I am feeling betrayed and abandoned. I was introduced into the blog world reading Wade Burleson's screeds against the IMB Bot's. After a long time, I got tired of that mess, and went on a quest to find some other blogs to read.
I stumbled across a small group of bloggers sometimes called the "Baptist Identity" bloggers. I dubbed them the Baptist Bluster Brigade. They march in lock step, always blogging about the same subjects, always agreeing with one another and affirming the brilliance of each other's posts, and ALWAYS attacking anyone who disagreed as a closet liberal or an agent of "Enid." It didn't take me long to decide that wasn't my cup of tea.
So, I went searching again, and I found some intelligent, intriguing blogs. I found Bart Barber, who agrees with the BI folks in some things, but does so with intelligence and insight. He also engages in discussion when someone disagrees. He has written some great junk. Unfortunately, he has not been blogging. He thinks it is okay for him to DO MINISTRY instead of writing stuff for me to read. Imagine that!
I also found Nathan Finn and his blog, "The Fullness of Times." It was, in my opinion, the best I found. He has a unique insight into SBC issues. His series on the questions students ask him was powerful. He has convinced me to steer my son toward Southeastern Seminary. And now he has had the nerve to put his teaching duties ahead of his blogging duties. AAARRGGHH!
It seems like the good bloggers have better things to do. The purveyors of insipidity and drivel seem to have plenty of time to blog, but those who have something to say either have a better place to say it or don't have the time to write.
I can't believe these guys are putting their ministries ahead of my blog-reading. Very selfish. What is a guy to do to waste time?
The Yankees aren't playing that well. I need some blogs!!!
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Monday, June 30, 2008
Where Southern Baptists Shine!
When you read SBC blogs, you hear relentless stream of negativism about the future of the SBC. Some cynics say we need to develop an "exit strategy." One mega-commenter relentlessly bashes the SBC and questions the intelligence of anyone who does not share her viewpoint. Statistics have shown that we are declining numerically and a cursory examination of blogs shows that we are severely divided.
But in New Orleans and Cedar Rapids, Southern Baptists shine. Our disaster relief efforts are amazing. In my hometown, Cedar Rapids, the flood wreaked devastation. Now, Southern Baptists are there helping to rebuild the city. The church I grew up in, and the other SBC church, the one I pastored for over 14 years, are housing disaster relief teams which are involved in mud-out and will be replaced by rebuilding teams.
Last week, I was in New Orleans working with "Operation Noah" an SBC-led program to rebuild that devastated city. Operation Noah is doing what the government and social agencies could not do - put people back in their homes. It is an amazing ministry.
Yes, we Southern Baptists have our problems. There are some things I don't like. But I am glad to be a part of an organization that is there when people need us.
But in New Orleans and Cedar Rapids, Southern Baptists shine. Our disaster relief efforts are amazing. In my hometown, Cedar Rapids, the flood wreaked devastation. Now, Southern Baptists are there helping to rebuild the city. The church I grew up in, and the other SBC church, the one I pastored for over 14 years, are housing disaster relief teams which are involved in mud-out and will be replaced by rebuilding teams.
Last week, I was in New Orleans working with "Operation Noah" an SBC-led program to rebuild that devastated city. Operation Noah is doing what the government and social agencies could not do - put people back in their homes. It is an amazing ministry.
Yes, we Southern Baptists have our problems. There are some things I don't like. But I am glad to be a part of an organization that is there when people need us.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
What in God's Name are We Doing to Our Children?
(If you read this and comment, please don't think I am ignoring you. I am headed to New Orleans for a week of disaster relief. I don't know how much internet access I will have.)
(I was reading Bart Barber's current post on biblical literacy, and it put me in mind of this, my very first blog ever. So, I pulled it out of the mothballs and edited it.)
Everyone is concerned about the effect that our culture is having on children. Violence, immorality and perversion fill the airwaves. The family is breaking down, our schools are a mess; the moral foundations of our nation are crumbling. What is going to happen to our children and grandchildren as they grow up in this moral cesspool?
But I have a more serious concern today. I am bothered by the effects of a pagan society on the next generation, but I am more concerned about what the church of Jesus Christ is doing to our children. A prominent church developed a children’s ministry center. The designer had worked for Disney and built a visual wonderland to amaze and attract. In the hopes that many children would come to Christ, the church put in a baptistery; one especially designed for children. It was shaped like a fire truck and equipped with a confetti canon that would fire every time a child was baptized. I need to clarify something here.
The preceding paragraph is NOT fiction. I have talked to people who have been there. The facts are verified and undenied. What that church did may be extreme, but it is indicative of what is going on in children’s ministries across America. Children’s ministries are competing with fast-paced children’s television programs and exciting video games. So, we compete. If Disney can entertain our children, we will do it better. We will out-Hollywood Hollywood and out-rock-and-roll the music industry.
This is all done with the most noble of motives. The bright lights of our culture attract children, so we use the bright lights to attract them to Christ. If the kids watch TV, let’s give them VeggieTales. If they are going to play games, they might as well have a Christian theme. Their music might as well have vaguely Christian words. Whatever we have to do to get them into the church and keep them there, we will do.
But there may be a problem with all this. I am afraid that in our noble desire to make the church more palatable and entertaining, we are in danger of raising a generation which has no concept of what Christianity really is. My generation is narcissistic and self-indulgent. What will this generation of entertainment-jaded youth be when it is all grown up?
Jesus described the very nature of Christianity. “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.” Paul told the Philippians, “It has been granted to you on behalf of Jesus not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him.” Jesus promised his disciples that in this world, they would have tribulation.
We work very hard to make the church experience fun, exciting and entertaining. We cater to children. But following Jesus is self-denial, not entertainment. We are called to serve him; not just to enjoy him. How are kids going to learn this lesson if children spend their lives being catered to and entertained? When is the last time an American child was asked to sacrifice for cause of Christ?
