In our day and age of ecumenical awareness and knocking down the walls of denominations, are baptisms important to people anymore? to Churches? With all of the people saying that they would accept any ole kind of baptism, whether it be sprinkling, pouring, or whatever, is it important about the kind of baptism you have? With some people in Southern Baptist Churches saying that they would accept any baptism, as long as the person was saved, and the baptism was by immersion, is it important who does the baptizing? I mean, if momma’s can baptise their children in the backyard mudhole after they lead little Johnny, or Susie, to the Lord; and it be acceptable to a SB Church; does that not scream some things loudly about that Churches view of baptism? So, do baptisms matter anymore? Are people even concerned with a doctrine and practice that seems to be a very important one as you’re reading the NT.
I really believe that part of the problem today, which some people and some Churches have in some areas of ecclesiology, is that they have a John Wayne, rugged individualist, “I did it my way” mentality. And, this mentality rubs off on their view about baptism, and really, about the Church in general. And, we see this in the thinking of people when they say things like, “I ‘m satisfied with my baptism, so I don’t want to get baptised by a Baptist Church. I want to join your Church without being baptised again.” We see this kind of thinking when Pastors say things to the effect that it doesn’t matter if a new convert is baptised by an individual person in a hot tub, or if they’re baptised with the Churches presence and by the Churches blessing. It doesn’t matter to them that the Church is not involved in the baptism. Why? because it’s an individual thing, rather than a Church thing. In their view, it is a personal thing that happens outside of the Church.
You know, when you look in the Bible, baptism is a group thing; not a “lone Cowboy on the range, riding in the sunset as the coyotes howl” thing. The Lord set up the Church to be a fellowship of Believers. The Church is supposed to be where people are baptised, and taught the Word of God, and discipled, and encouraged. The Church is supposed to always be a group of Believers, who are seeking the Lord together. So, why would baptism not be a Church ordinance? Why would baptism be something that an individual could just do…out there… somewhere….apart from the Body? Why would the Church today let Western philosophy turn baptism into an individuals own personal possession, rather than something that the Church does and participates in? Could it be for convenients sake? Could it be to get more members in their Church, because they know that some people will not join their Church if they have to have a proper baptism? Could it a real reluctance to deal with controversy on the part of a Pastor? Could it be ignorance of the Bible? Could it be the desire to “fit in” with the greater, evangelical group out there? To accepted by the “cool group?” What do you think?
Well, baptism is supposed to be a testimony of the person’s conversion. Baptism is supposed to declare a message, the Gospel, to the people watching it. Baptism is supposed to be a symbollic picture of the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord. Baptism is a picture of the blood of Jesus washing away the guilt and punishment of our sins. Baptism is supposed to be a way of formally accepting a new born baby in Christ into the Church. So, why would people even think that it’s something that’s an indvidual thing? Why would they even want baptism to be an individual ordinance, rather than a church ordinance?
Folks, baptism is a time to celebrate the new birth. Baptism is a time to rejoice in the salvation of a person. Baptism is a very special thing, and it’s something that all the Church should have the privilege to participate in. Baptism is a time for the entire Church to join with the baptismal candidate in this wonderful ordinance given to the Church by the Lord Jesus. How much would be lost and missed if everyone was just out there baptising people in their own, private hot tub, or swimming pool, or local swimming hole in the creek? I think a lot would be missed. We would be missing much of what the Lord intended to do in the life of a Church, if the Church is not allowed to participate in the baptism of new converts.
So, who should get baptised? Of course, those people who get saved by grace thru faith. Acts 2:41. Acts 10:44-48. Acts 16:30-34. How should they be baptised? By immersion. Matthew 3:13-17…Jesus came up straightway out of the water. The very word for “baptise” in the Greek means to dip under, to immerse. So, if you want to do it right, the way the Bible clearly teaches, then it must be a dipping under; an immersion. What should baptism be about? It should be a declaration to the community that a person has been saved. It should be a testimony that the person has truly, sincerely put their faith in Jesus, and they’re willing to obey Him as their Lord. Who should baptise? The Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Great Commission was given to the Church. Matthew 18:20. The beginning of the Church was standing before the Lord Jesus that day. The Apostles were standing there, who were commissioned to preach the Gospel to the world, and baptise the new converts, and disciple them. They were the men that God used to get the Church that the Lord Jesus founded going. The Church should be the one who baptises new converts, so that they are involved with a Church family; to be nurtured in the faith; encouraged; taught; loved; affirmed; accepted; challenged; inspired; and given much needed guidance. The Church is the one, who was given this task by the Lord Jesus, it’s Head.
So, what a Church believes about salvation and baptism does matter. Who is doing the baptising does matter. It says a lot about a person’s beliefs. I mean, if you get baptised in the Church of Christ, then you are identifying with their view of baptismal regeneration and works salvation. If you get baptised by a Mormon Church, then you are saying that you agree with them about works salvation, denying the Trinity, denying the atoning death of the Lord Jesus. If you get baptised by an Assembly of God Church, then you’re agreeing with them that salvation is not an eternal work of God; that it’s something that can be lost. If you get baptised in the Methodist Church, sprinkled on top of the head, then you were not properly baptised by immersion. And, these are not true baptisms. Now, I’m not saying that these people aren’t saved. They most certainly could be saved. But, their baptism is not a valid, proper, true baptism. They should be baptised for the right reasons, and in the right way.
Now, please don’t come into the comment section calling me a Landmark Baptist. lol. I don’t believe that Baptist Churches are the only true Churches, or that we can trace our lineage back to Jesus, or that SB’s are the only ones who can baptise. Puulease. Listen, if Muddy Creek Community Church believes like we do about salvation and baptism, then we should accept their baptism as a true baptism. If Possum Ridge Bible Church believes as we do about salvation and baptism, then I believe they have a true baptism. So, please don’t come in here with all the Landmark comments. I really don’t have the time, nor the energy to deal with that malarky. But, I do believe that baptism is important. And, it should be done right, and for the right reasons. And, I most certainly believe that it should be a Church thing.
OK Biff I’ll bite,
What about a person who is immersed (in a lake)by a methodist preacher and a SB layman, after a proper baptist profession of salvation through grace?
Forgot to add that half of a town of 4000 was in attendance. Does that fit the public part of her testimony?
Lets start with Acts 8:26-40. Where was the church body when the Ethopian was baptized? Would you have rejected this man’s baptism and scolded him about your ideals of the “proper practice” of baptism?
Now I do agree that if one wants to join a SBC church then they should agree to baptism by immersion. It should be the standard. But where I disagree is that it has to be done in front of the church by the pastor. Where is your biblical support for this position? In a modern day context, if an Ethopian moved to the US and wanted to join a SBC church but told you that they were evangelized by a missionary and then was immediately baptized by immersion just one on one. Would you not accept them as a member? Would you “re-baptize” them? What would that say about your view of baptism?
Yes, what a church believes about salvation and baptism is very important. But how many people are baptized by immersion within SBC churches multiple times? Doesnt that diminish the importance of baptism. Many people are just getting wet. The SBC is especially guilty of this with children. Children who get “baptized” at a very young age you were never truly saved and only to get “re-baptized” years later. And lets not talk about baptisms for the purpose of “rededication”.
I think SBC churches should worry more about the easy believism, raise you hand, walk the aisle, say a magic prayer “salvations”. That is more important to get right than a proper mode of baptism. One is a primary matter, one is a secondary matter. You would do well to remember that important distinction before throwing rocks at your brothers in Christ in different denominations.
Jake,
Was her Church in attendance? Were they okay with this?
David
It seems to me that this is classic straw-man argumentation, David.
You said, “With all of the people saying that they would accept any ole kind of baptism, whether it be sprinkling, pouring, or whatever, is it important about the kind of baptism you have?”
Can you show me one Southern Baptist blogger/pastor/leader who is advocating that sprinkling and pouring “or whatever” is okay. One link?
Those of us who oppose the Baptist Identity viewpoint have been very clear. We believe in immersion of believers as a testimony of salvation (not salvific as in Church of christ, etc) in the name of the Trinitarian God.
The key disagreement is as to the extent of church involvement and oversight in the process.
Please demonstrate your presence. You indicate that “all” (implying) many people are advocating that sprinkling and pouring is okay. I challenge you to show me one. If you can, I would join you in arguing against them.
Should have read above, “please demonstrate your premise”…
Sam,
Missionaries can start Churches where there are none. They go out from the Church to start other Churches. So, if a missionary went out from my Church to Ehiopia, and he led someone to the Lord, then sure it’d be okay for him to baptise him. Baptise that man, or woman, and start a Church. Get one going. And, if he moved to America, and he wanted to join my Church, then sure I’d let him join and accept his baptism as a good, true baptism.
And, yes, some SB Churches need to do better about dealing with children about salvation and baptism. And, yes, some SB Churches really do need to talk to people about assurance of salvation, instead of just baptising them every time they have some doubts. Yes, that’s very true.
Also, I do agree that easy believism is a problem in some SB Churches. Yes. Amen. They shouldnt do it. But, that doesnt somehow make baptism unimportant. Why would you think so?
Also, it’s not throwing rocks at anyone to say that baptism should be done right, and for the right reasons. Why is it throwing rocks at other denominations to say that their baptisms would not be acceptable if they were done in the wrong way for the wrong reasons?
I dont follow you there, at all.
David
Dave,
Are you saying that you dont know of any SB Churches that would accept a person being a member that was coming from a Methodist, or a Nazarene, or a Presbyterian Church? And, that SB Church would not require them to be baptised in order to join?
Also, do you not see SB Churches that would accept a Church of Christ baptism? Do you not know of anyone who has said that they would accept someone who was baptised by a Mormon? Have you not heard someone that has said that any baptism by imersion, after the person is saved, would be acceptable? I think so, if you’ll think long and hard enough.
No strawman here, Dave. And, I can certainly see it going this way moreso in the near future, as people continue to push ecumenical thinking into our SBC. I really can see a day in the near future when all of that talk about baptisms having to be by immersion as being too narrow; to fundamentalist; too much requirements on secondary doctrines. I see it coming, because I already here the wind howling outside of my window.
David
Is your position, David, really all that different from Landmark theology? — just minus the dubious historical line, and then adding other credobaptist “once saved, always saved” congregations to the mix.
What I mean is this: Would you give the title of “church” to a church that did not practice credobaptism and confess the eternal security of the believer? It seems that you would say, “No,” since baptism is a church ordinance and, therefore, where it is not rightly administered there is no church. Am I correct? So, you are in the position of saying that, while the Presbyterians, Methodists, and Assemblies may be “Christians,” they do not belong to a “church.”
David,
1) You are the one who made the assertion that it is common practice to accept non-immersion baptisms. I know of no Baptist churches here that would do that. And if they did, I would join you in voting not to seat their delegates.
2) You completely misunderstood what David said about Mormons. He has tried to explain those comments, but I am now left to believe that some just do not want to understand his point because it helps them make their point. He would NOT accept Mormon baptism. Nor would I. His point (I’ll try one more time) was that it was the belief and heart of the baptized more than the baptizer that matters.
3) You said, “Have you not heard someone that has said that any baptism by imersion, after the person is saved, would be acceptable? I think so, if you’ll think long and hard enough.” I have heard NO ONE make that argument. You have my email if you do not want to name that person publicly.
Gentlemen:
If “baptism” helps a person then I must be in good shape because I’ve been baptized three times.
(1) As an infant — in the Roman Catholic church by sprinkling.
(2) As a teenager — about age 15 — in the Dispiples of Christ Church by immersion.
(3) As a teenager — about age 18 — in a Southern Baptist Church by immersion.
I didn’t have a problem being baptized a second or third time because I thought I was “joining the church” each time and, for any particular church, baptism was part of the process of joining the church.
I didn’t know that when I became a Southern Baptist that my previous baptisms were invalid because they we done by sprinkling, or that they were done because supposedly they were performed as part of being saved as opposed to a testomony that I’m saved.
Looking back on this I wonder why I had to be baptized again by the Southern Baptist church. I didn’t know until years later that the Disciples of Christ hold that if you are not baptized then you are not saved. Does the fact that they hold to this incorrect doctrine invalidate my baptism if I don’t know about that incorrect doctrine?
Do incorrect doctrines regarding baptism held by any given church flow back to a person who is a member of that church by “reverse osmosis” — even if the person does know anything about that doctrine?
To me both the Disciples of Christ baptism and the Southern Baptist baptism were the “same”. It wasn’t until years later than I became aware of the differece.
Kevin,
I’m not saying that they’re not Churches. I’m saying that they are Churches that are in error about baptism. Thus, their baptisms should not be acceptable.
Kevin, as I said in my op, I’m not saying that a Church has to be a Baptist Church in order to have a correct baptism. If a Church, whatever they’re called, and whatever group or denomination they belong to, if they believe that salvation is by grace thru faith, and that it’s an eternal work of God, and if they believe that baptism is a symbollic picture and an act of obedience to be done after conversion, and that it’s by immersion; then they would be baptising correctly.
