible. Am I correct in that assumption?
cb
David,
I am not a BI guy by official “BI baptism” into the BI gang. I think “most” of them like me OK, but they are a little nervous around me because they never know when I might hoist the Black Flag and go off on my own.
But let me say this for them if I may. And I know I can say for me.
I know not one BI guy who would disagree with the following statement made by you:
“But, if someone is a bit off-base here or there in their practice, that doesn’t, in my understanding, eliminate them from being a legitimate part of the One True Church, the Body of Christ.”
Again, David, I do not know one BI guy who would disagree with the above statement. You have read them wrongly if you think they do differ.
cb
CB,
If we both agree on the statement “We are admitted into membership of a local congregation on the basis of our testimony of faith, which is sealed publicly by our baptism in water,” great, let’s leave that one. I have heard the argument made by others, though, that baptism is one and the same as joining the local church (e.g. “we are baptized by water into the local church”).
As far as “manifestations” of the Universal Church, I see that the church is not an organization or institution, as such, but rather people. There are some people, who due to their misunderstanding, disobedience, or whatever, are members of the Universal Church, but not of a local church, at least in the sense of formal membership in an organization. When these believers testify of their faith, minister to others, exercise their spiritual gifts, etc., albeit in a perhaps misguided way, they are nonetheless “manifesting” the Universal Church.
I believe that local churches may (and should) legitimately get involved in Great Commission ministry, and even supervising, in some aspects, the carrying out of this ministry. What I do not see (even as a possibility) is that the Great Commission, in and of itself, requires local church supervision in order for baptism, or other elements of Great Commission ministry, to be regarded as legitimate.
I understand your stance on the whole “BI” thing, but you are the one who has kindly been willing to engage me on this issue, so I’ve got to “dance with the one what brung me” on this one. I would love to get some of the self-professed “BI” guys to jump in on this conversation, though.
David,
You said, “When these believers testify of their faith, minister to others, exercise their spiritual gifts, etc., albeit in a perhaps misguided way, they are nonetheless “manifesting” the Universal Church.”
Let me say this in response and see if we agree: A person who has been born again is part of the Body of Christ (Church Universal). I agree with you there.
Now, let us see if we differ here. I also believe that any born again person is accountable to Christ to come into fellowship, become accountable and mutually submissive (under the authority of) a local NT church. I believe that only individuals who have professed Christ as their Savior (born again), who commit to living a separated life away from sin and unto service for Christ (Committed to live a Holy life) and have followed Christ in baptism are biblically eligible to become part of a local NT church.
Now, here we may disagree. I also believe that if a person is not, in the fashion I described above, part of a local church seeking to live a life both privately and publicly that is conducive to honoring Christ and fulfilling the GC as mandated by Christ, that person is in direct and sinful rebellion to Christ.
cb
David,
You said, “I believe that local churches may (and should) legitimately get involved in Great Commission ministry, and even supervising, in some aspects, the carrying out of this ministry.”
I believe that any church that does not seek to fulfill the mandate of the GC has failed to fulfill its purpose. It is dead.
You also said, “What I do not see (even as a possibility) is that the Great Commission, in and of itself, requires local church supervision in order for baptism,”
It is here that we most probably disagree. Yet, it may be that we are talking past each other and I do not possess the ability to articulate my position well enough to give it credibility to cause you to reflect upon its possibility as a biblical position.
None the less, I will try.
David, what other entity (organism) on earth can validate and witness a person’s profession of faith, recognize their commitment to live a holy life, and give credible evidence that a person has willingly followed Christ in biblical baptism other than a local, visible, body of believers who have committed to the same?
David, like you, (I think) I do not believe the Scripture validates being “baptized into the church.” I do not believe that to be a NT concept, although it was adopted as church doctrine very early in church history. (Catholicism).
Yet, I do believe the physically manifested, local manifestations of the Church Universal (local churches) are commissioned by Christ to validate and witness a person’s profession of faith, recognize their commitment to live a holy life, and give credible evidence that a person has willingly followed Christ in biblical baptism.
I believe the biblical evidence for the claim I make is evident in the Great Commission.
cb
CB,
In regard to your questions on comment #30, I am basically in agreement with you. I would probably not choose the wording “direct and sinful rebellion” in all cases, since there may be extenuating circumstances. But I do agree that the person who loves Jesus will love those who Jesus loves, and Jesus loves the church (e.g. the people who make up the church). Thus, an obedient disciple will seek to live in fellowship with the church. Not just those in his/her particular local assembly, but all those who are brothers and sisters in Christ. Local church membership and active participation is the ideal way to carry out and express this fellowship in a practical way.
In regard to comment #31, we agree on the following statements:
“I believe that any church that does not seek to fulfill the mandate of the GC has failed to fulfill its purpose. It is dead.”
“I do not believe the Scripture validates being ‘baptized into the church.’ I do not believe that to be a NT concept, although it was adopted as church doctrine very early in church history.(Catholicism).”
From what I can tell, we disagree on the following:
“Yet, I do believe the physically manifested, local manifestations of the Church Universal (local churches) are commissioned by Christ to validate and witness a person’s profession of faith, recognize their commitment to live a holy life, and give credible evidence that a person has willingly followed Christ in biblical baptism.
I believe the biblical evidence for the claim I make is evident in the Great Commission.”
I do believe that local churches may legitimately “validate and witness a person’s profession of faith, recognize their commitment to live a holy life, and give credible evidence that a person has willingly followed Christ in biblical baptism.” I believe it is generally a good thing when they do so. However, I do not see that they are specifically commissioned with sole authority to do so in the Great Commission.