For several years I led a ministry at my former church called Bible Drill. It is hard work. Every week I had a dozen or so wonderful Christian fourth through sixth graders in my office whining about Bible Drill. “This isn’t fun. Can we go outside?” Every week I gave them the same response. “Nothing of real value in life is fun. The things that really matter require hard work, sacrifice and faithfulness.” The message never seemed to get through. These kids were not juvenile delinquents. These were good kids – church kids. In fact, one of them went home with me at the end of the evening. But they had an idea ingrained into their pre-adolescent minds. Church is supposed to be fun. If it isn’t fun, they shouldn’t have to do it. Where would they have gotten such an idea?
I am raising an issue for which I do not have an answer. I do not want to make church dull. Howard Hendricks said that it is a sin to bore people with the Word of God. I agree. I see no real problem with using technology to create interest. But I do think that we have to be careful not to let kids grow up in the church enjoying the show without being challenged to sacrifice for the cause. Jesus did not say, “If anyone – except the children – would come after me...” We cannot give children a watered down gospel or ignore the call of Christ to sacrificial living.
In our effort to keep kids coming to church, have we compromised the reason why they should come? Is the goal to get them into the church or to see them passionately devoted to the Savior?
Anyone remember Pinocchio? Wasn’t it the carnival that led him into bondage?
(I was reading Bart Barber's current post on biblical literacy, and it put me in mind of this, my very first blog ever. So, I pulled it out of the mothballs and edited it.)
Everyone is concerned about the effect that our culture is having on children. Violence, immorality and perversion fill the airwaves. The family is breaking down, our schools are a mess; the moral foundations of our nation are crumbling. What is going to happen to our children and grandchildren as they grow up in this moral cesspool?
But I have a more serious concern today. I am bothered by the effects of a pagan society on the next generation, but I am more concerned about what the church of Jesus Christ is doing to our children. A prominent church developed a children’s ministry center. The designer had worked for Disney and built a visual wonderland to amaze and attract. In the hopes that many children would come to Christ, the church put in a baptistery; one especially designed for children. It was shaped like a fire truck and equipped with a confetti canon that would fire every time a child was baptized. I need to clarify something here.
The preceding paragraph is NOT fiction. I have talked to people who have been there. The facts are verified and undenied. What that church did may be extreme, but it is indicative of what is going on in children’s ministries across America. Children’s ministries are competing with fast-paced children’s television programs and exciting video games. So, we compete. If Disney can entertain our children, we will do it better. We will out-Hollywood Hollywood and out-rock-and-roll the music industry.
This is all done with the most noble of motives. The bright lights of our culture attract children, so we use the bright lights to attract them to Christ. If the kids watch TV, let’s give them VeggieTales. If they are going to play games, they might as well have a Christian theme. Their music might as well have vaguely Christian words. Whatever we have to do to get them into the church and keep them there, we will do.
But there may be a problem with all this. I am afraid that in our noble desire to make the church more palatable and entertaining, we are in danger of raising a generation which has no concept of what Christianity really is. My generation is narcissistic and self-indulgent. What will this generation of entertainment-jaded youth be when it is all grown up?
Jesus described the very nature of Christianity. “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.” Paul told the Philippians, “It has been granted to you on behalf of Jesus not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him.” Jesus promised his disciples that in this world, they would have tribulation.
We work very hard to make the church experience fun, exciting and entertaining. We cater to children. But following Jesus is self-denial, not entertainment. We are called to serve him; not just to enjoy him. How are kids going to learn this lesson if children spend their lives being catered to and entertained? When is the last time an American child was asked to sacrifice for cause of Christ?
For several years I led a ministry at my former church called Bible Drill. It is hard work. Every week I had a dozen or so wonderful Christian fourth through sixth graders in my office whining about Bible Drill. “This isn’t fun. Can we go outside?” Every week I gave them the same response. “Nothing of real value in life is fun. The things that really matter require hard work, sacrifice and faithfulness.” The message never seemed to get through. These kids were not juvenile delinquents. These were good kids – church kids. In fact, one of them went home with me at the end of the evening. But they had an idea ingrained into their pre-adolescent minds. Church is supposed to be fun. If it isn’t fun, they shouldn’t have to do it. Where would they have gotten such an idea?
I am raising an issue for which I do not have an answer. I do not want to make church dull. Howard Hendricks said that it is a sin to bore people with the Word of God. I agree. I see no real problem with using technology to create interest. But I do think that we have to be careful not to let kids grow up in the church enjoying the show without being challenged to sacrifice for the cause. Jesus did not say, “If anyone – except the children – would come after me...” We cannot give children a watered down gospel or ignore the call of Christ to sacrificial living.
In our effort to keep kids coming to church, have we compromised the reason why they should come? Is the goal to get them into the church or to see them passionately devoted to the Savior?
Anyone remember Pinocchio? Wasn’t it the carnival that led him into bondage?
Friday, June 6, 2008
Challenging Dr. Yarnell's BI Baptism viewpoint
Part 3: Conclusions
(NOTE: The biblical basis for these conclusions is found in the last two posts)
(Another NOTE: I am headed out today for a speaking engagement in Missouri. I hope someone wanders by and comments, but if you do, I will not respond unless I can find some wireless access somewhere - and who knows about Missouri, right?)
I feel a little bit like I am standing at the plate facing a Rogers Clemens fastball with a wiffle ball bat. I am about to engage the ideas of Dr. Malcolm Yarnell and others in regard to baptism. I am academically unqualified to challenge any of them. And it is not my intent to cast aspersions on the character of anyone here. Dr. Yarnell himself has been adept at disagreeing respectfully. He engaged in a lengthy debate with David Rogers and both demonstrated that disagreement is not disrespect.
I am challenging Dr. Yarnell because he seems to be providing the theological foundation for the Baptist Identity movement. I will be using quotes from a lengthy blog he put on Peter Lumpkins site a couple of months ago, which summarized his view on baptism. Again, while I will be questioning the biblical basis for his viewpoint on this issue, I will not be questioning his love for Christ or the scriptures.