Thus, how can you say that I’m a Landmark Baptist?
Dave,
1) I do know some Churches that would. And, I dont want to get into naming them. Some others that come into the comment room might be willing to do this, but I’m not.
2)I would not accept the baptism of anyone that was baptised by a Mormon, period. Again, as my op stated, it’s not an ordinance given to individuals, it’s given to the Church. Therefore, I wouldnt care if the person getting baptised was truly saved before the Mormon baptised him out in a pond somewhere. It would still be a Mormon baptism.
3)Well, I really do think if you’ll think hard enough you’ll remember several someones making the statement that the only thing that they’d require was that a person was truly saved, and that they were getting baptised by immersion. You really cant remember who some of these people in the blogs saying such things? Think a little harder.
David
Roger,
Once again, I’m saying that baptism is not a personal thing. It’s not an individual thing. It’s not that the person being baptised has to be satisfied with their baptism. Baptism is a Church thing that is done to an individual. Does that make sense?
David
David,
I would agree with our historical belief that Baptism is a Church ordinance. I think the argument for that biblical view has been consistently held by Southern Baptists as clearly indicated by our statement of faith in all versions of the BFM. It is not the “BI” view that has changed doctrinal positions.
A couple of things stand out to me from some who have commented. First, I am of the camp that Christ founded the Church during his earthly ministry. His proclamation to Peter that upon this Rock “I” will build my Church and Matthew 18, where He instructs taking matters to the “church”. How can something be taken to the church if one does not exist? There is no mention in Scripture that the Church was founded at Pentecost. In fact, Scripture specifically states that the Lord added to the Church at Pentecost. ADDED. How can on add to something that does not exist? Not only is the word added used here, but it is used twice in this passage in Acts 2. So, I believe the church was not founded at Pentecost and was actually gathered when Christ gave the Great Commission to her (the church).
Philip and the Ethiopian does raise a valid question that has been well answered elsewhere. But one point that I rarely see made anymore is that Philip was an apostle. The apostles had authority and power that no one since has held. There are various views on their authority, including authority over local congregations. It seems very likely to me that Philip, as an apostle, and as one with authority of his local church (which is clearly given to the apostles and missionaries that were sent out in the first century) is not outside of the scope of argument of one who holds to Baptism being a church ordinance.
But I will give this. If the angel of the Lord commands someone to arise and go and then the Spirit of the Lord caught them away to another town several miles away, I will have no qualms about accepting any baptisms that they perform during that encounter.
Blessings,
Ron P.
I have no knowledge of anyone who has said that David.
Since you are unwilling to give evidence of your accusations, which I believe are false, I will exit stage left with a continued belief that this is a false premise, badly argued.
Ron,
Phillip in Acts 8 was not an apostle. He was a deacon found in Acts 6.
That is a most important distinction to make regarding your whole premise.
Sam,
You are correct. My apologies.
What brought the apostolic argument to my mind was a discussion I had a while back about the authority of apostles and whether they needed local church authority at all for anything including baptisms. Philip came up in that discussion but not as an apostle. Brain melt on my part. Thank you for catching it.
As I stated above the Philip/Ethiopian issue has been ably answered elsewhere. I would concur with those that believe Philip acted under the authority of a local church and not under his own authority.
No one would disagree that this was an extraordinary event that has never occurred before or since. To use it as a proof text that baptism is an individual ordinance is a bit problematic for me in light of other Scripture.
Blessings,
Ron P.
As I was reading I noticed a couple of things.
1. David W., your posts could use a dose of humility. They come off as arrogant and without grace towards those who disagree with you.
2. I would say that Baptism is a personal thing, but not an individual thing. It is ultimately between the person being baptized and Jesus, but it is not something to be done without the church. The same as the Lord’s Supper. I view it in the same way I view the Christian life, it is personal, but not private.
3. I appreciate the comment about it not being exclusive to Baptists only kind of thing at the end, but I would raise one point with it being about Baptism by Immersion with those who are like minded in what it means. I am a Reformed Baptist, and serve in a SBC church where a good majority of leaders are also reformed. We have a view of salvation that differs from First Baptist Atlanta, also an SBC church. I would argue that based on your view of like-minded baptism, I would be more likely to allow someone into membership from a PCA church who immersed them as an adult convert instead of someone who went down the aisle one morning at FBA. (Clarification: We perform Membership interviews with everyone that wants to join to try and discern their understanding of the gospel and what it means to be a Christian in an attempt to avoid false converts from being members. During one of these a girl who is a Christian grew up Mennonite and was baptized by pouring, to join we required her to be baptized by immersion).
4. The problem I see with Baptism in SBC churches is not how its performed or by who, but on who. Baptism is lost as a one time event for those who have been converted by Christ, but now is instead a number we use to judge the success of a church and a church claims 50 Baptisms a year, but we don’t look at how many of those are re-baptisms and false conversions of people who three weeks later are never seen again. Until we come view Baptism as a holy sacred act and not a numbers game so we can keep up with the Jones, I would say the manner, mode and location are a secondary concern.
Jacob
I don’t personally know of any Southern Baptists who accept pre-salvation or non-immersion baptisms, nor have I seen such in the SBC blogosphere. I’ve no doubt they exist somewhere but I doubt it is a large or growing problem.
In my opinion, Southern Baptists are far more guilty of not taking baptism seriously by rebaptizing people rather than accepting improper baptisms. We have a shallow doctrine of salvation (or at least how it is taught) and evangelism which leads to lack of assurance and emotion driven altar-calls and the subsequent and seemingly unending rebaptisms.
Those baptized as infants and by sprinkling need to be baptized properly. Those baptized by immersion as believers in a denom that teaches baptismal regeneration need to be examined closely. They may need to be baptized properly but perhaps not in every case.
People baptized as believers by immersion in a denomination that does not hold to eternal security (which I think is an error) are still properly baptized and need not be baptized again. This would include Nazarene, Wesleyans, etc. You simply can’t find this type of doctrinal examination in the scripture.
I think baptism under the auspices of a local church ought to be the norm, but I don’t think it is an unbreakable rule.
People baptized as believers by immersion who want to be rebaptized need to be corrected and discipled, not dunked again. We make a mockery of the ordinance otherwise. If that kind of thing is common in a church, then they need to take a serious look at their doctrine of salvation.
Bill McKinnon says, “People baptized as believers by immersion who want to be rebaptized need to be corrected and discipled, not dunked again. We make a mockery of the ordinance otherwise. If that kind of thing is common in a church, then they need to take a serious look at their doctrine of salvation.”
Wow!
Amen!
Dave,
So, I guess you’re calling me a liar? If I’m reading you right, you’re calling me a liar in your comments above?
In my OP, I said, “With all of the people saying that they would accept any ole kind of baptism, whether it be sprinkling, pouring, or whatever, is it important about the kind of baptism you have?” I was primarily talking about community type Churches, or Churches of other denominations, that are accepting of baptisms of any sort. Although, there are certainly SB Churches out there that would accept baptisms from other denominations…that dont immerse; that dont believe in salvation and baptism like we do. Maybe yall dont have any of those kind of Churches in Iowa, but there are some down here in the South.
Also, Dave, in my OP, after my comment quoted above, I said, “With some people in Southern Baptist Churches saying that they would accept any baptism, as long as the person was saved, and the baptism was by immersion, is it important who does the baptizing?” Okay, Dave, I remember having this conversation more than a few times at Wade’s place, and at SBC Impact, and at SBC Voices. I was told by many people…not just a few…that as long as the person was saved, and they were baptised by immersion after their conversion, then that baptism would be accepted. That’s what I was told repeatedly by a number of people. And, would you not say that someone, who would say that a person getting baptised by a Mormon after they were truly saved was an acceptable baptism, would fit this????? Would that not fit this criteria of a baptism being acceptable, as long as it was by immersion and the person was truly saved???? Do you remember it now? Do you think I speak falsely now? Will you still call me a liar now?
Good grief, Charlie Brown.
DAvid
Jacob Hall,
1)Thanks for straightening me out. What would I do without you? Now, I see how arrogant I come across. I will change all because of you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I’m so glad that we all have you to help us know how to live and behave and talk. Really, I’m so glad that you helped me here.
2)You make a good point about it being a personal thing. Maybe I used a bad choice of words. What I was trying to convey was that it’s not an individual thing, but a church thing. So, it’s not to be a private, individual thing.
3)I’m not saying that another Church has to agree with every nuance and particular belief about salvation that we hold to. I said that they would have to believe in salvation by grace thru faith…a very general, critical area of belief. And, I do believe that part of believing in salvation by grace thru faith would be that it’s eternal, not some temporary thing that can be lost again. So, are you saying that FBC Atlanta doesnt believe in these very general, critical, fundamental beliefs about salvation? Are you saying that your Church would require people to believe in five point calvinism before you’d accept their baptism? If you do, then that’s up to yall. We Baptists believe in the autonomy of the local church, you know.
4)I almost agree with what you said in number 4 fully. The last sentence in this point cause me to pause, and makes me say that I almost agree fully.
David
Dave,
As I read what Bill wrote in comment #20, and then I read your response to Bill in #21, I’m left scratching my head at your comments in #’s 5, 10, and 16. Are you not contradicting yourself?
I mean, it sure sounds like Bill is saying that he would be agreeable with accepting baptisms as long as the person was saved, and the baptism was by immersion. And, you are giving your hearty amen to his comment???????????
Dave, Bill said, “Those baptized as infants and by sprinkling need to be baptized properly. Those baptized by immersion as believers in a denom that teaches baptismal regeneration need to be examined closely. They may need to be baptized properly but perhaps not in every case.” Are you reading what I’m reading? “They may need to be baptized properly BUT NOT IN EVERY CASE.” Did you read that part?
David
I don’t think any Christian ekklesia [in any sense] was in existence when Christ spoke His words in Matthew 28:19-10. Here are my reasons why:
1. Luke’s two volume work [Luke & Acts] says nothing about ekklesia until after Pentecost.
2. Matthew mentions ekklesia three times and one of those times communicates that the ekklesia would be future–”I WILL build my church” Jesus said. Jesus sent His disciples out to preach during His earthly ministry. He could have said “I am building my church” or “I am building [up] my church”. However, He did not say that.
3. John’s completed set of works [John, 1-2-3 John, Revelation] says nothing about the ekklesia until after Pentecost took place in history.
4. One of the images of the church is that the church is the Sanctuary of God where the Spirit dwells. If the Spirit had not come yet, then there is no Sanctuary of God where the Spirit dwells.
5. Since I believe that the pouring out of the Spirit upon the “120 brethren” [or so] created the church, then it is natural for the text to speak of additions after this event IMO.
Also, in the light of Matthew’s earlier recording that Christ would build His church [a fauture event], then I think what Christ said in Matthew 18 concerning the church anticipates the future church that Christ would build.
I think John Albert Broadus was open to the possibility of “future local churches” being in view in relation to Matthew 18.
See his “Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew”. Pg. 388. Comment on Matt. 18:17, point #2.
http://books.google.com/books?ei=k6aZS-zJBMiUtgel6eywCQ&ct=result&output=text&id=KF4wAAAAYAAJ&dq=Broadus+Gospel+of+Matthew&ots=7Jn47zJqe4&q=church#v=snippet&q=church&f=false
David Worley:
Dawson Memorial Baptist Church, Birmingham, Alabama. The pastor, Dr. Gary Fenton, a few weeks ago said that we should not be concerned about “how much water” was used during a person’s baptism. I believe that the sermon was on January 17. It is located on line at dawsonchurch.org. My understanding from some people that I know at this church is that other members of the staff have confirmed that generally any baptism event, even if it was not biblical baptism, is accepted for church membership and admission to the Lord’s Table.
This is an SBC church.
Steven
David W.
1. I feel the need to add Maturity to your posts as well, based on your first response to what I wrote. Is this kind of interaction what passes for conversation and interaction between Christian Brothers on this site? You claimed to not be a landmarkist, and you may not have teh theology of a Landmarkist, but you certainly have the same “If they aren’t of us they are the enemy” mentality of a Landmarkist.
2. Agreed.
3. I never said we would not accept a Baptism from FBA, but based on the previous statements you had made about the qualifications of a legit baptism, FBA teaches differently about Eternal Security than we do. They also teach differently about Salvation than we do. That is the position you were advocating. What of the Free Will/Arminian Baptists? Would someone who was baptized a Free Will/Arminian Baptist need to be re-baptized? Also, the comparison of placing Mormons into the group with Methodists is unhelpful to the overall discussion, unless your intent is to smear other denominations. Mormons are a cult who have never had the truth of the Gospel. It would be akin to comparing the baptism practiced in Hinduism (cleansing ritual) to Methodism. Unless being Passive Aggressive is par for the course here.