Thus, I do not believe individual believers need to be specifically commissioned by a duly constituted local assembly in order to carry out legitimate baptisms, nor that the validity of someone’s baptism depends on such protocol being carried out correctly.
I agree that a valid baptism must have the proper subject–a truly repentant person who is trusting in Christ for their salvation; the proper mode–immersion in water; and the proper motivation–obedience to the command of Christ, and a desire to identify with Him in His death, burial, and resurrection. However, I do not believe the supposedly “proper administrator” is an absolutely necessary component of valid baptism. I think this idea is essentially a “hand-me-down” from centuries of Catholicism. In the Roman Catholic paradigm, the “proper administrator” was a duly ordained priest. It is an ex opere operato thing, that turns baptism into essentially a magic act performed by a privileged person in order to confer grace upon the person receiving it. Some Baptists “filled in the blank” differently, and changed the “proper administrator” from a duly ordained priest to a duly appointed church member of a duly constituted church. I suppose this is, in some ways, an improvement. But, in the end, I don’t find any more biblical basis for this than I do for the Catholic paradigm. The problem is not in recognizing who is the “proper administrator,” but rather with the insistence that there must be a “proper administrator” for baptism to be considered valid.
David,
I think you know that I am not saying a “proper administrator” is an ordained pastor, but I make mention of that to be sure.
David, we have come to agreement on several things. I seriously doubt that we can come to agreement as to who has biblical authority for baptism.
I believe the authority for baptism is mandated in the GC to local churches in the fashion and in the order as I have presented.
You do not believe that.
Yet, I do thank you for not calling me a Landmarker. Certainly you see that my position is not that of Landmark theology.
Let me also say that I do not really consider you to be a Plymouth Brethren….although, I do think you could pass for one on a dark, moonless night. :-)
cb
CB,
Yes, I realize neither you, nor the majority of Baptists arguing in favor of local church supervision of baptism, believe the baptizer must be an ordained pastor. As I understand your view, he/(she?) must be, rather, a member of a local church designated by that church with the authority to baptize. Correct? If so, as I stated above, I don’t see any more biblical basis for this requirement than for the ordained priest/pastor requirement. It is just one more way to look for a “proper administrator,” when a “proper administrator” is not a concern of the Bible.
As to what is mandated in the GC or not, I think you would have to admit that your view is not stated directly, but rather implied (e.g. that those things that Jesus specifically commands to the 11 may be taken as commands to local churches down through history).
At least you and I agree that the command was not meant just for the 11. I believe this is implied, when Jesus says, “And lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age,” knowing full well that each of the 11 would die before the end of the age. You take this one step further, and say, that, since Jesus knew that the 11 would lead the disciples in Jerusalem to organize themselves into a local church, and that, from this church, many other local churches would take root, the proper context for carrying out these commands was to be these local churches. I think this is a nice theory, and it helps to “connect the dots” neatly for the traditional Baptist system of ecclesiology, but I just don’t see an adequate basis there in the text itself for jumping to this conclusion. It is, as I have alluded to various times earlier in this conversation, “going beyond what is written.”
In practice, there is actually very little difference between my way of seeing things on these issues and your way of seeing things. Personally, I don’t think the differences are significant enough to necessarily get in the way of productive cooperation in ministry and on the mission field.
As you are well aware, though, the occasions when these differences do make a difference are moments like when the IMB BoT passes rules like the “new” baptism guideline. As a result, a good number of people who I consider to have been legitimately baptized are regarded as effectively non-baptized, and disqualified as missionary candidates.
Before you correct me on this one, it seems like I remember you being opposed to the IMB guideline on baptism, as well. Is this not correct? If so, on what basis do you oppose it?
Also, understanding better my perspective on this, do you see any problem with someone who believes like I do (specifically on the issues we have discussed here) being a salaried employee/missionary with the SBC? Why or why not?
David,
First, You cannot be certain there were only 11. Actually there is great/greater biblical evidence there were as many or more than 500 who were given the GC directly by Christ just prior to the ascension.
I also do not think it to be a theory at all as to baptism being the specific accountability of local NT churches. I think that you are taking a deconstructive approach to a valid biblical position toward baptism in particular. But, I do not believe you to be a deconstructionist in general.
I do agree with you in saying:
“In practice, there is actually very little difference between my way of seeing things on these issues and your way of seeing things.”
Yet, in what you say immediately afterward, I think we would have to determine exactly what we were seeking to cooperate in doing in ministry or on the mission field.
That which I refer to is:
“Personally, I don’t think the differences are significant enough to necessarily get in the way of productive cooperation in ministry and on the mission field.”
Now, as to my position relating to the IMB BoT. David, my position on ecclesiology and that of several of the IMB BoT,who were extremely influential in decisions at the time made, are of a different nature. You should know this from the substance of our dialogue here.
And, since you bring it up, I knew what was really happening on that board and why. And, frankly my opposition as to actions taken by the IMB BoT goes all the way back to 1993 and beyond.
Lastly, I ask, if you will to let me leave the IMB out of this dialogue. David, I made my stand based upon what I knew to be true. And, in all truth David, the cost of that stand to me personally, in relationships to good men who I love greatly causes me much grief and sorrow to this day. I went too far and committed sin and fell to rude behavior during that time.
Therefore, what I believe about the IMB BoT and the IMB in general is beyond what I would say here in a blog comment. And finally, no matter what I say, it would be of a tainted substance due to my own failures making me unworthy to direct attention to the present needs or the past actions of the IMB.