Before that, let me share a few points that I think are clear from the biblical evidence. My past three posts have reviewed every place in the scripture in which Christian baptism is mentioned. I mostly ignored references to John’s baptism, since it seems to me to be a different thing than Christian baptism.
1) There is not a single scripture that gives evidence of baptism being performed under the supervision of a local church. People mention the Ethiopian Eunuch, but the pattern goes beyond that. I did not find a single piece of evidence to support institutional oversight of baptism as a requirement for baptism. That is not to say that local churches were not involved. There is just no evidence of institutional oversight of baptism.
2) I did not find any evidence of doctrinal evaluation of either the baptized or the baptizer. It seems that when someone came to faith in Christ, one of the first things they did was go find a pond or river to perform the baptism. It does not seem that they did a training class or a doctrinal evaluation. When you trusted Christ, you went and publicly testified to that by being baptized.
I wonder if that is where ideas of baptismal regeneration might have begun. People got baptized so quickly that people began to confuse conversion and immersion. It would be sort of like people who talk about “walking the aisle” today. We know that walking an aisle doesn’t save, but we use the phrase as a synonym for salvation because they often happen close together. Who knows?
3) Baptism seems to be presented in scripture as a “big picture” thing. Baptism is referred to as “into Christ” repeatedly, but never into a particular local church. Baptism is about identifying with the death and resurrection of Christ and about walking a new life of obedience. But there is no place in which someone is baptized to join a local church.
I do not object to baptism as a requirement for membership. In fact, I support it on practical grounds. But I reject the notion that this is fundamental to the biblical view of baptism.
4) I see very little emphasis in scripture on who does the baptism. Paul even goes to great lengths in 1 Corinthians to downplay his involvement in baptisms. My suspicion is that in the early church, any baptized believer could baptize another believer.
Dr. Yarnell’s Position
In his post on SBC Tomorrow, Dr. Yarnell made 7 statements on what he liked about Baptist baptism. The implication is that all 7 are essential for a biblical baptism. They are copied below
The first reason that I am a traditional Baptist is because Baptists begin the Christian life in the only way that Jesus Christ gave to His followers--by hearing His Word, believing it, confessing it, and obeying it by receiving baptism.
Second, Baptists do not baptize babies, because doing so alters the command of Christ and the orderly practice of His apostles, who always placed conversion prior to baptism.
Third, Baptists do not baptize only in the name of Jesus, because doing so ignores the command of Christ, which was clear that baptism should be in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Fourth, Baptists do not baptize apart from the local church, because baptism involves local church membership.
Fifth, Baptists do not baptize into an illusory invisible church, because they understand that a church requires a covenant and that can only be done where two or more people (and people have visible bodies) have gathered.
Sixth, Baptists do not sprinkle or pour, because they know that only immersion is faithful to the New Testament witness regarding the cross and the empty tomb of the gospel.
Finally, Baptists do not baptize those who lack the assurance of their eternal salvation, because the doctrine that one may lose one’s salvation indicates a lack of submission to Christ’s own doctrine.
My Response
I agree wholeheartedly with his first, second, third and sixth points. I disagree with the fourth, fifth and seventh. I do not have a problem with him believing or practicing these. But I do not think they have the biblical authority of the other four points, and I do not want them to be seen as normative for biblical baptism. I do not want to see those points encoded in IMB policies or in SBC practice. I think they go beyond the biblical evidence and I oppose them being enforced on me or on missionaries.
Dr. Yarnell said, “Fourth, Baptists do not baptize apart from the local church, because baptism involves local church membership.”
I would ask someone to show me the scriptural support for this, without appealing to Baptist tradition or history. Where does the Bible support this? I have not found it anywhere.
I have performed baptisms for 26 years and the vast majority have been under the auspices of the churches I have pastored. But I have performed baptisms on people thqat could not or did not want to be members of our church. Normally, when we baptized, the person automatically becomes a member of the church. But I have had people who wanted to be biblically baptized but not be members of my church. I baptized them. I believe the Bible supports what I did.
The missionary who baptized his child in a pool on the foreign field without the approval or authority of any church – he was acting in obedience to Christ, not contrary to it. We are baptized into Christ, not into a local church.
If you want to hold that doctrine, fine. Show me the verses!
Dr. Yarnell then made an extraordinary statement, “Fifth, Baptists do not baptize into an illusory invisible church, because they understand that a church requires a covenant and that can only be done where two or more people (and people have visible bodies) have gathered.”
He is right about one thing. We do not baptize into an illusory invisible church, but into Christ. Time and again, the scriptures I referenced in the last two posts identify baptism as into Christ. There is not one mention of baptism into a church, illusory or local. The only one that comes close is 1 Corinthians 12:12, which says that we have ALL been baptized into ONE body. Sounds a little bit like a universal church to me. Most would say that the baptism in view there is not water baptism anyway, but the baptism of the Spirit, which water baptism pictures.
But the part that I find extraordinary is his statement that a valid baptism can only take place “where two or more people” have gathered. Do the baptizer and the baptized count in this number? If they do, the statement becomes empty of meaning. All baptisms must by definition have two people present. We have a word for solo baptism – swimming!
I suspect, though, that he refers to a group of people from the local church who witness the baptism. Ethiopian Eunuch? No such witnesses. In fact, there is no point in Acts in which a baptism is delayed to gather a group of witnesses or to seek the approval of the church.
We have the authority of Christ to baptize and do not need the oversight of a local church. I prefer it that way. I practice it that way. But the Bible does not prescribe it that way.
Again, where is the biblical support for this authoritative statement.
Finally, he says, “Baptists do not baptize those who lack the assurance of their eternal salvation, because the doctrine that one may lose one’s salvation indicates a lack of submission to Christ’s own doctrine.”
I have only one requirement for a baptism. That person must clearly and forthrightly express their faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. I know my practice here is different from many others in my own denomination, but I do not believe I have the right to put any other stricture on baptism but that which the Bible does. If you profess faith in Christ and give clear testimony of your salvation, I baptize you.