4. That may be because I am more concerned with the “Why” of Baptism and you are more concerned with the “How.”
-Jacob
David: Are you willfully misreading David? He clearly and specifically quotes my last paragraph, and says amen to that. He makes no reference to anything else I said.
Let me clarify my comment about denoms who teach baptismal regeneration. You seem to think you’ve caught David in an inconsistency, although as I said, he never referenced my point about that.
Someone who was baptized because they believed it would save them will need to be baptized properly.
David: Which is the greater problem? SBC churches accepting improper baptisms or SBC churches rebaptizing people like it’s their job? Both are wrong, but we only hear about the former and next to nothing about the latter, when, in my opinion, the latter is happening with far greater frequency.
David,
Since it is apparent you are referring to me, let me once again (I don’t know how many times I have done this) try to clear up what I believe.
I do not believe that anyone and everyone who is truly saved and subsequently immersed is necessarily validly baptized. To say that I do is to misrepresent my position.
What I believe is that, in order for a baptism to be valid, there must be a proper subject (someone who is truly born again), the proper mode (by immersion in water), and the proper motive (in obedience to Christ’s command, identifying with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection; and not, in order to merit salvation).
While I agree that the Great Commission, and thus, the responsibility to baptize, was given to authentic disciples of Christ (i.e. born-again Christians), I do not see that a so-called “improper administrator” necessarily invalidates a baptism. Indeed, down through history, many, who have met the first three qualifications (proper subject, mode, and motive), have been baptized by those who later proved to not be a “proper administrator” (someone who was not truly a disciple of Christ). Many times this has been done without the knowledge of the person being baptized. Although this is unfortunate, and less than ideal, it has not been seen, and should not be seen, as necessitating that the person be re-baptized. This is because, the bottom line is not the validity of the administrator, but rather the proper subject, mode, and motive.
As a matter of fact, to require that someone who has been legitimately baptized be re-baptized, in order to fulfill manmade requirements for church membership, is to desecrate and trivialize biblical baptism. The early Anabaptists, as well as the original Baptists, made a big deal about defending the accusation that they were “re-baptizing.” As they argued, it is only “re-baptism” if someone’s previous “baptism” was a valid baptism. They would, no doubt, be horrified to know that many, who consider them to be their spiritual forbears, regularly “re-baptize” validly baptized believers, merely as a requirement for local church membership.
That should be: “defending themselves from the accusation that they were ‘re-baptizing’”
David W, you said in #22 above, “I was told by many people…not just a few…that as long as the person was saved, and they were baptised by immersion after their conversion, then that baptism would be accepted.”
Yes, I would agree with that (with amplification). If a person was saved, baptized by immersion as a picture of salvation (not salvific) in the name of God, that is an acceptable baptism. I have made that point over and over again.
But that is not the only thing you said.
You said in your post, “With all of the people saying that they would accept any ole kind of baptism, whether it be sprinkling, pouring, or whatever, is it important about the kind of baptism you have?”
That is VERY different. You are saying here that “all of the people” (implying a group of people) believe that any baptism, including sprinkling or pouring is okay. Who? Who says that within the Baptist blog world? Has anyone made the argument? Until you show me, here or by email, where you base that, I will have to continue to believe it is a strawman.
I am saying the following:
1) I have read no one who makes the argument that Baptists should accept sprinkling. If someone said that, I sure missed it. You raised a straw man to buttress a weak argument.
2) I believe you are willfully misunderstanding and misrepresenting David Rogers’ views and those of all of us who oppose the BI emphasis on church oversight of Baptism. You can read the Baptist Voices debate where Robin and I discussed these things in more depth to see my position and why I do not agree with yours.
But it is common Christian decency to give a man the chance to explain what he means. You refuse to do that with my brother and friend David Rogers. No matter how often you are told you are misrepresenting his view, no matter how many times he graciously explains his position, you continue to misrepresent what he believes. I do not believe that is honorable, but I am not the one you answer to.
3) Above, I “amened” a statement Bill made, which I copied, because I believe it. In fact, I think you misunderstood what Bill McKinnon was saying. That’s for him to argue.
4) As I said above, if a church abandons immersion, I will vote to refuse to seat their messengers at our conventions (whatever level). But I will continue to oppose what I believe are extrabiblical baptism rules such as those the IMB passed years ago.
You made the assertion that a significant number among us are accepting baptism without immersion as valid. I continue to believe that to be a classic strawman argument.
I think this whole argument over Baptism is too much!!
Earlier in this thread I mentioned the fact that I’ve been “baptized” three times.
Looking back on this I’d say that AT THE TIME I was baptized at age 18 in the SBC church I really had no clue as to the exact reason for my baptism — to me at that time I was just “joining the church”. My baptism was the “same” as the one before when I joined the Disciples of Christ church.
Since I didn’t really know what was going on does this mean my all three of my Baptisms were invalid — including my most recent one at an SBC church?
David, I think that your understanding of Baptism, while correct, is so nuanced that it is probably “over the head” of 90% of the people who are being baptized in SBC churches. If I took all the people being Baptized at any SBC church in a years time and sat them down in a room and asked them about “baptismal regeneration” I don’t think more than 10% of them would have any idea what I was talking about.
I know as a kid I would have flunked my own test.
Steven,
Thank you for throwing in that info. I just wish that Dave would read your comment.
Dave, please read Steven’s comment above. Also, there are others. This is just one of them.
David
Jacob,
1)Thanks so much for coming in here and trying to give me maturity. Wow, what would I do without you, a spiritual giant, a mature brother in the faith, an enlightened person…what in the world would I do without you and your rebukes? My life is now changed forever. Sniff.
2)agreed
3)I was no where comparing Mormon baptisms with Methodist baptisms. I have no idea why you would think that. I was stating baptisms that I would not accept as valid, proper, true baptisms. I know the difference between Methodists and Mormons. I used to be a Methodist, BTW.
4)I am concerned with the “why” and the “how.” I’m also very concerned with the “who.” Why arent you? Thus, the point of my OP.
David
Bill,
You said, “David: Which is the greater problem? SBC churches accepting improper baptisms or SBC churches rebaptizing people like it’s their job? Both are wrong…” Are you talking about SBC Churches giving people true baptisms here?
Also, I do believe we weaken ourselves, and we compromise when we dont look upon baptism as being very important.
David
David Rogers,
Did you, or did you not, say that a man who got baptised….if he was truly saved….if his understanding was that baptism was a symbollic picture of his conversion….got baptised by immersion by a Mormon person…say, like out in a pond somewhere…would be considered a proper baptism by you. I mean, the person getting baptised had the right idea about salvation and baptism…no matter that it was a Mormon baptising him in his backyard swimming pool, or something… would be considered a valid baptism?
David R., would you not accept a baptism as valid where the Church of Christ man baptised someone who was truly saved, and believed correctly about baptism, and he was immersed?
Dave, do you remember the conversations I had over at Wade’s Funny Farm about baptism? The conversations with Wade? with his commenters? Were you there? Because, if you were, I was told that a momma baptising her little boy out in the pond by the house would be an acceptable baptism. I was told that it didnt matter who did the baptising. I was told a lot of other things, as well.
David
Roger,
I’m not saying that the individual has to know exactly every point of theology about baptism in order for it to be valid. The Church has to believe right.
Again, it’s not a private, individual thing. It’s a Church ordinance. If the person knows enough to get saved, and understands that they need to be baptised in order to obey our Lord, then that’s fine. That’s enough. A Christian will grow to understand more later. But, it’s the Church that needs to be looked at. What did the Church believe about salvation and baptism? That’s the important thing.
David
Let me try and address Benji’s comments (post #25-27) about the church starting on the day of Pentecost. I believe the Bible is clear that the New Testament church was started BEFORE Pentecost. Jesus founded the church during His earthly ministry. Consider the following:
1. Jesus referred to the church twice in Matthew 18. Everyone agrees this is the local church. Benji says that Jesus is anticipating the future church, but there is nothing in the text that suggests this. The disciples never asked, “Lord, when do we implement this?” or “Lord, what’s a church?” It was just straight forward teaching from their Lord and Saviour.
2. The Greek text in Matthew 16:18 can easily be translated to read “I will continue to build up my church.” It is by no means a proof text that the church started on the Day of Pentecost.
3. I Corinthians 12:28 says God hath first set the apostles in the church. When did this happen? Before Pentecost!
4. In Luke 12:32 Jesus referred to the disciples as a “flock.” This same word is used in Acts 20 and 1 Peter 5 to refer to the church.
5. There is not a single verse in Acts (or anywhere else) that teaches that the church was started on the Day of Pentecost.
6. Hebrews 2:12 said that Jesus would sing in the midst of the church. When did this happen? Before Pentecost, after the Lord’s Supper.
7. Consider the question: What is a church? It is a local body of baptized believers. Did such a thing exist before Pentecost? Absolutely. Before Pentecost the disciples were a body of baptized believers with Jesus as their pastor-shepherd. True, they moved around a lot and didn’t stay in one place. But a church isn’t the building, it’s the people.
8. As to Benji’s Sanctuary’s illustration, consider that Solomon build the Old Testament temple in 2 Chronicles 3, but it wasn’t filled until 2 Chronicles 5. I admit that the church was empowered with the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. Yet in the gospels, there is a New Testament church with Jesus Himself in their head.
One of the best books on this subject is “Four Front Doors to New Testament Churches” by S.E. Anderson. The four front doors refer to the four gospels. Anderson was a professor at the Northern Baptist Seminary in Illinois.
Dave,
I am not willfully misrepresenting David Rogers views. I was in the comment stream when he wrote that he would accept a person’s baptism if they’d been baptised by a Mormon. I believe that I have correctly stated how he believes in my comment above.
Let me make this clear David….I’m saying that any baptism by a Mormon, or by a Church of Christ, or by a JW would not be a true baptism, period. That’s what I’m clearly saying. I dont care about any circumstances, nor situations. So, please understand me clearly when I write what I do.
David
Dave,
I believe I understood Bill correctly. I quoted his words in my comment. How can you read anything different than what his words clearly said?????
David
Hello Ben,
Glad to have you here. Ben is a true, Landmark Baptist; for all of you who dont know Ben. He’s a good brother in Christ, in spite of his Landmarkism. :)
In fact, let me temper the comments in here…I consider Dave and David Rogers to be good brothers in Christ, as well. I just think that they are misguided in the area of ecclesiology. :) Right, CB? Where are you, btw?
Some of you others in here may also be wonderful brothers in Christ, but I just dont really know you. I hope to meet yall someday.
David
“Are you talking about SBC Churches giving people true baptisms here?”
I’m talking about people baptized properly at age X, and then again at age X+3, because they are having trouble with assurance, and then again at age X+6, because this time they really mean it.
Unless my memory is faulty, I seem to recall you saying (on another blog) that if you left the church you are in now, and joined another (SBC), and they required you to be baptized in order to join, you would do it. Am I misremembering?
SBC churches have no business baptizing their own, over and over again. That is what I am saying is making a mockery of the ordinance, far more so that the scenarios you are laying out.
Sigh….
There are too many David’s here.
David (volfan) This is the quote of mine that Dave Miller amen’d.
“People baptized as believers by immersion who want to be rebaptized need to be corrected and discipled, not dunked again. We make a mockery of the ordinance otherwise. If that kind of thing is common in a church, then they need to take a serious look at their doctrine of salvation.”
This is what I’m talking about in my previous comment. Why are you trying to tie him to something else I said?
Bill,
I agree with you that many baptisms are done due to the person just having doubts. And, if the Pastor, or someone in the Church, would just counsel with them a little bit…they’d find assurance.
About me…I got sprinkled on top of the head with water from the Jordan River in a Methodist Church. I was probably 11 or 12 at the time. I was truly under deep conviction at that time, but our Pastor was as liberal as they come. When I went forward to be saved, it shocked him that someone had actually came forward during the invitation. He asked me if I believed in Jesus. I said yes, and I thought who doesnt. At that time, I thought everyone believed in Jesus. Then, he asked me if I wanted to join the Church. I again answered yes. I was ready to do whatever I needed to do to get right with God. But, he sprinkled me on top of the head, and I went home that day as lost as ever.
Later, my family left the Methodist Church when we realized that every Pastor they sent us was liberal to the core. So, we went to that Church in Memphis that had this young Pastor that really preached the Bible like he believed it. We went to Bellevue Baptist Church. I got immersed there after answering the questions of the counselor down front. The questions went sort of like: Are you a Christian? I said yea, and I thought I was…I went to Church. I’d gone forward in a church service. And, they told us that we’d need to be immersed in order to be a member. We agreed, and we were immersed. I was still as lost as I could be.
Later, after a life of sin and hedonism and rebellion against all that was holy, the Lord truly saved me one night after I had gotten drunk on Jack Daniels. That night, the Lord saved me, and I never was so sober in all of my life….full of love and joy and peace…real peace. I knew that I’d finally found peace with God. I got baptised for real after growing in my faith and realizing that I really got saved that night…not as a child at the Methodist Church. Thus, I truly got baptised.