So, my brother, I will refrain from any discussion of the IMB policies in this venue and I believe you are of the character to understand why.
cb
David Rogers,
A Christian forsakes his principles for fear of losing his friends lacks integrity. A Christian who maintains his principles with civility and grace, and without hostility, displays the character of Christ.
I admire you for being a shining example of both integrity and Christ-like character.
Well done.
Wade
CB,
I think it is quite plain in Matthew 28:16-20 that Jesus appeared to the 11. To read in any more than the 11 into this text, is, in my opinion, a very clear case of eisegesis. Now, He did appear (from all appearances) on a different occasion to more than 500 at one time (1 Cor. 15:6). It is possible that when He appeared to the more than 500, He gave them instructions similar to the Great Commission. But, it is also possible that He did not. Whether He did or not is a matter of conjecture, since the biblical text itself does not give us a clue on this particular. However, in the final analysis, from my point of view, whether 11, 500, or 11 and 500, makes little difference. A local church may have 11 members or 500. Even if He did give the Great Commission to more than 500, though, says nothing in regard to Him giving it specifically to local churches to supervise.
Deconstructionist or not, I cannot say I see something in the text that is simply not there. The Great Commission says nothing about local churches.
If you prefer not to talk more about the IMB BoT, and their policies, that is your prerogative. I, for one, am happy that there seems to have been a reconciliation among the current BoT and IMB administration (I have no inside information, just what I read in Baptist Press). But I still feel the guidelines on baptism and PPL are over the top, unnecessarily divisive, and counterproductive for the advance of God’s Kingdom and the fulfillment of the Great Commission.
Thank you for the constructive dialogue.
Wade,
It’s been a while. Interesting “meeting” you over here. :)
Thanks for the compliment.
Wes, Robin, Tim, Scott, Joe, Bart, Malcolm…
If any of you have been reading this dialogue between CB and me, I am curious if you feel CB has represented your own view on this question well. If you feel there are other points that could or should be made to support the “BI” postion on local church supervision of baptism, I would really appreciate you weighing in. I would really like to understand as well as possible your rationale for your position on this issue.
Wade,
I am going to take it that you were simply complimenting David in your comment and you were not making one of your famous barb filled, suggestive comments toward anyone else’s integrity here. Because if you were, we can most certainly leave the subject of biblical baptism and discuss the subject personal integrity. It might become most interesting to a host of people.
I make this statement, Wade, because anyone would be really hard pressed to see the need for David to be in any strain, at any time, to maintain “his principles with civility and grace, and without hostility” as he “displays the character of Christ” at any juncture in this comment thread.
It has, thus far, been a very civil dialogue by all parties involved. But, of course, we all know that if an antagonistic personality were to enter this dialogue or any other dialogue disguised as possessing a character of irenic virtue, things can become rather “uncivil” in the eyes of the less informed quickly.
But, naturally, we all know that no antagonistic personality is going to enter this dialogue, don’t we, Wade? All of us who enter this dialogue are simply going to have a friendly dialogue about the substance of biblical baptism and do it with “genuine” “integrity and Christ-like character”, right, brother?
And then, at the end of the day, we can all say; “Well done.” So what do you say, Wade? Let’s talk about baptism.
cb
Brother David,
I believe Brother CB has done well representing a clear historic Biblical view of the doctrine of baptism. If you would like another point I will be glad to jump in. Of course, you are the first that has come into the pit bulldog backyard and called out all of the dogs. :)
You seem to rest your argument on the fact that Jesus was speaking to the eleven in Matthew. I am not so sure there is clear enough Biblical evidence that he was only speaking to the eleven at that point. However, if he was only speaking to the eleven, would you not agree at least these eleven were leaders of the church? If he were speaking to only these eleven then why were other people in the church baptizing? If this commission is given only to us as individuals then why would we begin churches? If this commission was not given to the church then why didn’t the Apostle Peter tell the 3000 “repent and each of you come on and we will begin our own individual study groups to find out how we can meet the felt needs of the rest of these folks”? If this commission was not given to the church then why did Paul clearly point out that he was writing to the “church” when he wrote his letter to the “Church at Rome”? It is in that letter that Baptism is described as to what it is and what one is being baptized into.
Thus, I know that you asked, but these are the only other questions that I could think maybe needed to be added to the mix.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
Thanks for jumping in and adding your additional comments.
I think you may have misread some of what I have written, though. I do not ever say or insinuate that my argument hinges on only the 11 being present at the GC. As a matter of fact, quite the opposite. See, for example, this part of comment #37:
“However, in the final analysis, from my point of view, whether 11, 500, or 11 and 500, makes little difference. A local church may have 11 members or 500. Even if He did give the Great Commission to more than 500, though, says nothing in regard to Him giving it specifically to local churches to supervise.”
My argument hinges rather on the bulk of Scriptural evidence, as presented in Dave Miller’s series on baptism, and the absence of Scriptural evidence in favor of the “BI” view. The only supposed Scriptual evidence I have seen adduced thus far is a rather dubious interpretation, based upon conjecture and inference, of Matt. 28:16-20. I now also see that Robin, over at SBC Voices, is throwing 1 Tim. 3:15 into the mix as well. However, once again, that passage does not in any way speak directly into the question at hand. To connect it to the question is making a pretty big hermeneutical leap in my fallible, but sincere, understanding.
Also, you seem to suppose that I, in some way, belittle the importance or legitimacy of the local church. I believe very strongly in the local church. I do see the planting of local churches as an important and valid application of the Great Commission. I have been a church planter myself, remember?