I do not make a doctrinal test for baptism. Whatever Dr. Yarnell, Baptist history, or denominational practice says, I see only one test for baptism. Clearly professed faith in Christ. That’s it.
When someone comes to my church, I don’t care if they understood eternal security before they got baptized. I don’t care if they were Calvinist or Arminian when they got baptized. I only care if they were baptized by immersion after conversion as a public testimony of faith in Christ (not for salvation). I don’t care if it was done in a church, or in a pond, or by an ordained minister. Just three things: when, how and why? After I baptize them, it becomes my job to instruct them on sound doctrine.
To add a doctrinal stricture on baptism is clearly beyond the teaching of scripture. If you want to do things that way in your church, be my guest. Do as you please. But please do not tell me that I have to do what the Bible does NOT tell me I have to do. And please to not tell missionaries they cannot serve because even though they have done EVERYTHING the Bible tells them to do, they have not done the things you would like them to do even though the Bible does not command them.
Dr. Yarnell added this statement at the end. “These seven biblical doctrines concerning baptism speak much about Baptist identity. If we compromise these revealed teachings of Christ, we will begin to lose our Baptist identity because we will have compromised the Lordship of Christ. I am a Baptist because I believe that Jesus Christ is Lord. And because I believe that Jesus Christ is Lord, I must submit to His will. We may never compromise one aspect of Christ’s will, even in the name of supposed Christian unity.”
I agree with much of this. I believe in the Lordship of Christ and must submit to His will. But I am not required to submit to Malcolm Yarnell’s will, or his interpretations of scripture. He calls these “revealed teachings of Christ.” Fine, but show me where the Bible reveals these. I did not find them in scripture.
If “Baptist Identity” involves in forcing conformity on doctrines the Bible does not teach, I want nothing to do with it. I will submit to Christ and His Word, but will not be bound by Baptist tradition, heritage or history that is not firmly rooted in scripture.
I have more to say, and may take this up again later.
Conclusion
As I read scripture, there are several things that are decisive in valid, biblical baptism. First, it matters when you are baptized. It must be after your conversion. Second, it matters how you are baptized. It must be by immersion to picture identification with the death and resurrection of Christ. Third, it must be seen as a picture of faith, not as a saving event itself. These are the bedrock of biblical baptism.
The other issues that have been raised are not mandated in scripture. There is no evidence of institutional oversight in baptism. Baptism can (and usually should) be under the authority of a local body, but that is not biblically mandated. There are situations in which baptism not affiliated with a local church can be completely authorized biblically. I see very little evidence that the baptizer is of much biblical significance at all. And I see no doctrinal tests that are germane to baptism. The only requirement is faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. Everything else is discipleship.
(NOTE: The biblical basis for these conclusions is found in the last two posts)
(Another NOTE: I am headed out today for a speaking engagement in Missouri. I hope someone wanders by and comments, but if you do, I will not respond unless I can find some wireless access somewhere - and who knows about Missouri, right?)
I feel a little bit like I am standing at the plate facing a Rogers Clemens fastball with a wiffle ball bat. I am about to engage the ideas of Dr. Malcolm Yarnell and others in regard to baptism. I am academically unqualified to challenge any of them. And it is not my intent to cast aspersions on the character of anyone here. Dr. Yarnell himself has been adept at disagreeing respectfully. He engaged in a lengthy debate with David Rogers and both demonstrated that disagreement is not disrespect.
I am challenging Dr. Yarnell because he seems to be providing the theological foundation for the Baptist Identity movement. I will be using quotes from a lengthy blog he put on Peter Lumpkins site a couple of months ago, which summarized his view on baptism. Again, while I will be questioning the biblical basis for his viewpoint on this issue, I will not be questioning his love for Christ or the scriptures.
Before that, let me share a few points that I think are clear from the biblical evidence. My past three posts have reviewed every place in the scripture in which Christian baptism is mentioned. I mostly ignored references to John’s baptism, since it seems to me to be a different thing than Christian baptism.
1) There is not a single scripture that gives evidence of baptism being performed under the supervision of a local church. People mention the Ethiopian Eunuch, but the pattern goes beyond that. I did not find a single piece of evidence to support institutional oversight of baptism as a requirement for baptism. That is not to say that local churches were not involved. There is just no evidence of institutional oversight of baptism.
2) I did not find any evidence of doctrinal evaluation of either the baptized or the baptizer. It seems that when someone came to faith in Christ, one of the first things they did was go find a pond or river to perform the baptism. It does not seem that they did a training class or a doctrinal evaluation. When you trusted Christ, you went and publicly testified to that by being baptized.
I wonder if that is where ideas of baptismal regeneration might have begun. People got baptized so quickly that people began to confuse conversion and immersion. It would be sort of like people who talk about “walking the aisle” today. We know that walking an aisle doesn’t save, but we use the phrase as a synonym for salvation because they often happen close together. Who knows?
3) Baptism seems to be presented in scripture as a “big picture” thing. Baptism is referred to as “into Christ” repeatedly, but never into a particular local church. Baptism is about identifying with the death and resurrection of Christ and about walking a new life of obedience. But there is no place in which someone is baptized to join a local church.
I do not object to baptism as a requirement for membership. In fact, I support it on practical grounds. But I reject the notion that this is fundamental to the biblical view of baptism.
4) I see very little emphasis in scripture on who does the baptism. Paul even goes to great lengths in 1 Corinthians to downplay his involvement in baptisms. My suspicion is that in the early church, any baptized believer could baptize another believer.
Dr. Yarnell’s Position
In his post on SBC Tomorrow, Dr. Yarnell made 7 statements on what he liked about Baptist baptism. The implication is that all 7 are essential for a biblical baptism. They are copied below
The first reason that I am a traditional Baptist is because Baptists begin the Christian life in the only way that Jesus Christ gave to His followers--by hearing His Word, believing it, confessing it, and obeying it by receiving baptism.