David
Bill,
I know that’s what Dave amened. But, after making the statements he made about not knowing any SB’s who would accept a Church of Christ baptism, you said what you did…that you might after examination. Where was Dave’s “Ooooooh, there’s someone that would.” Instead, he just gave you a hearty amen to the quoted statement of yours.
See what I’m saying? Why didnt Dave read what you wrote about maybe not requiring a baptismal regeneration person being baptised?????? That was my quandry.
David
David W.,
The simplest way I know how to put it is the way I said it in the comment above. I believe the requirements for a valid baptism are three: proper subject (truly born again), proper mode (immersion in water), and proper motive (in obedience to Christ’s command, identifying with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection; and not, in order to merit salvation).
You can come up with 1,001 different case scenarios (hypothetical and real), and my answer will always be consistent with what I say here. That being said, I believe it is highly unlikely that someone being baptized by a Mormon or any member of any false religion would meet the above qualifications. Number 1, because it would be normal to be baptized by the ones who lead you to Christ. And Mormons and other false religions do not lead people to Christ, because they teach a false gospel. Number 2, because the normal reason someone would allow themselves to be baptized by a Mormon or someone of another false religion would be because they were being baptized for the wrong motive (i.e. anything other than “in obedience to Christ’s command, identifying with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection; and not, in order to merit salvation”). Perhaps, however, for some strange, convoluted reason, someone who meets perfectly well the three requirements I give here might end up being baptized by someone who is not a true believer, or even a member of a false religion. One possibility that comes to mind is that they were not aware of the beliefs of the one baptizing them, and followed through with the baptism in good faith, thinking they were truly representing the gospel. Perhaps it was someone who masqueraded as an evangelical (gospel-believing Christian), but was really a closet Mormon. I don’t know. There are any number of hypothetical situations. But, any one I could think of would be highly exceptional and unlikely.
What I am saying, though, is, if and when, such an anomaly were to come to light, that should not retroactively invalidate someone’s baptism. What really matters is that the baptism really and truly met the first three requirements (which have to do with the choice of the person being baptized), not the credentials of the one doing the baptism (which, for one reason or another, may have been beyond the scope of the knowledge and choice of the person being baptized). The validity of someone’s baptism has to do with their own, personal obedience to Christ’s command, not with the obedience (or lack thereof) of the person or group doing the baptism.
David Rogers,
Thank you. The answer is “yes, you would accept such a baptism.” As unusual and unlikely that it would ever happen, still your answer is yes.
Dave Miller…..HEY DAVE….DO YOU SEE THIS???????
David
Biff,
In your post #46 you state “But, he sprinkled me on top of the head, and I went home that day as lost as ever” stop and think about it doesn’t that statement smack of “baptismal regeneration? And again you state “We agreed, and we were immersed. I was still as lost as I could be.” and again
“I got baptised for real after growing in my faith and realizing that I really got saved that night”. So at what time did you have a truly Scriptural baptism?
I would also add that I believe the burden of proof is on those who claim that a proper administrator is also a requirement for a biblically valid baptism. The only “biblical” defense I have seen to date (that I recall) is the claim that, since the Great Commission was given to the 11 disciples to whom it was given, we should also jump to the conclusion that this means that baptism was to be done with the approval and under the supervision of a duly constituted local church. There are just too many hermeneutical gaps and dots to connect for me to buy that, though.
Do you (or anyone else) have any OTHER biblical basis for saying that a proper administrator is an essential requirement for a valid baptism?
My only dog in this hunt is that I want to be consistently biblical in what I believe and teach.
Jake,
I had truly Scriptural baptism after I really got saved. All of the ones before that were nothing more than getting wet and joining a Church.
I really got saved one night at the age of 19 yrs old. I had been partying all night…running from God. My Mother had told me before leaving the house that she was gonna be praying for me. Her sweet words were like a knife stuck in my heart. God used them to bring deep conviction to my soul. And, I was so drunk that night, that I had fallen out in a parking lot of a cafe in the little, Tennessee town where I went to high school. I looked up into the sky that night, and I told God that I was truly ready to surrender my heart to Him. I was tired of my sins, and the guilt, and the shame. I told Him that I wanted Him to forgive my sins. And, I surrendered to the Lord Jesus that night in faith. Even though I’d been drinking heavy that night, at that moment, I was sober…like I’ve never been sober before. And, I had peace…sweet, sweet peace. I went to my buddy’s house and threw up the rest of the night…but, praise the Lord, I was never so content and peaceful in the bathroom…as I lay there on the floor all night. I had joy in my heart. I felt the love of God. And, something else, I felt that God was with me. I’d always felt lonely in a crowd before; even though I had lots of friends, and family. But, not anymore. God was with me…in me. I was changed.
So, after a period of growth and thinking on all of it, I realized that I was truly saved at the age of 19. I knew that I needed to be baptised for real…a baptism that meant something. So, I got baptised.
David
David Rogers,
I understand that your desire is to Biblical. I guess my answer to you, since you dont agree that the Great Commission was given to the Church that had been started by the Lord Jesus, would be found in my OP. Is not the Church what God works thru to accomplish His work in this world? I mean, as you look at the NT, does it not scream loudly to us that the Church is where things happen? Baptism. The Lord’s Supper. Pastors/Elders teaching. Deacons serving. Gifts being brought in. Prayer meetings. Church discipline, etc. I really dont see an individualistic, private ministry….doing my own thing….mentality in the NT as a whole. As you read it in it’s entirety, and view it with an overall view, you see the Church…the local Church…as the tool that God is using to carry forth His Kingdom.
David
The only passage of Scripture I can think of where the question of valid baptism vs. invalid baptism is discussed is Acts 19:1-7. When these disciples of John confessed to not knowing about the Holy Spirit, Paul asked them “Into what then were you baptized?” And, they said, “Into John’s baptism.” Notice that Paul did not ask them “Who baptized you, then?” The problem with “John’s baptism” was not the person performing it, but rather the intended meaning behind it. Even though it was a “baptism of repentance,” it was not a baptism “in (or into) the name (authority) of the Lord Jesus” (i.e. submitting to Jesus’ lordship).
David W.,
I agree that God works through the Church to accomplish His work in the world. However, if you were consistent with your argument here, you would have to also say that all teaching, serving, giving, prayer, evangelism, discipleship, etc. that is not done with the approval and under the supervision of a duly constituted local church is also invalid, and doesn’t really count.
Personally, I think it is great that all these ministries are done in connection with local churches. I think that is best. I think that is ideal. That is what I have always personally encouraged.
But, I don’t find any good reason for totally discounting and invalidating all ministry not done under the supervision of a local church.
What about the person who gets baptized by an authorized baptizer in an authorized place at the appointed time and all that .. you know .. someone who’d qualify to be an IMB missionary .. but the only reason they do it is it’s a “membership requirement” of the church? Not because they’re “following the Lord” or “making a public profession”, or any of the other phrases we’ve cooked up describing “proper” baptism.
I also have questions as to whether we’re confusing the command TO baptize, with the command to BE baptized, but I’ll save them for later.
Bob,
Indeed. Fortunately, practically all those being re-baptized in order to fulfill the requirements of the IMB have already been scripturally baptized, so we don’t need to worry about them not having a valid baptism, because of the improper motive of their second (or third or fourth?) baptism.
And yes, I think you are right on the money. A big root issue in this argument is confusing the command TO baptize with the command to BE baptized. Don’t keep us waiting. I’m interested to hear your thoughts on this.
Vol: If you left your current church and moved to Podunkville KY, and wished to join the local SBC church, and they required you to be baptized by their pastor as a condition of membership, would you do it?
It’s not that they question your salvation, just that it is their policy to personally baptize all new members. Would you do it?
Bill,
If I felt led to join a Church, that God wanted me to be a part of that local assembly; and they told me that doing the monkey dance was a requirement for membership; then I’d do it.
Bill, of course, in my silly example above, I’d have realy misgivings about joining a church that would require the monkey dance. :) But, if a church told me that I had to go thru a 6 weeek class…I’d do it. If they told me that I had to meet with a committee that checks me out….I’d do it. If that Church told me that their belief about salvation and baptism was such and such, and that the Church I was leaving didnt believe such and such, thus my baptism was not a true baptism. And, if I agreed with their doctrine on salvation and baptism over my old Church, then yes, I would get baptised.
Of course, I believe SB doctrine and practice is Biblical. I believe that my baptism was a Scripturaly baptism. Sooooooo……
David
PS. Folks, I have to run some errands and finish my sermon for Sunday night. So, I wont be able to play on the computer for a while….well, except maybe to take a peak every now and then, like I did with this comment. I just had to answer Bill. Now, I’ve got to go.
Brother David R,
I would encourage you to look at the Mormon belief system. They say they believe in Jesus Christ but you and I know they are not speaking of the same Jesus. Look, no one is trying to play a “gotcha” game with you. So please do not paint yourself into such a corner.
The Mormon belief system is not the same. However, one being baptized in a Mormon church is being baptized in obedience to the life and belief in Jesus. You and I should reject such a baptism because the person does not have a proper understanding and belief of Jesus Christ.(Acts 19)
Brother Bob,
I have not read the entire comment stream, but to say one is “authorized” I wold like to verify. The reason is you can go into the Donatist controversy if one is not careful with that terminology. I/we are not saying one has to be ordained in order to baptize. I have never said that. I have always said, as a Baptist we believe the church, congregational rule, is the one that chooses who represents them to baptize one into the Body of Christ as visibly seen in the local church assembled in that location. Thus, your question seems to be null when you use the term “authorized” person. I reject that thought because you are linking it too close to the Donatist controversy for me.
Now, as to your next concern. Would you not agree that a person that does not have any more conviction than being baptized because of a “church membership requirement” doesn’t possess enough conviction to be saved? However, I will bite and say that we are not merely speaking about getting wet for the glory of God. We as Baptist practice and are supposed to present to the world IT IS BELIEVER’S BAPTISM. We get baptized by immersion because we have placed our faith in Jesus Christ and we desire to follow him in obedience. Baptism is our first step of obedience as a believer and we identify our life with the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Blessings,
Tim
Speaking of straw men, I don’t read in David Worley any argument that the proper individual administrator of baptism, per se, is required for valid baptism. Rather, David seems to me to be articulating the idea of ex opere operantis Ecclesiae. The individual administrator might be lost, might be in grave and unrepentant sin, might be drunk that morning, etc., and yet David would not say that the validity of baptism would be impinged by those possibilities, unless I misrepresent him.
Even a wrongful administrator performs valid baptism when he performs it under the auspices of a valid church upon a valid candidate in a valid mode according to a valid formula.
In fact, to make the distinctions even clearer, I would offer another hypothetical for you. Suppose that there is not only one but are two genuinely converted Christian believers who haphazardly have wound up in a Mormon congregation. The hypothetical believer whom we’ve mentioned all along in this scenario has recently come to faith in Christ and has, not knowing any better, gone to this Mormon congregation to seek baptism. As circumstances would have it, another genuinely converted but woefully immature believer has also been attending this Mormon congregation for six months. The Mormons ask this believer of six months to immerse the new believer of two weeks under the authority of the Mormon congregation.
So, our two-week-old believer, according to our admittedly far-fetched hypothetical, has been baptized by immersion after conversion by a genuinely converted baptizer, and the newly converted baptizand somehow does not regard baptism as at all regenerative but sees the meaning of baptism in a biblical manner (let’s presume that this candidate grew up in a Christian home).
Valid baptism? No, I don’t think so. This baptism has been performed under the authority of a band of false teachers who lead people into heresy.
One might infer into Acts 19 an idea that differing meanings between John’s baptism and Christian baptism exhaust the distinction. The wording of the text itself puts before us a differentiation in who owns the baptism being administered. John’s baptism was John’s baptism, not because he performed them all, but because his baptism derived from his ministry and his authority. He wasn’t a bad guy. He was sympathetic to the gospel of Jesus Christ. His ministry was an auxiliary to the ministry of Christ, and a God-ordained one at that. His para-church ministry just didn’t happen to be a church. And then there is Christ’s baptism performed by the only baptizing body that Christ has on earth—the church that he founded and heads.
SBC Today: “Restoring Unity Through Biblical Discipleship & Baptist Identity”
Isn’t that what this website should be about?
Come on preachers, let’s stop pointing fingers.
Consider the issue, pray about what was written in the blog (we could all stand to ask the Lord if our interpretation is correct), and love one another– unity. :)
All comments in bold are Ben’s.
The Greek text in Matthew 16:18 can easily be translated to read “I will continue to build up my church.”
This is merely an assertion. No reason is given. The Greek word “build” is in the future tense. I have checked over 15 English translations and none of them give it the sense Ben does. I don’t know of any other reason there could be for Ben to insert the word “continue” in the word order of this verse other than to protect his theology.