What I believe is that Jesus’ commission given to the 11 was also given in a representative way to the Church Universal. Part of the carrying out of that commission implied the planting of local churches. But to jump from this to saying that this necessarily implies as well local church supervision of baptism is a non sequitur, in my opinion.
Also, in Romans, it is clear that we are baptized into Christ, and not into the church.
First, CB & David, I have enjoyed ‘listening’ to your discussion of this issue. Well done, gentlemen.
Second, I also echo Tim’s affirmation of CB’s argument concerning baptism and the local church. Well said, CB.
Third, the only other point (remember, I like points :-) ) of consideration I would offer here is the expression of the Great Commission which falls outside the four Gospel accounts. In Acts 1, we read of Christ’s instructions to his disciples to wait for the promise of the Holy Spirit…then you (plural) will be my witnesses… If the GC is given to an individual as part of the Universal Church in Matthew 28, why then were they to wait? Why is the command to be witnesses (Acts 1) and make disciples (Matthew 28) given in the plural? I believe both entail accountability, and as CB has well expressed, our accountability to faithfully observe all that Christ has commanded us only is possible in the context of the local church. All things which our Lord has commanded us to do includes making disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I believe we are served best when we consider that we need accountability, under the Lordship of Christ, to one another.
I also see that in the account of the day of Pentecost and elsewhere in the NT, when individuals are born again, they are baptized and added to the church. Again, CB has explained well the relationship between the Universal Church and the local churches regarding this matter. If we lose the association witnessed to in the NT and throughout Christian history, even in our own confession of faith, of the close association of believer’s baptism and the local church, then we could start baptizing people via internet church campuses…oh, wait. Sadly, that’s already happening.
Sola Gratia!
CB.
?
My comment is a compliment to David Roger’s for his civility and grace.
Wade
CB and all;
I appreciate CB for taking the time to receive my call this morning. I now understand where you are coming from, and I do sincerely apologize for not being clear in my first comment.
I have long admired David Rogers, and without going into detail, am aware of several pressures that he has faced over the past few years because of his clear articulation of a few (what I consider “minor”) doctrinal positions. I have never once seen David waver from his convictions or principles, but I have not seen him participate in blogs in a while. This was the first occasion where I have seen him dialogue on baptism since his resignation as a long time IMB missionary in Spain. I’m not saying he hasn’t participated in other forums, it’s just that I haven’t seen them if he has.
Once again, in this comment stream, David makes his positions known with complete civility and grace, no small feat considering some of the pressures he has faced. That, to me, is the preeminent sign of God’s grace.
However, my originally comment was poorly worded. I should have pointed out that there was civility and grace demonstrated by all in this thread, including Tim, Chris, David– but particularly C.B.
I commend everyone for dialoguing on this issue in what is obviously a Christ-like spirit by all involved. The civility and grace displayed by C.B. Scott is as real and meaningful as thought from David Rogers.
In His Grace,
Wade
Scott,
Thanks for chiming in here as well. You make some good points worth considering. However, I am still not convinced.
For example, I have always seen the command to wait, in Acts 1, as tied in specifically to the anointing of the Holy Spirit, and not the establishment of the local church. If we can say that the local church was born at Pentecost (and, in some ways, I believe we can), we can also say, by the same token, that the Universal Church was born at Pentecost, inasmuch as the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit is a key determining factor of what makes a church (or the Church) a church (or the Church). But, the reason for the wait (at least as I see it) is for the enduement of power from on high (e.g. the baptism of the Holy Spirit), not the establishment of a proper accountability structure.
I agree with you about the significance of the Great Commission given as a plural (not singular) command. We, as members of the Body of Christ, are not intended to carry out our discipleship, and obedience to the Great Commission, in isolation from the other members of the Body. This, however, does not necessarily imply local church supervision of baptism. That, in my opinion, is “connecting dots” that the text, by itself, does not give us warrant to connect.
I believe that, when individuals are born again (e.g. baptized in the Spirit), they are added to the Universal Church. If they are obedient to Christ’s command, and understand it correctly, they are subsequently baptized in water. After this, it is normal and to be expected that they should seek to unite in fellowship with the rest of the Body of Christ present in the particular location in which they live. Since the most practical way to carry out an on-going relationship of accountability and mutual discipleship is through active participation in a local congregation, I see it as a logical and normal next step to “join” a local congregation, recognizing a particular subset of the Body of Christ as one’s immediate “accountability partners” as it were.
In all of this, I imagine we are very close in our beliefs and practice. I just don’t find biblical grounds for the idea (as I told C.B. above) of “presenting baptismal candidates for votes before a local assembly,” the idea “that those who baptized others had to be officially approved as legitimate baptizers by some local assembly or another,” “nor the idea that, in some way, a proper ‘administrator’ of baptism is a factor in determining the validity of that baptism.”
Wade,
Thank you for the clarification. It was my desire to have a dialogue with David about biblical baptism without some of the rhetoric that often accompanies this subject. I felt that was happening. I confess that when I read your comment, I assumed you were stating otherwise. We both must admit that our history over the last two years has not been without its “fireworks.”
I apologize for my invalid assumption.
May God grant you continued grace as you lead the local body there in Enid to fulfill the Great Commission. And may His grace be continually recognized in my heart to help me to remember to be at peace with my brothers.
cb
Brothers,
Does anyone here believe that baptismal candidates require votes from a local assembly? I not sure I understand this… is someone advocating this really happens or is this simply instructional language used as a part of trying to establish the context of baptism with relationship to those called out in the new covenant.