Second, Baptists do not baptize babies, because doing so alters the command of Christ and the orderly practice of His apostles, who always placed conversion prior to baptism.
Third, Baptists do not baptize only in the name of Jesus, because doing so ignores the command of Christ, which was clear that baptism should be in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Fourth, Baptists do not baptize apart from the local church, because baptism involves local church membership.
Fifth, Baptists do not baptize into an illusory invisible church, because they understand that a church requires a covenant and that can only be done where two or more people (and people have visible bodies) have gathered.
Sixth, Baptists do not sprinkle or pour, because they know that only immersion is faithful to the New Testament witness regarding the cross and the empty tomb of the gospel.
Finally, Baptists do not baptize those who lack the assurance of their eternal salvation, because the doctrine that one may lose one’s salvation indicates a lack of submission to Christ’s own doctrine.
My Response
I agree wholeheartedly with his first, second, third and sixth points. I disagree with the fourth, fifth and seventh. I do not have a problem with him believing or practicing these. But I do not think they have the biblical authority of the other four points, and I do not want them to be seen as normative for biblical baptism. I do not want to see those points encoded in IMB policies or in SBC practice. I think they go beyond the biblical evidence and I oppose them being enforced on me or on missionaries.
Dr. Yarnell said, “Fourth, Baptists do not baptize apart from the local church, because baptism involves local church membership.”
I would ask someone to show me the scriptural support for this, without appealing to Baptist tradition or history. Where does the Bible support this? I have not found it anywhere.
I have performed baptisms for 26 years and the vast majority have been under the auspices of the churches I have pastored. But I have performed baptisms on people thqat could not or did not want to be members of our church. Normally, when we baptized, the person automatically becomes a member of the church. But I have had people who wanted to be biblically baptized but not be members of my church. I baptized them. I believe the Bible supports what I did.
The missionary who baptized his child in a pool on the foreign field without the approval or authority of any church – he was acting in obedience to Christ, not contrary to it. We are baptized into Christ, not into a local church.
If you want to hold that doctrine, fine. Show me the verses!
Dr. Yarnell then made an extraordinary statement, “Fifth, Baptists do not baptize into an illusory invisible church, because they understand that a church requires a covenant and that can only be done where two or more people (and people have visible bodies) have gathered.”
He is right about one thing. We do not baptize into an illusory invisible church, but into Christ. Time and again, the scriptures I referenced in the last two posts identify baptism as into Christ. There is not one mention of baptism into a church, illusory or local. The only one that comes close is 1 Corinthians 12:12, which says that we have ALL been baptized into ONE body. Sounds a little bit like a universal church to me. Most would say that the baptism in view there is not water baptism anyway, but the baptism of the Spirit, which water baptism pictures.
But the part that I find extraordinary is his statement that a valid baptism can only take place “where two or more people” have gathered. Do the baptizer and the baptized count in this number? If they do, the statement becomes empty of meaning. All baptisms must by definition have two people present. We have a word for solo baptism – swimming!
I suspect, though, that he refers to a group of people from the local church who witness the baptism. Ethiopian Eunuch? No such witnesses. In fact, there is no point in Acts in which a baptism is delayed to gather a group of witnesses or to seek the approval of the church.
We have the authority of Christ to baptize and do not need the oversight of a local church. I prefer it that way. I practice it that way. But the Bible does not prescribe it that way.
Again, where is the biblical support for this authoritative statement.
Finally, he says, “Baptists do not baptize those who lack the assurance of their eternal salvation, because the doctrine that one may lose one’s salvation indicates a lack of submission to Christ’s own doctrine.”
I have only one requirement for a baptism. That person must clearly and forthrightly express their faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. I know my practice here is different from many others in my own denomination, but I do not believe I have the right to put any other stricture on baptism but that which the Bible does. If you profess faith in Christ and give clear testimony of your salvation, I baptize you.
I do not make a doctrinal test for baptism. Whatever Dr. Yarnell, Baptist history, or denominational practice says, I see only one test for baptism. Clearly professed faith in Christ. That’s it.
When someone comes to my church, I don’t care if they understood eternal security before they got baptized. I don’t care if they were Calvinist or Arminian when they got baptized. I only care if they were baptized by immersion after conversion as a public testimony of faith in Christ (not for salvation). I don’t care if it was done in a church, or in a pond, or by an ordained minister. Just three things: when, how and why? After I baptize them, it becomes my job to instruct them on sound doctrine.
To add a doctrinal stricture on baptism is clearly beyond the teaching of scripture. If you want to do things that way in your church, be my guest. Do as you please. But please do not tell me that I have to do what the Bible does NOT tell me I have to do. And please to not tell missionaries they cannot serve because even though they have done EVERYTHING the Bible tells them to do, they have not done the things you would like them to do even though the Bible does not command them.
Dr. Yarnell added this statement at the end. “These seven biblical doctrines concerning baptism speak much about Baptist identity. If we compromise these revealed teachings of Christ, we will begin to lose our Baptist identity because we will have compromised the Lordship of Christ. I am a Baptist because I believe that Jesus Christ is Lord. And because I believe that Jesus Christ is Lord, I must submit to His will. We may never compromise one aspect of Christ’s will, even in the name of supposed Christian unity.”
I agree with much of this. I believe in the Lordship of Christ and must submit to His will. But I am not required to submit to Malcolm Yarnell’s will, or his interpretations of scripture. He calls these “revealed teachings of Christ.” Fine, but show me where the Bible reveals these. I did not find them in scripture.
If “Baptist Identity” involves in forcing conformity on doctrines the Bible does not teach, I want nothing to do with it. I will submit to Christ and His Word, but will not be bound by Baptist tradition, heritage or history that is not firmly rooted in scripture.
I have more to say, and may take this up again later.
Conclusion
As I read scripture, there are several things that are decisive in valid, biblical baptism. First, it matters when you are baptized. It must be after your conversion. Second, it matters how you are baptized. It must be by immersion to picture identification with the death and resurrection of Christ. Third, it must be seen as a picture of faith, not as a saving event itself. These are the bedrock of biblical baptism.