I Corinthians 12:28 says God hath first set the apostles in the church. When did this happen? Before Pentecost!
This is merely an assertion [i.e. Before Pentecost!]. No reason is given. The Bible says that the apostles are the “foundation” of the church [Eph. 2:20] and thus I think should not be “equated” with the church [whether they are assembled or not] for this reason.
In Luke 12:32 Jesus referred to the disciples as a “flock.” This same word is used in Acts 20 and 1 Peter 5 to refer to the church.
This particular flock is also called “the foundation” of the church and this is what we see the church based on, after the pouring out of the Spirit, according to Acts 2:42.
5. There is not a single verse in Acts (or anywhere else) that teaches that the church was started on the Day of Pentecost.
I have given reasons why I think the church started at Pentecost utilizing a “broad” literary approach–The literature of Luke, the literature of John, the literature of Matthew. I am not limited to arguing my case by having to find a verse that “explicitly” teaches what I am arguing for [if this is what Ben is getting at]. In fact, if Ben’s own standard that he applies to me was applied to him, then would he be able to prove his own doctrine?
Hebrews 2:12 said that Jesus would sing in the midst of the church. When did this happen? Before Pentecost, after the Lord’s Supper.
This is merely an assertion [i.e., before Pentecost...]. No reason is given.
One of the images of the church is that the church is the Sanctuary of God where the Spirit dwells. If the Spirit had not come yet, then there is no Sanctuary of God where the Spirit dwells.
This isn’t dealing with my argument. I said “One of the images of the church is that the church is the Sanctuary of God where the Spirit dwells. If the Spirit had not come yet, then there is no Sanctuary of God where the Spirit dwells.”
BTW, although we disagree, I appreciate Ben responding to my comments without attacking my character or twisting what I said. I think his response sets a good example for us in this sense.
Tim Rogers,
I am perfectly aware of what Mormons believe. And, I believe I have clearly stated that I believe they are a false religion, and they do not preach the gospel. Yes, indeed, just as you say, they are not speaking of the same Jesus. I have never said or implied anything different. I believe just like you do on this.
All I am saying it that it is not the orthodox or heretical belief system of the administrator of a baptism which determines the validity of that baptism. It is a proper subject, the proper mode, and the proper motive.
Bart,
Your point is well taken. At times, in the way I have presented my case, I make it appear as if the role of “administrator” is wrapped up in an individual human being. Actually, though, I would take what I have said about the “administrator” and extend it to the administrating body (i.e. organization, club, congregation, etc.). And, I do not see any more scriptural justification for “ex opere operantis Ecclesiae” than I do for a proper administrator (i.e. individual) as a requirement for valid baptism. Actually, as I see it, “ex opere operantis Ecclesiae” is very much akin to the Roman Catholic view. The only difference is that it exchanges a worldwide organization under the governance of the pope, and the rest of the Catholic hierarchy, for a local congregation, under the governance of democratic processes. As I see it, both systems are an abuse of scriptural ecclesiology.
Regarding Acts 19, Paul didn’t tell them they needed to be baptized with the approval and under the supervision of a duly constituted local church. He said they needed to be baptized “into the name of the Lord Jesus.” That, from all appearances, seems to be the real issue at stake.
Ben’s comment is in bold.
Benji says that Jesus is anticipating the future church, but there is nothing in the text that suggests this.
There is something in the broad context of Matthew’s gospel that does suggest this–the future building of the church by the Messiah [16:18].
Bart,
Could you provide me with a scriptural argument supporting the concept of “ex opere operantis Ecclesiae”?
Here is an excerpt from a November 26, 1902 Biblical Recorder article:
“We have examined E.C. Dargan’s Ecclesiology, Henry G. Weston’s
Ecclesiology and other works. They recognize the conditions that we have suggested, but not one of them dares to put the keeping of the faith into other hands than the church. They prefer the present difficulties, and are content to suggest that we are getting along quite as well as the followers of the Presbyterial or Prelactical polities. We suppose the ablest work on the church in recent years by a Baptist is “The New Testament Church,” by Rev. W.H.H. Marsh, American Baptist Publication Society, 1898. It is unusually
impressive. He evidently recognizes just the difficulty that the others have recognized, and he would go a step farther and institute an ‘organized fellowship.’”
In his work The New Testament Church [published by the American Baptist Publication Society] Marsh stated “It is evident from the argument and conclusion of the previous chapter, that the existence of the New Testament church cannot be accounted for by any theory of the evolution of institutions. If it could be, it would be a development, not a creation. Whatever the modifications, it would be identified with and be a perpetuation of that out of which it was evolved. And this is true of every phase of the Abrahamic covenant, or of the theocracy…In whatever form applied, it will necessitate logically, theologically, and ecclesiologically, the assumption that the New Testament church is an evolution. This will be so, however scripturally the common evangelical belief that it is a creation of the Holy Spirit be maintained. It will involve the radical question whether on the day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit revived, purified, and thus perpetuated something previously existing, or whether he created the material for, and called into being for a specific purpose an organization distinct from and wholly independent of whatever had been before it.” [Pg. 116]
http://www.archive.org/stream/newtestamentchu00marsgoog#page/n136/mode
While I do not think that Ben is arguing for the type of evolution Marsh alludes to, I do think he is forced to have to argue for a kind of evolution for the church if he believes the church existed without the Spirit for some time and then existed with the Spirit in some future time. This is what I do not believe. I believe, like Marsh, that the church was a creation of the Spirit. So, I think the basic theological difference between us, in relation to the church, is creation vs. evolution
Sister Ginger,
I believe the preachers on this blog are holding to gracious arguments. How about we allow the arguments to progress without questioning the motives of those commenting?
Brother Benji,
Brother Ben is giving answers and I do ask 2 things from you. Allow him to answer your comments without overwhelming him with your argument. IOW, slow down and wait for him to answer your comments before you bombard him with too much to answer. Also, please refrain from comments like you have used in comment #64. No one has attacked anyone’s character here.
Brother David R,
Dr. Thomas White did a White Paper on Baptism. His section on The Administrator is well worth the read. He states; “The ordinance which must be connected to the local church needs for that church to appoint the administrator. While no biblical mandate exists for
ordination of the administrator, the local church typically “sets apart” certain men for service to the church. Each church may appoint or set apart whomever it wishes to perform the ordinance, but within the bounds of Scripture.” Of course if you will go to his Paper you will notice that he outlines what is a “True Church”. His analysis is very well done as he deals with the problem of placing too much emphasis on the one who is the administrator. You can view his paper here.
Blessings,
Tim
David – VOLFAN
I guess you partly agree with me that my 3rd baptism — in the SBC — was not necessary because you say in Comment #39 in response to my question:
>==== YOUR QUOTE
(1) If the person knows enough to get saved, and
(2) understands that they need to be baptised in order to obey our Lord,
them that’s fine. That’s enough. A Christian will grow to understand more later.
>=== END OF QUOTE
I agree with the above.
But then you go on to say
>==== YOUR QUOTE
But, it’s the Church that needs to be looked at. What did the Church believe about salvation and baptism? That’s the important thing.
>==== END OF QUOTE
Why would it be necessary for anyone to look at whatever some church did prior my joing an SBC church? I don’t think you can get by just saying, “What the church believes is the important thing” without some explanation from scripture. What is the mechanism that a defective view of Baptism by some past church associates with me? I never assented to the wrong view — in fact I never even understood it. All I knew was that: (1) I accepted the Lord’s gift of salvation, and (2) was baptized to obey the Lord. By your own definition those two rules are what defines any person’s role in Baptism. So, why should I have to jump through ecclesiastical hoops?
It should be noted that my prior Baptism [in the Disciples of Christ Church] was baptism by immersion when I was saved. Don’t answer me by saying “they believe in Baptismal regeneration”, because my answer is “so what”. [I didn't even know what baptismal regeneration was for decardes after the baptisms in question]
For the record, it should be noted that I have no problem with redundant Baptisms if it will allow me to be perceived as being in proper fellowship with whatever church I’m a member of. If my pastor, or a deacon at my church, calls me this afternoon and suggests that I be baptized again [it would be the 4th time] I’d say, “OK, we can do this next Sunday morning.”
Tim,
You said “Allow him to answer your comments without overwhelming him with your argument.”
How do you know that I have overwhelmed him?
You said “No one has attacked anyone’s character here.”
Where did I say that one had attacked another’s character?
God Bless,
Benji
How my heart has longed for such a post as this with all the perfect players present…..And ME ABSENT FOR 70 COMMENTS!!!. Sometimes I think I am cursed. :-)
Anyway, here goes.
Dave, there were many churches in the BGAV back in the early 80s which were receiving members who were not biblically baptized or not even baptized at all. Can anyone out there remember any of the reasons we started the SBCV? That was one of them.
Bart, beautiful statement:
“Even a wrongful administrator performs valid baptism when he performs it under the auspices of a valid church upon a valid candidate in a valid mode according to a valid formula.”
The Church in its local manifestations (local churches) have the right to baptize. There is no other rightful administrator.
There is only one biblical mode of baptism; immersion. If you are a Christian and you were not properly immersed, you are not biblically baptized. If you are not a Christian and you get baptized according to the biblical mode a hundred times, you are still on your way to hell lost as a goose.
People who believe and respond to the biblical gospel should obey Christ their Lord and be biblically baptized under the earthly authority of a local NT church.
Now, everything I have said here does not mean the Methodists, A/Gs etc, etc. are not local churches. But they are all wrong about biblical baptism if they are not biblical in the authority of administration and mode.
Now, let’s dance, boys. :-)
Well, I have got to go on a hospital visit, so I have to leave you guys to all the fun again.
Vol, be careful of complimenting those barbarian Landmarkers. Their bite is like that of a Brown Recluse. All the meat is falling off your toes before you even know you are sick. Then you rot.
And be careful of sparing with Benji. He will pop you up-side your head with a NCT left hook before you can say, “What is NCT anyway?” :-)
Tim,
I went back and re-read White’s article. His section on the Administrator is good. The only problem I see is with his section on the church. He conflates being baptized “in the name of the Lord Jesus” with being baptized by a “true church.” The only Scripture reference he gives in this section is the same passage I have been discussing with Bart here: Acts 19:1-5. I don’t see how being baptized “in the name of the Lord Jesus” necessarily equates being baptized with the approval and under the supervision of a “true church.” That is making a hermeneutical jump that is not warranted by Scripture itself. Also, I don’t see how the need for a “true church” avoids the Donatist problem anymore than the requirement of a “valid administrator.”
I would basically say the same thing about a “true church” that White says about a “valid administrator.” It is generally a good thing for baptisms to take place in the context of both a “true church” and with a “valid administrator.” But I don’t see either one as being a sine qua non of valid baptism, provided the other requirements are met.
I think the crux of this matter is the question I asked to Bart earlier:
“Could you provide me with a scriptural argument supporting the concept of ‘ex opere operantis Ecclesiae’?”
I’m still waiting for an answer to that question.
CB, may I have the pleasure of your company on the dance floor? You state
“Now, everything I have said here does not mean the Methodists, A/Gs etc, etc. are not local churches. But they are all wrong about biblical baptism if they are not biblical in the authority of administration and mode.”
Unpack that for us please.
Jake,
So nice to see your smiling face when I walk back into the room.
Unpack? Gladly.
The singular biblical authority for the administration of Christian Baptism is a NT church.
The singular biblical mode of Christian Baptism is immersion.
David,
I’d be happy to share my thoughts if I only had some.
But I’ll be happy to drag this out: I was sprinkled at some infantile age in the Evangelical United Brethren Church in Hammond, IN. Which is also where I heard about Jesus in VBS, and was saved a few months later when Dad reminded me of what I’d heard there. That’s when I trusted Jesus to “take me to heaven when I died”.
Many years later, when I was married and had kids, we drifted into Sunday School at Carmel Methodist Church and liked it. We joined, and since I’d been sprinkled as a tot, I was fine (Peg had been a Baptist).
Belonged to several Methodist and Presbyterian churches, which were all hunky-dory with my history.
Then we happened into FBC Pelham and when I stopped by the pastor’s office after a couple months, to tell him we wanted to join, he said I would have to be immersed; that immersion was what they believed baptism consisted of. I told him no problem .. I know God wanted us to serve Him there, so let’s do it.
We did.
So my question is whether my baptism was valid. And if CB says it’s not, I’m showin’ up at Westmont some evening and we’ll see just how strong he really IS.
As to the command to the church, I think it’s simpler than we might make it. I don’t think there’s any problem in the churches, regarding baptism, that isn’t FAR outweighed by the overwhelming failure to make disciples of the majority of the people who have walked the aisle and shaken the hand.
(I don’t want to get started on THAT. Nobody wants to talk about that, apparently; particularly not any Task Forces which might come to mind).
