Archive for Baptism
Do Baptisms Matter Anymore?
Posted by: | CommentsIn 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.
A Heritage of Faithfulness
Posted by: | CommentsThis post was originally published on my own blog over three years ago. It was published in the midst of a controversy within my state regarding baptism and church membership, but the truth it contains is as applicable today as then.
My grandfather, Glen Wesley Smith, was an alcoholic. Thankfully, God saves alcoholics, and on Mother’s Day, 1950, He saved my grandfather, and called him to preach, which my grandfather faithfully did from the following Sunday until his retirement in 1983. Even after retirement, he served as interim pastor at the First Baptist Church in Poteau, Oklahoma, where he grew up. He passed away in 1989.
Among the great treasures he passed down to me is a large satchel, filled to overflowing with sermons he typed himself. I probably have close to a thousand of these typed sermons, along with a couple of well-marked Bibles. Frome time to time, I like to thumb through these yellowed pages. It often makes for great study, and, as I don’t really have clear memories of my grandfather in the pulpit, they serve as a way for me to visualize him there, preaching the Word. Read More→
Podcast Episode 3
Posted by: | Comments
Well, it’s that time again, and here for your amusement is episode 3 of the SBC Today podcast. We were down a voice or two this week, but what we lacked in quantity, we made up in no appreciable way whatsoever. But we did have fun.
In this episode, we begin with a bit of talk about the GCR Taskforce and the NAMB trustee meeting. At the time of recording the GCR Taskforce had not yet begun their meeting, and the NAMB trustees were in executive session, so there really wasn’t much to discuss. We ended the program with prayer for both groups.
We also talked about polyamory, which is every bit as strange as it sounds. And in the middle, taking up the bulk of the time, is a discussion about the local church, the Great Commission, and baptism.
We hope you enjoy these podcasts. You can listen using the player below, or subscribe in iTunes and have them automatically downloaded each week when they’re ready. And while you’re at our iTunes page, give us a rating and/or a review. We welcome your feedback and suggestions, which you can leave in a comment on this post or by email. Just click on “About” at the top of the page, and you’ll find email links for each member of the team.
As always, here are links to some of the things we discussed.
Episode 3: Us versus I
Posted by: | CommentsDave Miller wrote a post last week, published at sbcIMPACT, asking questions about the proper approach to baptizing children who have made a profession of faith. Much of his post focuses on his own approach to the question, and in this post of nearly 2,300 words, the word “church” appears twelve times. About half of these occurrences comes in legitimate criticism of the practice of another church, or when Dave is describing the actions of the apostles and others in the church in Acts with regard to baptism. The other half comes in this paragraph:
There is little or no evidence of church oversight of the process of baptism in the early church. This is not germane to my topic and runs the risk of diverting the discussion from the subject of children’s baptism. But [I] see no place in which a baptism was put through the mechanism of a local church before it was performed. Philip did not consult the Jerusalem church when he baptized the Samaritans. Peter probably knew that the baptism of Gentiles would create problems among the apostles, but he did not stop to seek consent before he baptized Cornelius. The evidence seems to lead us to an immediate baptism upon profession of faith. I am not against church supervision of the process, but wonder where the biblical support for that idea is.
What troubles me about this post is not necessarily the conclusion at which Dave arrives. I am personally inclined to agree that baptism should follow as closely as possible after someone makes a credible profession of faith. But I am stunned by his apparent lack of recognition of the authority of Christ given to the church in the Great Commission as it relates to baptism. Baptism, as is well described by the Baptist Faith and Message, is an ordinance of Christ and an ordinance of the church. That is, it is a command of Christ, given by our Lord to His church to administer. What this means is that these questions, while they make for interesting debate and discussion, cannot ultimately be answered by any one of us. They must be answered by the body of Christ, gathered in His name, and speaking with His authority. If we’re going to have a Great Commission Resurgence, there must first be a clear understanding of the responsibilities given to the church in the Great Commission.
Dave makes it clear in his post (in the paragraph I quoted above) that he doesn’t want to get sidetracked in the comments on this post by a discussion of the church’s role, claiming that what he wants to discuss is the appropriate age for baptism. But an understanding of the proper role of the church in baptism will lead us to realize that this isn’t a question that can be answered in a comment thread; you need a church to answer it. As the church speaks with the authority of Christ, it is up to the church to determine whether a child is a valid candidate for baptism.
I am convinced that, like so many of the challenges we face, this is a result of an inordinate emphasis on individualism. Because our society so values individual identity, we let that seep into our understanding of the Bible. We read passages that were intended to apply to the church as though they were intended for us as individuals.
As an example, think about 1 Corinthians 3:16, which says, “Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?” (ESV) How many times have you been taught, or taught yourself, that this is a reference to the indwelling of the Spirit in the believer, and it is an admonition to take care of our bodies? While that is a true and biblical principle, it is not what is being taught by the Spirit-inspired apostle in this verse. Both occurrences of “you” in this verse are in the plural, and this verse is addressed, like all of 1 Corinthians, to “the church of God that is in Corinth.” (1:2)
We must come to the place where we recognize the damage this individualistic focus is doing to the life of our churches. It permeates our thinking, and unless we recognize it and actively combat it, it will continue to harm our understanding, about baptism and so many other areas of the life of the church. Though Dave only manages to squeeze 12 mentions of the word “church” into his nearly 2,300-word post, I could not help but notice the prevalence of self-references:
“I” 43 times
“me” 13 times
“my” 11 times
We hear a great deal today about ordering the relative importance of doctrines. My concern is that if we fail to address this unhealthy emphasis on individualism that has seeped into our views of the church, ecclesiology will be the latest doctrine tossed into the category of “non-essentials.”