It is obvious from the text, whether one is to believe that Luke’s account of Philip is legitimate or not, that Philip did baptize the Eunuch by way of specific authority. No local assembly was present to “vote” or “even in the event” that the Jerusalem council got together and insisted that Philip would or should baptize anyone along his way, that sequence does not fit the order provided by Luke in the text, nor by Paul in many instances. If any tradition was cast, other than what he acted upon, Philip would have insisted that the Eunuch be baptized by “his” authority rightly bequeathed. The text is certain at this point though, to establish the order and maintain the testimony of all other baptizers as commanded by the authority of Christ, head of the church, be under this authority of the Holy Spirit. What did Luke record concerning the testimony of the Spirit?…..
Acts 8:27-39 “So he got up and went; and there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure; and he had come to Jerusalem to worship, (28) and he was returning and sitting in his chariot, and was reading the prophet Isaiah. (29) Then the Spirit said to Philip, “Go up and join this chariot.” (30) Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” (31) And he said, “Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. (32) Now the passage of Scripture which he was reading was this: “HE WAS LED AS A SHEEP TO SLAUGHTER; AND AS A LAMB BEFORE ITS SHEARER IS SILENT, SO HE DOES NOT OPEN HIS MOUTH. (33) “IN HUMILIATION HIS JUDGMENT WAS TAKEN AWAY; WHO WILL RELATE HIS GENERATION? FOR HIS LIFE IS REMOVED FROM THE EARTH.” (34) The eunuch answered Philip and said, “Please tell me, of whom does the prophet say this? Of himself or of someone else?” (35) Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him. (36) As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch *said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?” (37) [And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."] (38) And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him. (39) When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; and the eunuch no longer saw him, but went on his way rejoicing.”
The Spirit instructed Philip to preach Jesus to him. According to Luke, Philip was not the instigator of the baptism. It was the Eunuch through the testimony of the Spirit that asked the question. Philip by the Spirit’s guidance immersed the Eunuch identifying him with Christ and the Spirit. Then the Spirit snatched Philip away.
A couple of critical thoughts come from the passage, and they also mirror Paul’s accounts involving baptism as well.
1. Is this baptism real? According to the testimony of the Spirit it is.
2. Did the baptism require votes from a local assembly? Did any of Paul’s baptisms require voting? No, this was not the tradition understood during the first century by the Apostles,…even though voting may be a tradition practiced today.
3. Does this prohibit the local assembly from preaching and baptizing those disciples that understand the gospel and recognize the Spirit? No, this is encouraged of all those being saved, identifying with Christ and with the Spirit (Acts 19).
4. Did the baptism event in Acts 19 require votes from the local assembly? No, it is not recorded or mentioned in that manner.
What Scott has said a few posts up concerning the giving of the Spirit at Pentecost is an amazing sign of the new covenant testimony by the Spirit. Baptism is under the authority of the Spirit, proclaimed and demonstrated by the church, and in and through the churches….
Revelation 22:16-17 “I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.” (17) The Spirit and the bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come.” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost.”
Blessings,
Chris
Brother David,
I may have missed it as I have had to quickly scan the comments, but where has anyone said that a vote has to be taken in order to baptize a candidate? We receive people into the church by a vote based on their profession of faith and pending their baptism. If they decide they do not desire to get baptized then we do not baptize them, but neither do we admit them into the church body. Are they saved? That is a question for another post as I would probably say no. If they are not willing to publicly profess Christ through identifying with Him in baptism then they probably never received Christ.
Does a local church have authority to determine who baptizes or not? I believe they do. I have been in baptism services where members of the family baptized other members. Was it a legitimate baptism? Certainly it was because the church allowed for the members to be part of that service. I have been in churches where ordained ministers baptized someone in a pool at the beach, but when the person came to join the church they had to be baptized. Why? Because the ordained minister was not baptizing under the authority of anyone but himself. You see he rejected the idea of a local church and believed that everyone could baptize anytime and any place. The church this young man desired to join would not accept his baptism even though it was an ordained minister. Why? That is the debate of the Donatist. They argued that a proper administrator was one that was ordained by the church as a whole.
I know where you are going to go with this. My position is not the same. The Donatist argued that a priest that gave up the scripture was past forgiveness and would not be able to perform the sacraments. My position is that a local church has the sole authority to determine who/whom they recognize for the authority to baptize for them.
Blessings,
Tim
David and all,
Let me reestablish something that David may have forgotten in our dialogue. I responded to him about a “vote” in comment #25.
“I do not believe a local church should “vote” in an “up or down” manner about the baptism of a convert. I believe that as we fulfill, as individual believers, the GC and evangelize people with the biblical gospel that our job is not yet complete.
I believe that when a person is converted and has professed Christ as Savior and Lord, we are accountable as part of a local body of believers (local church) to bring them before that local body and let them share what has happened in their life. Then , if the new convert desires, he or she can be baptized under the authority of Christ by that particular local church serving as witness to the biblical baptism of the convert, establishing them as part of that fellowship. There is no vote. We are not “electing” that person into the family of God. That is the work of God and not man. The authority of the local church is to recognize as a witness and an accountable body what Christ has wrought in the life of a person.”
Something else David, that I wanted to go back to was our dialogue about legitimate manifestations of the Church Universal. I think we may have missed each other on that one, or at least, I missed you.
You said, “Also, I am not so sure that I would agree that the ONLY manifestation of the Church Universal is made up of local churches.”
David, what other earthly manifestations could possibly constitute the earthly presence of the Bride of Christ (Church Universal) other than local churches? (What do you mean by the “ONLY manifestation” statement?)