Brother David R,
I am not as sharp as you and Brother Bart when it comes to Latin. As I understand ‘ex opere operantis Ecclesiae’ you are speaking of baptism being as much dependent on the sanctity of the church as it does on the mere act of baptism. If that is correct, and I believe it is, you are arguing that a “true” church is one that practices “baptism by immersion” regardless of what they believe. I feel that would be where one would not be directed to one scripture but multiple references. In your question are you asking for a scriptural reference that says; “this is a true church”? If that is your question then there is no answer. We would be back to the argument of alcohol because one cannot find a specific reference that says, “thou shalt not”. However, I believe Dr. White’s paper gives a clear perspective on a true church.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim Rogers,
You guys need to make a new rule:
Only English to be used here. Any one who does not abide by this rule will be shot with an Austrian made weapon using Russian made ammo. And if you use French, you will be “Freedom Fried.”
That may help you to understand, you dumb TAR HEEL. :-)
Ma trompette d’oreille a été frappée par la foudre.
:)
Bob,
Did you just say, “my ear trumpet was struck by the foundries”? If so, you know they have no foundries in NC….Just TAR HEELS, hog farms and Baptist preachers. :-)
And lightning (white and otherwise).
Tim,
Since Bart was the one who brought up the term “ex opere operantis Ecclesiae,” I think we should probably defer to him as to exactly what he meant. CatholicCulture.com defines it as: “A phrase used to distinguish the value of liturgical prayer and action, whose supernatural efficacy depends on the Church’s sanctity and not, as in the sacraments, simply on the fact that the sacramental rite is performed.” When I googled it, I was not able to find any reference to this term used in a Baptist context. It appears to be a term, that up to Bart’s using it here, has been reserved for a Catholic context. In any case, what I understand him to mean by it is that a local church, by virtue of being a true local church (and not a random group of individuals, a parachurch organization, or a false church) has the power to convert what would have otherwise been an invalid baptism into a valid baptism.
At this point, I am not arguing for one definition of “true church” as over against another. What I am asking is for a scriptural argument in favor of “ex opere operantis Ecclesiae,” independent of how you may define “true church.” I cannot think of where Scripture teaches this idea (assuming I am understanding correctly what Bart means by it, here in this context). Perhaps, as you infer, it is not to be found in any one particular passage, but rather in the logical connection between various passages. In either case, I would be interested in hearing the argument from Scripture on this one–not just saying, “That’s the way it is, because that’s the way it is.”
CB,
That is what I thought you meant….just wanted to hear it in the vulgate. Define “your” version of a “NT” church, please.
I am now hearing that there are some Churches…SB churches…which actually accept Presbyterian baptisms…where the people were baptised as babies…infant baptism. Has anyone out there heard of this?
Dave, are you listening?
David
David Rogers,
Why don’t you just ask Tim to republish the post wherein you and I debated this issue about six months ago?
Jake,
Maybe these guys will publish a post on the essence of a NT church. We will meet then and discuss that. In the meantime, Biblical baptism is as easy to understand as is reading the NT for oneself and seeking an understanding.
It really is simple:
“The singular biblical authority for the administration of Christian Baptism is a NT church.
The singular biblical mode of Christian Baptism is immersion.”
Biff,
Asking for hearsay evidence is being nothing more than a gossipmonger…don’t Scriptures warn against that sort of thing? Or is that only if it’s a woman telling tales?
CB,
Don’t wuss out on me here. I think that I agree with you, just want to have your definition and mine to coincide. Now…what is “your definition of a NT church? And you can leave out the part of “immersion” that is a given…we agree on that.
Jake,
Is it hearsay if someone knows it to be true? lol.
Also, maybe you missed the question marks? I was asking people. lol
And, maybe you missed the fact that I didnt mention any names????
David
Biff,
Did you fail to read the opening word of post#88 after your name there was the word “asking”. You were “asking” for someone to give you the latest gossip. Isn’t that what you call plain language?
Can women baptize?
Bill,
In Church history women have baptized, yes.
The singular biblical authority for the administration of Christian Baptism is a NT church.
The biblical administrator is a NT church. The NT church in question is accountable for whom it appoints to physically immerse the person.
Benji,
Let’s take a closer look at what the Bible says about the origin of the church.
1. Matthew 16:18. Notice Jesus used the word “build.” It is the Greek word oikodomeso in the first person, singular, future, indicative, active sense. It is the very same word used in Acts 9:31 – “Then had the churches rest throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria, and were EDIFIED.” Now let me ask you. Where the churches in Judea, etc started after Acts 9:3 or were churches already in existence continued to be built or edified up? In Matthew 16:18 Jesus said he would continue to build or edify His church. He is not teaching that the church would be founded in the church. (By the way, notice He didn’t use the word found)
2. Hebrews 2:12 – This is a Messianic quote from Psalms 22. Did Jesus sing in the midst of His church? When is the ONLY time in the Bible where Jesus is recorded singing on earth? Answer: After the Lord’s Supper was observed before Pentecost!
3. 1 Corinthians 12:28 – When were the apostles set in the church? The clear record is Luke 6:13-16.
4. Matthew 16:18 – Jesus said HE would build His church. If the church was started on Pentecost, it was started by the Holy Spirit, not Jesus. In John 17:4 Jesus said He had finished the work which thou gavest me to do. The church had already been started by this time.
5. I notice you did not answer my question of what did exist in the gospels before Pentecost? If it wasn’t a church, what was it? The Baptist Faith and Message defines a church as a “congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel.” Did such a thing exist before Pentecost? YES! Think about it. Before Pentecost, the church baptized (John 4:2), took the Lord’s Supper, had a pastor (Jesus, their shepherd), were ordained, were commissioned to do mission work (Matthew 28:18-20), had prayer meetings, had a teaching ministry (Matthew 4:23) and had a missions program. (Matthew 10:1-11:1)
6. One more – Acts 2:47 – “added unto them.” How can one add to something that does not exist? This is more proof that the church existed before Pentecost.
7. You mentioned W.H.H. Marsh’s book on the N.T. church. I don’t believe Marsh’s book was quite as influential or important as the Biblical Recorder alludes to. I wouldn’t call the church an evolution, but I can see it as a development. Now before you write me off, consider the Old Testament temple. Remember the N.T. church is called the temple of God.
a. David gathered the materials for the temple.
b. Solomon built the temple.
c. After the temple was built, it was filled with the Spirit.
This fits perfectly with the church.
a. John the Baptist gathered the materials for the church. (People were saved under his preaching and he baptized them.)
b. Jesus started the church during His earthly ministry.
c. The church was filled with the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost.
Again, I do not see a single Biblical verse or reason that teaches that the church was started on the Day of Pentecost.
Ben and Benji:
Setting aside who is right regarding when the church was established, what difference does it make in terms of baptism?
I have gone back through this thread but I can’t follow a train of thought that supports, one way or another, how any particular practice — or non-practice — regarding baptism is contingent upon whether the church was founded in 32AD vs. 33AD.
Roger
Hey Ben. I plan on responding either tonight or tomorrow.
Roger,
The difference that it makes, if I understand where Ben is coming from correctly, is this:
Ben believes (correct me if I am wrong Ben) that Jesus gave the Great commission to the local church. Therefore, baptism is a local church ordinance that can only be legitimately administered by the local church through someone the local church has duly authorized.
However, if the local church did not exist before Pentecost, then this would undercut his argument.
Ben,
All comments in bold are yours:
It is the Greek word oikodomeso in the first person, singular, future, indicative, active sense. It is the very same word used in Acts 9:31
No it is not. The word in Acts 9:31 is not in the future tense, but in the present tense. The word is also not in the indicative mood. It is a participle. The HCSB, for example, is a good translation of this word.
He is not teaching that the church would be founded in the church. (By the way, notice He didn’t use the word found)
What I am saying is that Christ would build His church upon the foundation of the apostles [i.e., their teaching].
Did Jesus sing in the midst of His church? When is the ONLY time in the Bible where Jesus is recorded singing on earth?
I don’t share your assumption that the church was on earth when Christ was on the earth and I also don’t share your assumption that this prophesy is fulfilled in the sense of Christ literally singing on earth.
3. 1 Corinthians 12:28 – When were the apostles set in the church? The clear record is Luke 6:13-16.
I think the “future tense” in Matthew 16:18 [among other things] contradicts what you are saying.
Jesus said HE would build His church. If the church was started on Pentecost, it was started by the Holy Spirit, not Jesus.
I don’t think your logic is correct here. I think Jesus builds the church by the Spirit and upon the foundation of the Apostles.
In John 17:4 Jesus said He had finished the work which thou gavest me to do. The church had already been started by this time.
I think the “finished work” that Jesus is talking about is the “It is finished” work upon the cross that Jesus here speaks of as being as good as done before it even happens IMO.
I notice you did not answer my question of what did exist in the gospels before Pentecost? If it wasn’t a church, what was it?
Disciples of Jesus Christ existed and some of them became the foundation of the church [Eph. 2:20].
One more – Acts 2:47 – “added unto them.” How can one add to something that does not exist? This is more proof that the church existed before Pentecost.
Because I think the effect of the pouring out of the Spirit was the creation of the church. Therefore, I think it is natural for the text to speak of additions after this event.
I wouldn’t call the church an evolution, but I can see it as a development.
Look at definition #3. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution
Continued…
I don’t believe Marsh’s book was quite as influential or important as the Biblical Recorder alludes to.
Well, this is one of the things I like about primary sources–no matter what anybody thinks, what they say is fixed.
And the opinion of the writer in 1902 of the 1898 work was this:
“.We suppose the ablest work on the church in recent years by a Baptist is ‘The New Testament Church,’ by Rev. W.H.H. Marsh, American Baptist Publication Society, 1898. It is unusually impressive.” (bold mine)
Remember the N.T. church is called the temple of God.
It is not merely this. It is [to be more precise] the Sanctuary of God where He dwells by the Spirit. [1 Corinthians 3:16-17]
You are trying to separate the Sanctuary from the Spirit [for a period of time], but I think this is foreign to the New Testament.
Comment #98 was intended to look like this:
Continued…
I don’t believe Marsh’s book was quite as influential or important as the Biblical Recorder alludes to.
Well, this is one of the things I like about primary sources–no matter what anybody thinks, what they say is fixed.
And the opinion of the writer in 1902 of the 1898 work was this:
“.We suppose the ablest work on the church in recent years by a Baptist is ‘The New Testament Church,’ by Rev. W.H.H. Marsh, American Baptist Publication Society, 1898. It is unusually impressive.” (bold mine)
Remember the N.T. church is called the temple of God.
It is not merely this. It is [to be more precise] the Sanctuary of God where He dwells by the Spirit. [1 Corinthians 3:16-17]
You are trying to separate the Sanctuary from the Spirit [for a period of time], but I think this is foreign to the New Testament.
Well, I’m not sure what I am doing wrong :)
The two comments after the first bold comment above [in #'s 98 & 99] are my comments and not Ben’s. Sorry about that.
Ben and Benji:
For the sake of discussion let’s say that in fact Jesus did issue the great commission to the local church. Let’s say that therefore baptism has to be properly administered by someone appointed by the local church.
Even if we stipulate that the above two facts are correct this still does not get to the heart of the the question I brought up earlier in this thread.
My question regards my own history. It is not a hypothetical question. Here is my scenario. I was Baptized several times:
(1) Catholic church by sprinkling at birth
(2) Disciples of Christ at age 14 by immersion
(3) Southern Baptist at age 18 by immersion
My question is why should I have had to be baptised by the Southern Baptist church at age 18. I now know — decades later — that the Disciples of Christ hold to “baptisimal regeneration” which is not a correct view.
However, no one at the Disciples of Christ explained this to me or asked me to adhere to that belief — and even if they did I probably would not have understood what they were talking about.
Also, no one at the Baptist church told me the reason I had to be baptized again was because there was some “problem” with my earlier baptism in the Disciples of Christ church.
In both instances I was being baptized because I “was joining the church” because I was a Christian. To me both baptisms were the same. In neither case was I doing baptism because of the requirement or non-requirement of “baptismal regeneration” — a topic that I never even heard of until decades later.
One way the baptism in the SBC church could make sense is if the defective belief regarding baptism held by the Disciples of Christ church without either my knowlmdge or agreement somehow by “reverse-osmosis” imputed some problem to me. I don’t think there is any Biblical warrent to justify that view.
There is no way I could have possibly distinguished between the two baptisms. They were both by immersion. They both happened a result of joining the church because I was Christian.