The other issues that have been raised are not mandated in scripture. There is no evidence of institutional oversight in baptism. Baptism can (and usually should) be under the authority of a local body, but that is not biblically mandated. There are situations in which baptism not affiliated with a local church can be completely authorized biblically. I see very little evidence that the baptizer is of much biblical significance at all. And I see no doctrinal tests that are germane to baptism. The only requirement is faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. Everything else is discipleship.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Baptism into Christ: The Bible Does Not Support Baptist Identity Baptism
Why are we baptized? How important is the local church to baptism? These issues are roiling the blogosphere. The purpose of this series of posts is to deal inductively with the scriptural evidence. In the first post, I set the issues. In the second post, I dealt with 8 passages in Acts which mention baptism. Now, the attention turns to the epistles.
For matters of doctrine or practice in the Christian church, the epistles are crucial. The events of the gospels took place prior to Pentecost and the establishment of the church. There are teachings that deal with church issues in the gospels, but the teachings predate the church. Acts is a book of history. It tells us what happened during the period the church was being established. But it is the epistles that tell us why God did what he did. The epistles explain Acts.
When I study historical books, I look for patterns in the way God works. Our God, in his infinite creativity, seldom repeats his methods. But he does operate according to certain patterns that flow from his character. In acts, there are patterns of activity from which we can learn. But in the epistles, we see the purposes of God clearly spelled out.
The episodes in which baptism is mentioned in Acts demonstrate a pattern. Clearly, baptism was performed on only believers in Acts. It was, from all evidence, performed by immersion. It appears to me that baptism was performed almost immediately after the salvation experience. When someone put their faith in Christ, the next thing they did was go and look for a pond or river for a baptism.
What I find curious, and crucial to current discussions, is what is missing. There is not a single instance in Acts of a local church being prominently featured in a baptism. The proponents of Baptist Identity say that baptism is strictly a local church matter and only baptisms done under the authority of a local church are valid. But I have found NOT ONE verse of scripture which supports this view. It seems to be founded on tradition and a sense of Baptist supremacy, but not from scripture. At least not scriptures in Acts.
But, the Baptist Identity case is not lost. If the epistles tie the practice of baptism to the local church in a clear way, that would counter-balance the absence of evidence in Acts. So, we will examine the evidence in the epistles. I have identified 6 passages in the New Testament epistles which have significant teachings on baptism. We will examine each one briefly, then draw conclusions. This is not meant to be a complete exegesis of each of these passages. I am only interested in what they say about baptism.
Passage 1: Romans 6:1-4
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
What is baptism meant to do? It is a symbol of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. He died, was buried, and rose again on the third day. We die with Christ to sin, are buried in the waters of baptism and then are raised up to walk a new life of obedience. Baptism pictures this.
It seems to me that Romans 6:4 settles the question of mode of baptism. Immersion is the mode of baptism that pictures the death and resurrection of Christ. No other form of baptism can symbolize death and resurrection like going down into the water then rising up from it.
But the most significant phrase to our discussion is “baptized into Christ Jesus.” This type of wording appears in several texts. Baptism is our initiation into Christ, not into the church. Baptism is a spiritual exercise, not an institutional one.
Passage 2: 1 Corinthians 1:10-17
I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
Baptism is not the point of this passage, is used as an illustration of the unity of the body of Christ. But I would argue that what Paul says about baptism is powerful evidence. Corinth was a divided church, split into at least 4 groups, each following a particular personality: Paul, Apollos, Peter and Jesus. Paul exposed the silliness of human divisions and of splinter groups with divided loyalties.
Christ is not divided, Paul says. And Paul did not die for our sins. Neither are we baptized in the name of Paul. Paul then goes on to explain that he did only baptized Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanus.
There are two points I would make from this passage. First, Paul makes it clear that baptism should not be the source of human division. We are not baptized into Paul, or into the Baptist church. We are baptized into Christ. The Baptist Identity groups claim that baptism is into a local church body, and refuse to recognize the validity of baptisms done by other groups with doctrinal differences. Is that not a violation of the spirit of what Paul is saying here? Would Paul not argue, “You are not baptized into the Baptist church or the Assembly of God, but into Christ?”
Second, Paul says he is glad that he did not baptize many of their number. The Baptist Identity adherents emphasize the baptizer. To them, who does the baptism is as important as how the baptism is done. If the person (or church) performing the baptism is not doctrinally correct (i.e. Baptist) then the baptism is not valid. Yet, Paul seems to dismiss the importance of the performer of the baptism. The performance matters. Baptism is important – immersion of a believer matters. But this passage seems to say that the performance matters much more than the performer.
And, again, in this passage, the central issue is Christ. Not a church, but a Savior. We are not baptized into human organizations, but into Christ.
Passage 3: 1 Corinthians 12:12
For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
The baptism mentioned in this passage is clearly Spirit-baptism. The only point I would make here is the wording Paul uses. “We were all baptized into one body.” If Spirit-baptism is into one body, shouldn’t we see water baptism, which symbolizes that spiritual work, as being into one body as well.
The weight of scriptures seems to lean towards baptism being “into Christ” and into the universal and united body of Christ, but not into a single, local body of believers.
Passage 4: Galatians 3:27
For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Not much needs to be said here. We are baptized “into Christ.” It is about our relationship with him and not with a particular group of people.
Passage 5: Ephesians 4:5
One Lord, one faith, one baptism
We have one Lord who redeemed us. We come to know him by the one faith. And we profess that faith publicly by one baptism. All Christians are united in faith in our Lord. Baptism brings us into that One Body, the unified, universal body of Christ.
Passage 6: 1 Peter 3:21
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ…
This is a tough passage, with a lot of peripheral issues that will be argued till Jesus returns. The part that references baptism seems to be a little more clear than the rest of the passage.