I am not clear on what or who you consider as other legitimate (biblical) manifestations of the Church Universal. Can you give me more information on this matter?
cb
Everyone,
Perhaps I am “barking up a tree with no coon in it” on the matter of churches voting on potential baptismal candidates. It seems no one is wanting to own up to approving that idea. If so, fine, we don’t have any disagreement on that one, then.
I guess I was just trying to think through what “local church supervision of baptism” entails, and that was something that came to mind as a possible implication. My idea was that some churches try to determine if those presenting themselves for baptism are authentic in their profession of faith and repentance before baptizing them. Perhaps, this is only done in relation to admitting them to chuch membership, though, which would effectively make baptism and admittance into church membership two different events, an idea with which I agree as well.
This leaves the matter of an approved administrator, which I guess is the nucleus of the discussion here. However, I don’t know where those of you who believe that the local church must confer this authority to someone in order for them to be considered a legitimate administrator get this idea. I certainly can’t think of any example or reference from Scripture to back this up.
Now, it is certain that the Catholic Church, early in church history, came up with the idea that only ordained priests were authorized to administer the sacraments. I believe this was, at the core, a means of exercising control over the people, and a move for greater power on the part of the clergy. From my understanding of church history, by the time of the Protestant Reformation, and the Radical Reformation, this idea that someone or some entity had to be authorized to administer the sacraments was so entrenched that, when the Anabaptists proposed that the proper administrator was not a priest, but rather the local assembly (or someone approved by the local assembly), it was like a breath of fresh air, taking the control away from the priests, and putting it back into the hands of the people. I would argue, however, they did not go far enough. The problem was not with the wrong administrator (only ordained priests), but with the very idea of the need for a proper administrator in order to authenticate the sacraments. That idea in itself was invented in the first place, in my opinion, to prop up the clergy-laity divide. Thus, on this point, even the Radical Reformers themselves were not radical enough in their attempts to return to a New Testament ecclesiology. They were still holding on to a tradition from the early Catholic Church: the need for a proper administrator in order to validate the sacraments.
Of course, Conrad Grebel, George Blaurock, and those who accompanied them, had to deal with the thorny issue of who was qualified to baptize, since none of them had previously been baptized as believers. And, John Smythe had to deal with this in his “se-baptism” in which he immersed himself, and then subsequently disowned it.
In my opinion, the answer to their dilemma was that the legitimacy of the administrator was not an issue they needed to be concerned about. The important thing was not the credentials of the baptizer, but rather the obedience and repentant heart of the one being baptized.
The idea of a proper administrator gets pretty thorny if you try to apply it consistently. If you say a proper administrator must be an authentic Christian himself, then what happens to the baptism of all those who are baptized by someone who later apostasizes (or proves to have been a false disciple all along)? If the proper administrator must have good doctrine, then what if, after baptizing people, it later comes to light they were secretly heretics? If the proper adminstrator must be acting with the authority of an authentic local church, who determines which churches are authentic and which are not? Is there a biblical checklist of doctrines somewhere that we should go by in trying to determine this? Is it possible for churches to apostasize? Revelation seems to indicate that it is. What about the case of people who were baptized under the authority of an apostate church, though they didn’t realize, at the time, that church had already crossed the line into apostasy?
As I understand it, a much simpler solution is that the legitimacy of baptism depends not on a proper administrator, but rather on the authenticity of the faith and repentance of the one being baptized, and their understanding of what they are doing, when they are baptized: identifying with Christ in His death burial, and resurrection. And, of course, the word “baptism” itself implies immersion in water.
CB,
Let’s see if I can explain myself better on the question of manifestations of the Universal Church…
As I understand it, the Universal Church is not made up of local churches, but rather individual believers, many, and indeed, most of whom are also members of local churches. Local churches are expressions of the Universal Church, but not technically the sole components of the Universal Church.
In this sense, the life, testimony, and ministry of all authentic believers are manifestations of the Universal Church, whether they be members of duly constituted local churches or not. I would say that parachurch ministries undertaken by authentic believers are also manifestations of the Universal Church, as they are undertaken by members of the Universal Church.
I hope you understand, that, for me, none of this should be taken to minimize the importance of the local church. I believe that all believers should be active members of a local church, and in a relationship of mutual accountability with a local church.
David,
As I read your position on what a manifestation of the Church Universal may or may not constitute, I think I see a greater picture of where we differ.
In my opinion, I feel that you are seeing local churches as always organized institutions of some degree.
On the other hand, I cannot get away from my theological orientation at the feet of those who taught me that a local church is first and foremost a living organism, visible, approachable and holy, yet fallible and imperfect, being constantly refined as Christ prepares it in part to become present in the whole that He (Christ) might present to Himself the church (Bride of Christ) in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.
David, this is where I “think” we are seeing the same thing, yet from the perspective of different orientations of theological thought as to the manifestations of the Church Universal.
I see local churches as “alive” while you “seemingly” see them as “institutions” which can come in various constructs (local organized churches, parachurch entities, etc.) of equal purpose and “commissioning” in the Kingdom.
Give this some thought….and you can beat me to death with it later. :-)
cb
CB,
We will probably need some agreed upon definitions of the terms “organization,” “institution,” and “organism” to avoid talking past each other on this one. Do you want so suggest some?
David,
As to the use of “organism” to describe a local church I will go back to a definitive statement I made earlier.
“Local churches are, by Christ’ design, living organisms made up of those birthed into the Bride of Christ (Church Universal) by the will of God, through the atonement of Christ, sealed by the Holy Spirit unto the day of redemption.”