Benji,
I notice you continue to base your belief that the New Testament church started on the day of Pentecost on Matthew 16:18 and 1 Corinthians 3:16-17. However these verses do not support you position. Consider:
1. Matthew 16:18 and oikodomeso. You have correctly pointed out that the tense is different in Acts 9:31, but the root word is the same. The word means to build up or edify. I asked my Greek professor about the word and he said it is never used in the New Testament to create something or to lay a foundation. It is always used to refer to something that was already in existence. Can you think of another verse in the Bible that disproves this claim? Remember in Matthew 16:18 Jesus didn’t use the word begin, start, found or create. He used the word build up or edify. Jesus would continue to build up what had already been started.
2. 1 Cor. 3:16-17. You say that the sanctuary can not exist from the Spirit. Yet I have pointed out that it did in the O.T. with Solomon’s temple as well as the tabernacle. Also in the N.T. God was in the midst of the church in the form of the second person of the Trinity – Jesus. So the argument doesn’t work.
As to my arguments, you haven’t really answered them:
1. Hebrews 2:12 – You have yet to tell me when Jesus sang in the church?
2. 1 Corinthians 12:28. A simple reading of the scripture will point to Luke 6 as the date when this happen. At Pentecost, there were 120 in the upper room.
3. Matthew 18 – Jesus said “Tell it to the church.” You say this command was still future. So why didn’t the disciples say, “Lord, what’s a church?” or “Lord, when should we start doing this?” By Jesus saying, “Tell it to the church” common sense tells you that the church was already in existence.
4. You say that the only thing that existed before Pentecost was “disciples.” Yet these disciples were called a church by Jesus and did everything that a church does today. Clearly there was a church in the gospels.
5. As to Marsh’s work on the church, notice it is the opinion of the editor of the Biblical Recorder that this work was so important. Has Marsh’s book ever been reprinted? I don’t recall ever seeing Marsh’s work referred to in any other books on ecclesiology. Furthermore, the Biblical Recorder was far from being the most important Baptist periodical of that day. The Baptist Standard and the Western Recorder were much more widely read. The Biblical Recorder is not even top 5 for it comes in behind the Religious Herald, the Baptist and Reflector, Ford’s Christian Repository, and the Baptist Flag. This is why I have doubts about this claim.
Ben 100 points
Benji 15 points
Ben is winning this thing big time.
DAvid :)
My interpretation [using the analogy of Scripture]
Matthew 16
15He saith unto them, But whom say ye [plural] that I am?
16And Simon Peter [singular--representing the apostles] answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock [this foundation--Peter as a representative of the apostles] I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Jesus would build His church [not "is" building--present tense--His church] upon the foundation of the Apostles teaching [Eph. 2:20]
Acts 2
2And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost…[and thus the church was born]
After the birth of the church, Peter [the representative of the Apostles in Matthew 16] preaches the apostolic gospel and Acts says…
41Then they that gladly received his [apostolic] word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls [this is Jesus building His church upon the rock--Peter--in fulfillment of Matthew 16:18].
42And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine [here is the church being built spiritually on the foundation Eph. 2:20 refers to] and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers…
47Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord [Jesus] added to the church [again, continuing to fulfill Matthew 16:18 in building up the church] daily such as should be saved.
I guess no one wanted to tackle my question about a scriptural justification for Bart’s ““ex opere operantis Ecclesiae” thesis. Maybe, like Tim suggested, the Latin term scared some folks off. But if someone has a scriptural argument to support the idea that otherwise invalid baptims are converted into valid baptisms due to the approval and supervision of a duly constituted local church, I would be most interested to hear it.
David R.,
Maybe all the baptisms in the NT were valid baptisms? I mean, back then, maybe they didnt have Churches just wanting to sprinkle or pour? Maybe back then, they didnt have Churches that believed in baptismal regeneration? Maybe they didnt have any Churches wanting to baptise infants? Maybe we dont see that particular thing addressed in the NT, as clearly as you seem to want it to be spelled out, because the baptisms were done right! So, there would be no need for the clear cut verses of Scripture that you so desire to see.
But, still, the point remains….baptisms should be done in the right way and for the right reasons….and it’s a Church ordinance, not an individual thing. Just read Ben’s answer to Benji in comment #102.
David
David W.,
In Acts 19:1-7, we have reference to baptisms that were not considered “valid” Christian baptisms. It is, perhaps, a safe assumption to think that, in addition to those individuals referenced there, there were others, with similar circumstances. What Paul seemed to highlight, however, as the necessary qualification for making an “invalid” baptism “valid,” was being baptized “into the name of the Lord Jesus,” and not being baptized by a legitimate church or legitimate administrator. Study all of the references to “valid” baptisms in the NT. Never once do you find anything about a local church needing to approve of or supervise a baptism. In most of the references, if not all of them, there is never even a gathering of the local church to witness the baptism. Look for it. It is not there.
The whole idea of a duly constituted local church as the necessary intermediary of baptism was cooked up in order to replace the Roman Catholic idea that the officially ordained priests had the (magical?) power to make a baptism “valid” and turn bread and wine into body and blood. If not the giant organization under the Pope, and the priests officially ordained by them, then who? A logical choice was the duly constituted local church, under the supervision of democratic processes. A creative solution, but, in my opinion, an unnecessary one. The Bible says nothing at all about this. It only records that Jesus commanded His disciples to baptize, and that new disciples were always baptized, as a first step of their discipleship.
We need to get our theology out of the Bible, and not as a creative reaction to other people’s false theological systems.
Oh yeah. One thing more. I’m having difficulty connecting the dots (just like Roger Simpson, apparently), trying to figure out what Ben and Benji’s discussion has to do with all of this anyway. What difference does it make, regarding the validity of baptism, whether the church was inaugurated at Pentecost or beforehand? Or, is there something else I’m missing there?
David,
I explained the difference that it makes in comment #96. Ben, if I understand him correctly, would say that baptism is only a local church ordinance and thus a baptiz[er], who is not authorized by a [legitimate] local church, has not baptized anyone. They have simply gotten a believer wet. And unless he has another way to prove his theological point, then I think his view is dependent on Jesus giving Matthew 28:19-20 to the local church. But if the local church did not exist before Pentecost, then Jesus did not give Matthew 28:19-20 to the local church.
However, my view of what a legitimate baptism is has the character of being “more open” [not wide open] than Ben’s.
David, since you pleaded with me to return to this discussion, I came back to read the discussion stream. I will make the following observations. You seemed to believe that somehow there had been proof here that rendered my assertions incorrect. Haven’t seen that as I read through the comments.
1) As David said, I’m still not sure you are hearing the distinction he is trying to make, but since he has commented here, I will leave that to him.
2) I commented on the fact that (it seemed to me) that you tried to paint with a broad brush (guilt by association, perhaps, equating those who do not believe that baptism MUST be (those it usually will and should be) a church-governed event with those who will accept any mode of baptism. I challenged that as a false analogy.
3) I asked you to provide examples of SBC churches or bloggers who advocated the acceptance of sprinkling/pouring. There were some links/references to some CBF churches that are accepting other modes (surprise, surprise).
I still saw nothing to support your contention that there is a large group of folks who are advocating this. I continue to believe it was a false comparison and and an unfair accusation.
4) I found it amusing that you recoiled in horror at the idea that people might label you landmark, yet when Ben Stratton came on, you applauded him enthusiastically. If you enthusiastically support Landmarkists, what differentiates you from landmarkism?
Benji,
Thanks for the explanation. However, even if Ben could demonstrate that the Church/church was already in existence prior to the giving of the Great Commission, as recorded in Matthew 28, I don’t see how that would say one thing or another about the local church being given the authority to oversee baptism.
David,
I hope I don’t put words in Ben’s mouth, but I think from Ben’s point of view he sees it this way:
1. Jesus gave Matt:19-20 to the local church.
2. Therefore, the local church is to guard what Jesus gave it [which includes guarding baptism].
3. Hence, if the local church is not overseeing the baptism, then it is invalid since #1 is true and #2 is an implication of #1.
Please correct me if I am wrong Ben.
David Miller,
You must be reading another comment stream, or else your reading comprehension is lacking very greatly, Brother. I’m dumbfounded how you could read the same comment stream and not admit that David Rogers would accept baptism by a Mormon….even it’s unusual and unlikely….if the man was truly saved, and had the right motive for being baptised. How you cannot see that is beyond me.
Also, you asked for Churches that accepted baptisms from Church of Christ, or Presbyterian, or Methodist. You asked for instances of SB Churches that just required that a saved person by immersed for them to accept the baptism. There were many instances told to us on this thread. You shrug them off with a CBF sigh. They are not all CBF. But, they are definitely out there, Brother…they are out there. And, I can really see this growing into an ugly plant on the SBC terrace.
Thus, you either didnt read the same post and comments in this stream that I did, or else your reading comprehension is way off.
DAvid
DAvid,
What you reference is no comparison whatsoever to the invalid baptisms of today. How can you compare people having John’s baptism needing to baptised in the name of Jesus; to people who are being sprinkled on top of the head…people being baptised as infants… people being baptised for salvation, etc?????
And so, again, maybe we dont see any instances of people needing to be baptised again….except in the case of John the Baptists baptisms…due to the fact that the Early Church did it right!!!! Why would it be written about in the NT if they were all being done right????? It wasnt an issue back then. It is today….with all of the different denominations and cults and such.
David
BTW, Dave M., I’m agreeing with Ben because he’s hitting it on the head, not with his landmarkism. I’m sure that Ben and I would disagree on some issues, due to his landmarkism. But, from what I’m reading with his conversation with Benji….he’s nailing it.
David
David W.,
We seem to be talking past each other. You and I are in total agreement, as far as I can tell, about sprinkling, infant baptism, and baptismal regeneration. No debate there. That shouldn’t even be on the table for discussion.
The one instance in the N.T. where there is a reference to “invalid” baptism has nothing to do with either sprinkling, infant baptism, or baptismal regeneration. One might potentially think that it did have to do with an invalid administrator/administrating church, since the folks referenced in Acts 19 were apparently not baptized in the context of a Christian church. But, when Paul corrects them regarding baptism, he does not instruct them of the need to be baptized by a valid church. He only tells them they need to be baptized “into the name of the Lord Jesus.”
I know I am late to this party, but it seems like there is a pretty big disagreement on what the Bible says is a basic spiritual topic. (Hebrews 6:1-2)
I think we can all agree that baptism is a necessary part of the conversion process. John prepared us for it, Jesus preached it, and the Apostles practiced it. The method of it was stated and examples were given. It seems to me that the issue is in how important do we view these clear teachings and examples of scripture.
Do we want people to be accepted, and to have them accept us? Or do we preach and practice what was handed down by God Himself. If someone was baptized for the wrong reason, or as an infant, they should be baptized in the scriptural way.
Church traditions destroy scripture. They always have. New Testament baptisms were not bound to a church, or service in any way. So we feel uncomfortable with them, even though there is biblical precedence. Other churches sprinkle, so we are uncomfortable asking people to be immersed. If churches are all about making people comfortable, rather than preaching and practicing the will of God, we have much greater issues on our hands.
I’m going to split this into multiple comments, so my apologies to any who have a different preference for the formatting of lengthy posts.
First, regarding the use of the term “ex opere operantis ecclesiae.” Yes, it is a Latin term. It means something along the lines of “accomplished out of the working of the church.”
The phrase, like most Latin phrases, does pertain to doctrinal discussions within Roman Catholicism. It is not, however, the official Roman Catholic position with regard to baptism. Rather, Catholics use it to describe their theology of sacramentals (which are something other than sacraments). The official Roman Catholic position regarding baptism (and other sacraments), as I understand it, is ex opere operato.
If I read us all correctly, I believe that ex opere operato represents an answer to a slightly different question—that it describes a position that all of us (as far as I can tell) embrace. Specifically, the ex opere operato position (“accomplished out of the working of the work itself”) states that the personal worthiness of the individual administrator does not affect the validity of baptism.
Granted, we differ with the Roman Catholics on many specifics of this definition, and therefore when we employ their terminology we do so imprecisely. Roman Catholics use all of these phrases to define the conditions under which baptism conveys grace. For all of us in this thread, I presume, we do not agree that baptism conveys grace at all. Thus the difference between our use of the term and theirs.
Nevertheless, even though we greatly differ with Roman Catholics over the effect of valid baptism, we do, the both of us, differentiate between valid baptism and invalid rites of baptism so-called. Our discussions of what makes baptism valid (even with our vastly different implications of that determination) frequently run along the same lines in consideration of some of the same factors. Thus, even if we employ the terms imprecisely, they can be helpful even to Baptists in our discussions of baptism.
In my particular borrowing of ex opere operantis ecclesiae to refer to David Worley’s post, I would technically have been more correct to say that his position was ex opere operato. That is, I was making it clear that David Worley was not arguing that an individual administrator’s personal holiness or doctrinal fidelity (or even his salvation, for that matter) were requirements for baptismal validity.
My reason for not using ex opere operato was simply because this phrase would correctly describe both David Worley’s position and David Rogers’s position. It seemed appropriate to me, given the nature of the thread, to choose a phrase that highlighted the differences between their two positions, not the similarities.