This passage opens with a clear reference to the death of Christ, “the just for the unjust,” and then gives one of the more argued teachings of the New Testament. He refers to Jesus going in spirit to preach to the “spirits in prison” because of their disobedience in the days prior to Noah’s flood. This passage requires far more time and effort than is germane to this discussion. But the passage goes on to talk about the eight people brought safely through the waters of the flood. That is the key to the baptism teaching.
Baptism, it says, corresponds to the salvation of Noah's family. They were delivered through the waters of God’s judgment. Our baptism signifies that we have passed through God’s judgment and have found life through Christ.
The important thing here about baptism is that, once again, there is no mention of the church. Baptism carries universal concerns and is not tied to a local church. Baptism, in the New Testament, is always a "big picture" issue.
In my next post, I will deal with the conclusions I have drawn from this brief excursion through the scriptures. I wish to provide an opportunity for discussion and refinement of my arguments before I go on to my conclusions.
But here is my working thesis. There is not a single verse in the New Testament that ties baptism to a local church. I have found no biblical evidence to support the institutionalization of baptism that is being promoted by some within our convention. We are baptized into Christ and into the universal body of Christ.
What say you?
For matters of doctrine or practice in the Christian church, the epistles are crucial. The events of the gospels took place prior to Pentecost and the establishment of the church. There are teachings that deal with church issues in the gospels, but the teachings predate the church. Acts is a book of history. It tells us what happened during the period the church was being established. But it is the epistles that tell us why God did what he did. The epistles explain Acts.
When I study historical books, I look for patterns in the way God works. Our God, in his infinite creativity, seldom repeats his methods. But he does operate according to certain patterns that flow from his character. In acts, there are patterns of activity from which we can learn. But in the epistles, we see the purposes of God clearly spelled out.
The episodes in which baptism is mentioned in Acts demonstrate a pattern. Clearly, baptism was performed on only believers in Acts. It was, from all evidence, performed by immersion. It appears to me that baptism was performed almost immediately after the salvation experience. When someone put their faith in Christ, the next thing they did was go and look for a pond or river for a baptism.
What I find curious, and crucial to current discussions, is what is missing. There is not a single instance in Acts of a local church being prominently featured in a baptism. The proponents of Baptist Identity say that baptism is strictly a local church matter and only baptisms done under the authority of a local church are valid. But I have found NOT ONE verse of scripture which supports this view. It seems to be founded on tradition and a sense of Baptist supremacy, but not from scripture. At least not scriptures in Acts.
But, the Baptist Identity case is not lost. If the epistles tie the practice of baptism to the local church in a clear way, that would counter-balance the absence of evidence in Acts. So, we will examine the evidence in the epistles. I have identified 6 passages in the New Testament epistles which have significant teachings on baptism. We will examine each one briefly, then draw conclusions. This is not meant to be a complete exegesis of each of these passages. I am only interested in what they say about baptism.
Passage 1: Romans 6:1-4
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
What is baptism meant to do? It is a symbol of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. He died, was buried, and rose again on the third day. We die with Christ to sin, are buried in the waters of baptism and then are raised up to walk a new life of obedience. Baptism pictures this.
It seems to me that Romans 6:4 settles the question of mode of baptism. Immersion is the mode of baptism that pictures the death and resurrection of Christ. No other form of baptism can symbolize death and resurrection like going down into the water then rising up from it.
But the most significant phrase to our discussion is “baptized into Christ Jesus.” This type of wording appears in several texts. Baptism is our initiation into Christ, not into the church. Baptism is a spiritual exercise, not an institutional one.
Passage 2: 1 Corinthians 1:10-17
I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
Baptism is not the point of this passage, is used as an illustration of the unity of the body of Christ. But I would argue that what Paul says about baptism is powerful evidence. Corinth was a divided church, split into at least 4 groups, each following a particular personality: Paul, Apollos, Peter and Jesus. Paul exposed the silliness of human divisions and of splinter groups with divided loyalties.
Christ is not divided, Paul says. And Paul did not die for our sins. Neither are we baptized in the name of Paul. Paul then goes on to explain that he did only baptized Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanus.
There are two points I would make from this passage. First, Paul makes it clear that baptism should not be the source of human division. We are not baptized into Paul, or into the Baptist church. We are baptized into Christ. The Baptist Identity groups claim that baptism is into a local church body, and refuse to recognize the validity of baptisms done by other groups with doctrinal differences. Is that not a violation of the spirit of what Paul is saying here? Would Paul not argue, “You are not baptized into the Baptist church or the Assembly of God, but into Christ?”
Second, Paul says he is glad that he did not baptize many of their number. The Baptist Identity adherents emphasize the baptizer. To them, who does the baptism is as important as how the baptism is done. If the person (or church) performing the baptism is not doctrinally correct (i.e. Baptist) then the baptism is not valid. Yet, Paul seems to dismiss the importance of the performer of the baptism. The performance matters. Baptism is important – immersion of a believer matters. But this passage seems to say that the performance matters much more than the performer.
And, again, in this passage, the central issue is Christ. Not a church, but a Savior. We are not baptized into human organizations, but into Christ.
Passage 3: 1 Corinthians 12:12
For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
The baptism mentioned in this passage is clearly Spirit-baptism. The only point I would make here is the wording Paul uses. “We were all baptized into one body.” If Spirit-baptism is into one body, shouldn’t we see water baptism, which symbolizes that spiritual work, as being into one body as well.
The weight of scriptures seems to lean towards baptism being “into Christ” and into the universal and united body of Christ, but not into a single, local body of believers.
Passage 4: Galatians 3:27
For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Not much needs to be said here. We are baptized “into Christ.” It is about our relationship with him and not with a particular group of people.
Passage 5: Ephesians 4:5
One Lord, one faith, one baptism
We have one Lord who redeemed us. We come to know him by the one faith. And we profess that faith publicly by one baptism. All Christians are united in faith in our Lord. Baptism brings us into that One Body, the unified, universal body of Christ.
Passage 6: 1 Peter 3:21
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ…
This is a tough passage, with a lot of peripheral issues that will be argued till Jesus returns. The part that references baptism seems to be a little more clear than the rest of the passage.