Also, consider my comments in #s 21 and 22 to further explain my use of the word organism to describe the substance of a local church.
it is an organism because it is composed of living people who have been born into the Bride of Christ, yet still in an imperfect state.
Thus my reasoning for this statement:
A local church is first and foremost a living organism, visible, approachable and holy, yet fallible and imperfect, being constantly refined as Christ prepares it in part to become present in the whole that He (Christ) might present to Himself the church (Bride of Christ) in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.
You may speak to your concept of organization or institution if you wish and I will be glad to respond seeking to see agreement and difference to help us see more clearly how and why we differ on basically little yet something of a significant nature as to the doctrine of ecclesiology.
cb
CB and David,
Thank you for working through this discussion….it is a good exercise IMHO.
The purpose of the church seems to be different from other Para-church (those believing men and women not meeting under the absolute authority of Christ). The organism of the church are members one of another, where Para-church organizations are not necessarily so….but moreover members of, or beholden to a charter of the organization. Even though some organizations appear more sensible and more in agreement than some churches, being members one of another is an intentional level governed and maintained by the fruit of the Spirit.
That is why in the event a seminary pretends to be the church,..it fails. There are some seminaries that fall under the authority of a local church,…which is certainly achievable and beneficial. Yet, when seminaries choose a charter outside of being members one of another,…the purpose of the church becomes a distant memory and, at whatever level, begins to replace the edification necessarily maintained by the Spirit.
It appears to me that baptism is an act given in the breath of the commission of Christ. We go, making disciples and baptizing. What is seen and taught in many church settings though, is come to our place, get involved in our programs, and if you meet our list of baptism qualifications you can join our organization. The later view is simply a liberal view of the scriptures not of the same tenor that is seen in the great commission command.
The quality of baptism though wherever it is administered by the believer in identification with Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit, leads the individual to edify the body, recognizing a body of believers where they live and work as primary for edification and obedience to the Word (i.e Ethiopian, Jailer, others)…as well as a compelling urge to “go” and make disciples.
I would agree with you CB, that a Para-church organization, while doing good things, really does have a separate mission than that of the church under the authority of Christ alone. I don’t think David is saying really anything different though….I am sure he is able to articulate any differences though.
Blessings,
Chris
CB & Chris,
To tell you the truth, I am a bit nebulous on my understanding of these terms. They are thrown about quite a bit in discussions on this topic. However, I always wonder if people are not working off of the same definitions, and thus confusing, rather than clarifying understanding.
CB’s definition of organism is fine. But, as I understand it, local churches, in addition to being “organisms” (according to CB’s definition), also have some organizational and institutional aspects. By the same token, I would say that the Universal Church is more strictly an organism, and does not have the same organizational and institutional aspects. Roman Catholic ecclesiology understands the Universal Church as an organization/institution. I beleive that is the same danger with much of conciliar ecumenism (World Council of Churches, etc.): they try to work to unite the Universal Church, in pragmatic matters, by means of organizations and institutions.
At the same time, I believe there are certain organizations and institutions that may have positive effects toward helping to express the unity of the Universal Church, such as local ministerial associations, local evangelical councils, World Evangelical Alliance, the Lausanne Movement, etc. None of these organizations/institutions, however, should be equated with the church. They are “parachurch,” in the sense that they are called to come alongside the church, and support the church, in its ministry.
Having said all this, I am open to learning from others who may have considered these questions more in depth. I am, admittedly, still a bit fuzzy in my own understanding of the differences between organisms, organizations, and institutions.
David,
I think you are on target with why there is ambiguity concerning the definitions. The churches will many times will try to be an organization, beholden to a charter, instead of intentional members of one another. Because of that the church is weak as it emphasizes programs to keep it moving,….while in contrast,…those that “maintain” the already existent fruits of the Spirit provided for the church grow up together and mature together in Christ.
A church with a organizational mindset are those that tend toward rules, policies and barriers…..where it becomes evident that the fruits of the Spirit become something they attempt to create, not “maintain” (already existent by the Spirit) as they fine tune the organization.
The early churches seemed to be very fluid as they obeyed the Word of God and were encouraged to “maintain” the already existing unity of the Spirit, who is the administrator of all the church that make up the functioning churches.
Blessings,
Chris
David,
You are totally right (in my opinion) when you say, ” I would say that the Universal Church is more strictly an organism, and does not have the same organizational and institutional aspects.”
It is an “already/not yet” perfect organism.
On the other hand a local church “is/will always be” a fallible and imperfect organism.
This is the nature of a local church as Christ prepares it in part to become present in the whole that He (Christ) might present to Himself the church (Bride of Christ) in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.
It (local church) is the fallible and imperfect in preparation ( being prepared by Christ) to become ultimately the Perfect Bride of Christ which He (Christ Himself) will present to Himself in all her glory perfectly holy and absolutely blameless.
David and Chris, this is my feeble effort to remove any “ambiguity” from my articulation of that which is not ambiguous in my mind. I am sure that my limited ability to articulate my position is in the way here. Forgive me of my limitations as you consider these thoughts.
cb
cb
Chris,
This is a “golden statement.”
You said: “The early churches seemed to be very fluid as they obeyed the Word of God and were encouraged to “maintain” the already existing unity of the Spirit, who is the administrator of all the church that make up the functioning churches.”
It is worthy of specific dialogue which, in my opinion, will help us to clarify several things here as to the effects of human efforts throughout the history of the Church to organize and institutional that which we all might be referring to as the Church Universal and also its manifestations, churches local.
cb
Fellows,
That should be “…. and organize ‘institutionalize’ that which we ….” rather than “institutional.”
cb
Put an “and” between organize and institutionalize.