Poisoning the Fountains of Truth: Part Three
Posted by: | CommentsThis is part of an article originally published January 1922 in the Southwestern Journal of Theology by Dr. L. R. Scarborough entitled, “Poisoning the Fountains of Truth.” It was republished in the most recent Southwestern Journal of Theology, “Baptists and Unity.” You can find part one here and part two here. May a voice of our past speak to us today. Below is part three of a four part series reprinting Dr. Scarborough’s essay:
2. Another way by which the fountains of truth and life of our churches can be poisoned is by doing violence to the ordinances of Jesus Christ, in depreciating their value and emasculating their testimony. This is done when a Baptist church receives baptism administered at the hands of some other organization than a Baptist church. If a Baptist preacher admits into the fellowship of his church Christians who have received baptism at the hands of pedobaptists, without requiring them to be baptized by a Baptist church, he violates the truth of God and is guilty of a heresy in ecclesiology which will eventually ruin the testimony of the ordinances and vitiate the witness of Christ’s churches. Such practice eats at the very heart of the life of Christ’s churches. Such a practice will not only injure the life of the church practicing it, but will eventually poison the fountains of truth in all of our churches
A pastor of one of the leading churches of Texas told me recently of a member from another Baptist church in Texas seeking admittance on a letter from this church, but when questioned as to her baptism she reported that she came to this other church on the baptism from a certain Campbellite church and had not been required to be baptized by this Baptist church. This pastor tells me that he promptly refused to admit this woman into the fellowship of his church. I think he did right.
There lies at this point a great danger and we should guard the fountains of truth from the poison that will come by the emasculation of the ordinances of Jesus Christ.
Reprinted with permission, Southwestern Journal of Theology
Messages on Ordinances
Posted by: | CommentsOn behalf of my brothers here at SBC Today, I have the privilege of presenting our readers video of two excellent messages from Dr. Russell Moore, dean of the School of Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
In these sermons, preached at Highview Baptist Church in Louisville, Dr. Moore presents a biblical understanding of the importance of Communion and Baptism–ordinances given to God’s people to be carried out in our churches.
His message on the Lord’s Supper, the first one posted below, is, “Communion (Really).”
His message on Baptism is, “Dead Man Washing.”
I pray that you are challenged, renewed, and encouraged by these messages from Dr. Moore. May we be faithful in our proclamation of what Christ has done for us as we look forward with enthusiastic anticipation at what He has promised.
Communion (Really) from Russell Moore on Vimeo.
Dead Man Washing from Russell Moore on Vimeo.
Atheist Affirms Believers Baptism
Posted by: | CommentsIn perusing the blogs I ran across an interesting blog article. It referenced a story about groups of atheists and secularists seeking to be “de-baptised”. In this story the atheist and secularist affirm that baptism should be done by those who make a conscious decision to do so. Do not get me wrong, I am not saying these atheists and secularists are doing this on a theological conviction based on scripture. I am saying that they are using the argument that we Baptists have used for years–an infant does not have the capacity to affirm their profession of faith in Jesus Christ. We Baptists base our conviction on scripture, not concerning an infant’s capacity to decide, but on the example of Jesus and the Greek word used to describe baptism.
John Hunt, a 58-year-old nurse, began the movement when he applied to be “de-baptised” from his faith. Following the legal counsel from the Church of England, he published an announcement in the London Gazette. Hunt held that he was too young to make any decision when he was christened at five months old. We now have atheists and secularists affirming what Baptists have advocated for years–infant baptism is nothing more than a religious practice that means nothing to the person involved.
Baptism by immersion is a personal decision made by a believer. This decision should be based on a clear conviction of that believer that scripture calls one to this step. One identifies with the Lord Jesus Christ through this act and that should never be taken lightly. Nor should it be dumbed down because others try to call one pharisaical because of the insistence on baptism by immersion.
Infant Baptism is Sin–From the Perspective of a Layman
Posted by: | Comments
We welcome a new contributor today. Chris Poe is a recent blogger that has been linked to over at Praisegod Barebones. If you would like to comment on this article you can go to Praisegod Barebones or One Pilgrim’s Progress
Raised United Methodist, Chris says he was a blasphemer who denied the deity of Christ by his early 20’s. He was converted around the time he began attending a Wesleyan church. Since then he attended an independent sovereign grace church and later was a member of an Orthodox Presbyterian church (OPC) that he attended for about three years. After moving to a different part of the state and marrying, he reconsidered the baptism issue and now he and his wife are happily and by conviction members of a Southern Baptist church. Recently he started taking part in the teaching ministry as well.
Chris says; “During the course of my pilgrimage, I have taken a few detours into the Slough of Despond, made a handful of trips to Doubting Castle, followed the advice of Mr. Worldly Wiseman and lingered too long in Vanity Fair. But the Lord has been steadfast in restoring me to the path each time.”
Dr. R. Scott Clark, Professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Westminster Seminary California, has been invited to respond to the controversy at the 9 Marks blog. Dr. Clark posts a lightly revised version of what he had previously posted on his own blog. Dr. Clark is not offended by Dr. Dever’s calling infant baptism sin and considers Dr. Dever to be in sin for not baptizing his own children.