Before moving on, I should say something about the fact that ex opere operato aptly describes both David Worley’s position and David Rogers’s (as well as the official Roman Catholic position). This commonality makes unlikely David Rogers’s warnings that David Worley’s position leaves one vulnerable to a slipping off into the Donatist position. I believe that a proper reading of the Donatist controversy would show that…
DONATIST POSITION: Individual administrator must be worthy for baptism to be valid. NOT HELD BY ANYONE IN THIS CONVERSATION.
NON-DONATIST POSITION: Individual administrator must be worthy for baptism to be valid. Baptism of valid form performed upon valid candidates under the auspices of a valid church. Even Augustine held this position. He did argue that Donatist baptisms should be accepted as valid, but he argued that they should be accepted as such because in his view the connection between Donatist groups and the one true church was not entirely severed so as to make their baptisms invalid. Certainly the very many non-Donatists who argue against accepting the validity of Donatist baptisms also held this position. POSITION HELD BY DAVID WORLEY.
OTHER POSITION: The position that baptism can be valid even if performed without any connection with a valid church is not the position advocated by any of the participants in the Donatist controversy, so far as I can tell. POSITION HELD BY DAVID ROGERS.
It is, in my view of things, turning Church History upon its head to suggest that the non-Donatist position from the historical Donatist controversy is a position that places one in danger of embracing Donatism.
My apologies for the incoherence of one sentence in the above comment. The composition of that sentence was interrupted by several intervening items. My apologies. It should read…
“Baptism of valid form performed upon valid candidates under the auspices of a valid church is valid baptism.”
I’m out of time. I’m leaving this window open. I’ll try to get back to this right away.
Question: Do any of us involved in this discussion–including Bart Barber, David Worley, or myself–believe that either the Donatists, those commonly referred to as the Catholics during the time of the Donatist controversy, or Augustine, had a correct biblical view and practice of baptism overall? If not, then none of us is technically Donatist or Non-Donatist in our position, as defined by Bart above. Rather, all of us fall in to the “Other” category.
Nonetheless, there are certain elements of the Donatist position that apply, in a parallel manner, to the position David Worley (and apparently Bart Barber) are taking.
My point in all of this is that the same argument used against the Donatist position (that it makes no sense to have to keep going back and reviewing the credentials of the administrator –i.e. individual–of baptism ad infinitum) also apply to the “ex opere operantis ecclesiae” (we can never be 100% sure of the authenticity of a “church” at the moment of our baptism. If the validity of baptism depends on that, we will have to continually review the credentials of the church that baptized us). Of what we can be relatively certain is the motive and state of our own heart at the time of baptism, what that baptism meant for us, and the mode by which we were baptized.
David,
We most certainly can be sure of what the Church that baptises believes about something as basic as salvation and baptism. Does the Church believe in salvation by grace thru faith? Do they believe in Believers baptism by immersion? It’s really that simple.
David
David,
When you refer to “the Church,” are you referring to the people that make up a particular congregation, or to an institution or organization? Last I checked, only people, as such, believe or disbelieve. And, though it is less likely for an entire group of people to hide their true beliefs, or apostatize from them, than it is for an individual, if it is possible for an individual to do so, it is also technically possible for a group of people to do so.
David,
A church is a group. A church cannot be an individual. And, I am, of course, talking about the people that make up that local assembly of Believers. It’s what they believe about salvation and baptism that I refer to. It’s what that group of Believers, who did the baptising, that I’m referring to.
David
David W.,
So, is the belief of a church, then, the belief of the majority of the inviduals within that church? If 51% believe one thing, and 49% something else, does the church, per se, believe what the 51% believe?
Is it really also so clear what 51% of a congregation believes about salvation and baptism? If 51% does not determine what a church believes, what percent does determine what it believes?
I know I am pressing this to its absurd extreme, but I think it is a valid way to test out the tenability of what you are saying. If there are possible exceptions, then it is not a sure basis for determining the validity of baptism.
David,
It’s what the Church, as a whole believes. It’s not about polling every single member about their beliefs on salvation and baptism. But, most, if not all, Churches will have a consensus of belief on these topics…expressed thru core beliefs, statement of faith, common knowledge, etc.
David
David W.,
That sounds an awful lot like you are talking about the church as an institution or organization, and not the people, to me, then.
What if someone was baptized in a church that did not have an official statement of beliefs, and 80% of the people in the church had sound beliefs concerning salvation and baptism. If they wanted to transfer membership to your church, do you think they should be required to be baptized again? What about, the same scenario, and 70%? 60%? 51%?
Once again, though this question appears to be overly obtuse, I think the way you answer it determines what you really think, at the core, about the necessity of a valid church overseeing and administrating baptism. If you can’t agree on a set percentage, or a set procedure, then your criteria is subjective, and I would say, arbitrary.
David,
Another question is what do you deem to be sound beliefs regarding baptism, as a requirement for the validity of baptism? What if someone came from a church where the consensus of belief on baptism was the exact position I have been advocating throughout this comment stream? Does that church have a sound position on baptism? Would a person coming for transfer of membership from that church need to be baptized again, in your opinion?
I suppose you could say that a church, in order to be accepted as a valid supervisory and administering church of baptism, must have an official belief statement, voted on and officially adopted by the people, which enunciates sound beliefs on salvation and baptism.
If so, would you automatically eliminate all those churches, which, for one reason or another, do not have an officially voted on statement of beliefs? Is the criterion, perhaps, the beliefs of the pastor(s) at the time of the baptism? Do the beliefs of some churches change, according to who happens to be the pastor(s) at the time?
My answer, of course, to all these questions is that your system for determining validity of baptism is flawed. A valid administrator–whether we think in terms of an individual, or of an entire congregation–is not a biblical requirement of valid baptism.
David R.,
It’s what the Church believes. It’s what their doctrine is. It is what it is.
If I go to a Methodist Church, then I know that they sprinkle, and they’re Arminian. Most of them are as liberal as they can be.
If I go to a Presbyterian Church, then I know that they practice infant baptism and hold to a more Calvinistic view of salvation, unless they’re liberal…like so many Presbyterians are. Then, it’s worse.
If I go to a Southern Baptist Church, guess what they are?
Also, I talked to a man coming out of a church that wanted to join our church. I asked him about the beliefs of that church on certain matters. He had no problem telling me what they were.
But, David, the crux of the matter, as always, is do you believe that baptism was given to individuals, or to the Church. Of course, I do believe that the BFM2K says that it’s an ordinance of the Church, just like the Lord’s Supper is. I believe that.
David
David W.,
I believe baptism was given as a command (i.e. the command to baptize) to the disciples (i.e. the Universal Church). It is also given as a command (i.e. the command to be baptized) to anyone who wants to become a disciple. This does not preclude local churches as a valid expression of the Universal Church. For me, the crux of the matter is what Scripture teaches. I believe that.
David R.,
I believe what the Bible teaches about baptism. That settles it for me. The BFM2K just states what the vast, vast majority of us SB’s believe the Bible clearly teaches in this matter, and SB’s have believed it for years and years and years.
And, as for the universal church, where’s it’s Pastor? Deacons? How do you conduct Church discipline in the universal church?
David
David,
To say the Bible teaches something, or to point to a large number of people who believe the Bible teaches something, without, at the same time, being able to show how and where the Bible teaches something, is of little value, in my opinion.
I agree that pastors, deacons, and church discipline are all a part of what goes into making up the good health of a local congregation. However, I don’t see where the Bible links baptism with pastors, deacons, and/or church discipline. The only possible link I can think of is that, before partaking of the Lord’s Supper, we are admonished by Paul to examine ourselves. If we have not been obedient to the Lord’s command to be baptized, this examination of our heart before God should ideally point us to our need to be baptized. So, there is some link to church discipline.
However, the Bible never teaches that baptism must be supervised or administered by a local church. In fact, practically all, if not all, of the references to actual baptisms in the NT, say nothing at all about local church involvement. The only possible exception is Acts 2 where it says those who were baptized were “added unto them.”
The burden of proof is on those who claim the Bible teaches local church supervision and administration of baptism as a requirement for its validity.
David Rogers,
For you to come in here and tell me “To say the Bible teaches something, or to point to a large number of people who believe the Bible teaches something, without, at the same time, being able to show how and where the Bible teaches something, is of little value, in my opinion” is either A)ignorance on your part; B)deceptive maneuvering to win an arguement on your part; or C)you have severe memory loss. We’ve had this debate many, many, many times. And, I, and many others, have shown you, from the Bible, why we believe the way we do. And, not only that, but apparently many, many SB’s of the past believed that the Bible taught this as well, with it being included in the BFM2K. David, are all of these people ignorant? Are all of these people unenlightened? Are all of these people unable to see what the Bible teaches?
Also, David, when I went to SBC Impact, my virus protection blocked me from going; stating that yall have a severe virus and going to SBC Impact would result in getting a virus that would go after all of your personal and financial info. Just thought you’d like to know.
David
David W.,
I’m sorry if I offended you. Perhaps it is best just to leave it for now, and agree to disagree on this.
I came back here because Bart e-mailed me, and told me he was going to respond to my earlier inquiries regarding “ex opere operantis ecclesiae.” I am still interested in hearing out Bart’s entire argument, and may respond to him, if he chooses to continue to post on this. But, I am sensing it is probably best to desist from arguing this point with you further. I hope this doesn’t come between us. I recognize I have been a bit overly insistent on this, and it is not worth driving a wedge between us.
Also, thanks for the warning about the virus. I just went to the Impact site, and didn’t encounter any problem. But, I will keep that in mind, just in case. Perhaps it was something temporary that has been fixed already.
OK. I’m back. I see that there has been a back-and-forth between the two Davids in the aftermath of my previous two posts. Unless anyone objects, I’m going to ignore the entirety of that for now and labor to finish my point. I think that I have quite enough there to keep me occupied for now. I am tempted, David Rogers, to enter deeper dialogue right now regarding #122. However, as rotten of a job as I do of getting these things finished, anyway, I think I’d better protect my focus until I complete the task at hand.
Since we’ve already brought Acts 19 onto the stand, maybe we ought to get its testimony first.
The pericope actually begins in Acts 18:24. Apollos, the eloquent Alexandrian Jew, is described in Acts 18 in the following manner:
1. He was a Jew.
2. He was from Alexandria.
3. He went to Ephesus.
4. He was highly educated regarding the BIble.
5. He had been instructed with regard to Christianity.
6. He was a passionate speaker.
7. With regard to his Christology, he taught accurately.
8. The only defect cited with regard to Apollos was his baptism.
9. He knew only the baptism of John.
I believe that Apollos was already a Christian believer before Priscilla and Aquila ever encountered him. This passage goes out of its way to identify Apollos’s accurate understanding of who Jesus is as well as Apollos’s accurate defense of Christ against unbelievers.
But he did have a problem with his baptism. Priscilla and Aquila addressed this problem. All we’re told is that “they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.” If they baptized Apollos, we’re not told about it here.
…I’m out of time again. I shall return. Since I thought that this thread was pretty much dead, I hadn’t been in that much of a hurry. Trustee meetings at SWBTS begin tomorrow. We’ll see how much time I have to respond.
…so, when last I left you, we were looking at Apollos, the valid Christian believer with problem in his theology of baptism. Acts 18 tells us that he was corrected by Aquila and Priscilla, but give us no indication whether his errors with regard to the doctrine of baptism necessitated that he himself be baptized by the Ephesian church.
Before we move into Acts 19, let’s ask a question about Acts 18. David Rogers has suggested that in Acts 19 the different meanings of the baptisms were the factors that necessitated the baptism of the twelve. If he is correct, then we must conclude that Apollos needed to be baptized in Acts 18 just as much as the twelve needed to be baptized in Acts 19, for both had received precisely the same baptism, the baptism of John. If I will assert that the twelve needed to be baptized because they had not been baptized under the auspices of a church, then I as well am going to need to assert the same thing about Apollos. Now that we are in the same boat, how are we going to resolve this question?
1. We can presume that Apollos was indeed baptized in Acts 18, and that the passage simply fails to mention this fact. It’s plausible, but quite unsatisfying.
2. We can remind ourselves that we are dealing with narrative rather than didactic passages here, and we can take refuge in the possibility that Aquila and Priscilla did not do the perfect thing here, and that they failed to baptize Apollos when they should have done so.
3. We can abandon our positions that church connection (in my case) or theology of baptism (in both our cases) impinge upon baptismal validity at all.
I presume that we’ll both avoid #3, because Acts 19 is going to pose problems for that route. Neither of the other two are particularly palatable (nor are any of the options that I deemed unworthy of mention), but the first option is my preferred position.
…join us next time, when Bart says…
Just kidding. But I do appreciate everyone’s patience with me. I’m thankful for dead threads that permit us more leisurely conversation. If I could just leave the live ones alone and prioritize my time!
…on pins and needles…