Brain age gives in quickly to “brain warp” these days. :-)
CB,
I am not sure if I have answered all of the questions you have pending to me. Have I?
For the time being, I can’t think of any further questions I have for you on this. It does seem that we have some disagreements (which I would consider minor) on these matters.
I guess the big underlying question behind this is, should our disagreements (as evidenced in this dialogue) be allowed to get in the way of fruitful cooperation in ministry in a project such as SBC-sponsored joint mission endeavors?
I would certainly hope not. However, my continued dialogue and reading on the positions of various advocates of the “BI” (and related) perspectives leaves me wondering if they (you?) can continue to work with people like me (and perhaps a large percentage of other Southern Baptists) in the way we have been working together up till now.
If we just agree to disagree, and keep on working together, fine. We will never agree on everything this side of heaven. But, if our disagreement on these matters precludes our continued fruitful cooperation, we really have some further necessary dialogue to work on. This is the elephant in the parlor, as far as I am concerned. Is there room “under the tent” for someone like me, and with views like mine (and, no doubt, many, many more self-professed “conservative Southern Baptists”)?
David,
That which you pose to me now seems (to my understanding) like something from your heart relating more to personal matters and somewhat beyond what we have been, up to this point, discussing.
Therefore, let me just answer you from my heart based upon things we have discussed the last couple of day which have given me, at least, some insight as to who you are.
David, I, personally, could probably work with you anywhere and have little problem whatsoever.
But, I must add, there are very few people in the present “national” SBC entity structure who would work with me on much of anything. I am somewhat and in many ways, now sort of a Philip Nolan type “Man Without A Country.”
Therefore, I am not a good source to ask about “tent” life anymore since I am kinda outside such a structure myself now days. I was just reminded of that again just recently.
But, if it would mean anything to you after having said what i just did please know; I’ll ride the river with you any day.
cb
CB,
Thank you very much. I am proud, as well, to call you my brother in Christ, and believe there is a good basis to cooperate in many, and almost certainly, most ministry projects. Perhaps, if we were on the same church planting team together, we would have to work through a few things, first. But, I think it could be done.
I don’t think, though, that everyone that can cooperate freely in the overall SBC project would necessarily be able to work together on the same church planting team. So, being able to work together on the same church planting team should not, as I understand it, be a criterion for being able to work together in the SBC.
But, in the overall scheme of things, we are not just talking about CB and David. We are just two individuals. We are talking about the survival and continuing prosperity of the cooperative arrangement that is the SBC, which affects millions of people, and millions of dollars of God’s resources that He expects us to be good stewards over. If it were just me, I could fairly easily find another ministry outside of the SBC with which to work, and many, many SBC-affiliated congregations that would be happy to partner with me. And, I imagine, despite your self-avowed “man without a country” status, that you could too.
It is when we consistently play out the logical consequences of what we are saying on an individual, personal level here on a bigger scale that the questions we are talking about become really significant. Can “non-BI” type people within the SBC continue to cooperate fruitfully and peacefully as full partners in SBC ministries with “BI” type people? Or, would we possibly make a bigger and better impact for the advance of the Kingdom each group working on separate ministry projects, and not needing to continue to argue these issues back and forth?
It looks like to me like there is not a whole lot of convincing going on back and forth between people with these different perspectives. Most of the people I read on the blogs, at least, seem to be pretty set in their positions on these issues.
And yet, the “non-BI” crowd, from what I gather, seems to be more open to working with the “BI” crowd than vice-versa (at least, as long as the “BI” crowd does not enforce their particular ecclesiological convictions on the “non-BI” crowd).
If we are going to all keep working together on the overall SBC project, I think we need to make this clear, and call a truce of sorts. Sure, it is always fair game to discuss these issues, and try to convince one another of our point of view, from Scripture. I am not saying we should stop doing that.
However, if our convictions are so strong that we really cannot work with those on the other side of these questions without compromising, then we need to be honest about that. It is better to come clean, and say openly how we feel than sweep it under the carpet.
If, however, it is not, when all is said and done, a game-breaker, if it is not “a hill worth dying on,” then we also need to clearly say to one another: “Look, we may not see eye to eye on these particular issues. But I am willing to work in full partnership with you, anyway, for the overall good of the Kingdom.” And, if that is the case, we do not need to keep re-visiting the issue, leading people to think, one minute, they are “under the tent,” and the next, they are “outside the tent.”
Also, if there are some who are convinced that the best thing is to go our separate ways (while still recognizing each other as brothers and sisters in Christ), there is the thorny issue of divvying up resources and responsibilities. That is, probably (in my opinion) where the CR made its biggest mistakes. There probably was not, in many cases, good grounds for continued fruitful and peaceful cooperation. The issues at stake really were “a hill worth dying over,” in the minds of many people. It was probably just as well that both sides recognized this. However, in the end, there were too many losers, and too many winners, as a result of the split. The better solution would be to work for a win-win solution, and learning to bless one another, although going one’s separate way.
David,
It has been a pleasure. I have learned some things. Thank you for this dialogue.
I truly hope you get answers for your personal concerns. And maybe someday, I might be able to get some answers for mine.
But, in the meantime, I will pray for you as you seek to fulfill the Great Commission where you are. And I ask you to do the same for me.
Lastly, if I ever get to sit down with you in person, lunch is on me. The next time you are in Birmingham, call me and I will prove that promise to be true.
In Christ Free,
cb