This passage opens with a clear reference to the death of Christ, “the just for the unjust,” and then gives one of the more argued teachings of the New Testament. He refers to Jesus going in spirit to preach to the “spirits in prison” because of their disobedience in the days prior to Noah’s flood. This passage requires far more time and effort than is germane to this discussion. But the passage goes on to talk about the eight people brought safely through the waters of the flood. That is the key to the baptism teaching.
Baptism, it says, corresponds to the salvation of Noah's family. They were delivered through the waters of God’s judgment. Our baptism signifies that we have passed through God’s judgment and have found life through Christ.
The important thing here about baptism is that, once again, there is no mention of the church. Baptism carries universal concerns and is not tied to a local church. Baptism, in the New Testament, is always a "big picture" issue.
In my next post, I will deal with the conclusions I have drawn from this brief excursion through the scriptures. I wish to provide an opportunity for discussion and refinement of my arguments before I go on to my conclusions.
But here is my working thesis. There is not a single verse in the New Testament that ties baptism to a local church. I have found no biblical evidence to support the institutionalization of baptism that is being promoted by some within our convention. We are baptized into Christ and into the universal body of Christ.
What say you?
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Baptism in Acts: Into Christ or into the Church?
I am exploring the nature of Biblical Baptism. I am a Baptist by both birth and conviction, but I have decided to re-examine my doctrine because of the current “Baptist Identity” controversy in the SBC. Read the previous post for the background on this.
Most of the key issues are settled in this discussion among Baptists. We agree about the subject (believers only), mode (immersion only) , meaning (symbolic of salvation, not salvific itself) and formula (in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit) of Baptism. But we have some disagreements about other, I think lesser, issues. We disagree on whether baptism is into the universal church, into a local body of believers only, or some combination of the two. The Baptist Identity group is arguing for a more institutional purpose of Baptism, more closely related to the local church. We also disagree as to whether there is much significance attached to the administrator of baptism. Does it matter who did the baptism, or that it was done according to biblical guidelines.
This trigger issue of this discussion has been policies adopted by the International Mission Board discounting baptisms of candidates who were baptized in churches that had significantly flawed doctrine, especially those that believed in the possibility of a Christian losing his salvation. Some argue that it shouldn’t matter, as long as the one baptized was a believer, the baptism was by immersion and person understood it was symbolic, not salvific.
So, what does the Bible say? That is the purpose of this study. We will go through the relevant passages of scripture. I am going to state my opinion strongly and hope that people who disagree will feel welcome to do the same – arguing Biblical evidence, not Baptist history or tradition. I am not ashamed of our Baptist heritage, but one of the tenets of our faith is that we are responsible to the scriptures, not to creed or tradition.
As a Baptist, I have to admit that it is a little surprising that the New Testament says so little about Christian Baptism. Most of the references in both the Gospels and Acts refer to John’s baptism.
I have chosen to largely discount all references to John’s baptism. Those passages help with issues like immersion but really have no impact on the focus of this discussion. Since the church was not established until Pentecost, and since John’s baptism is different from Jesus’ baptism, it does not seem like those passages will help us much in dealing with issues of the value of institutionalism and administrator in baptism.
I have found 8 passages in Acts which I believe are useful to look at, and 6 passages in the epistles. In this post, we will review the 8 passages in Acts, which give us some idea of what happened in the early church. Then, next time, we will deal with the more didactic portions of Paul’s and Peter’s instructions to the churches. After that, I will draw my conclusions, and leave you to do the same.
Passage 1: Acts 3:38-41 Pentecost
And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.
Acts 3:38 is one of the baptismal regenerationist’s favorite verses, but that is not our focus here. There are several answers to the false teaching of salvation through baptism which will wait another time. This is a discussion amongst Baptists, so we will focus on that.
In this passage, on the day of Pentecost, the Spirit falls on the church. Then, Peter preaches and 3000 souls are saved. I am not sure this passage has much to say about whether baptism was into the church or not. The church did not exist before that day.
It also does not say who did the baptism. Did only the apostles baptize? I would make one point. It would take a long time to baptize 3000 folks by immersion, if only Peter, or if only the 12 did the baptisms. I conjecture that many people probably got involved in the baptismal process, but that is conjecture – reading between the lines. It is an opinion, not evidence.
But this is a unique passage. Baptism on that day could not have really been into the church, because it was the inauguration of the church. Those who were baptized became the church.
Passage 2: Acts 8:12-13 Philip in Samaria
But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13 Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. And seeing signs and great miracles performed, he was amazed.
Acts 8 is sometimes called the Samaritan Pentecost and has some of the same issues as the Acts 2 passage. There was no organized church in Samaria prior to Philip’s ministry. They were baptized into Christ, received the Holy Spirit, and the Samaritan church was born.
I would point out two things. There is not here, or in any other Acts passage, any clear reference to the church being the focus of baptism. The message was the “kingdom of God” (a universal thing) and the “name of Christ” (again, universal.) There is no reference here or anywhere else to baptism into a church. Baptism is into Christ.
Passage 3: Acts 8: 37-40 Ethiopian Eunuch
And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. But Philip found himself at Azotus, and as he passed through he preached the gospel to all the towns until he came to Caesarea.
This is the favorite passage for those who argue against the Baptist Identity position. Philip is taken by the Holy Spirit out into the wilderness where he meets a lone man. That man comes to faith in Christ and requests baptism. Philip performs the baptism and the man continues his journey. He is then spirited to Azotus and begins preaching the gospel there.
I have heard the Identity folks deal with this passage, but a couple of things are incontrovertible here. Philip was far from any church when he baptized the Eunuch. And there was no church established here. Yes, I am sure the Ethiopian established a church when he went back home. But he was baptized in almost total separation from any significant involvement with any established local church.
Can too much be made of this? Perhaps. But it is hard to argue that baptism must be attached to a local church in this instance.
Before anyone objects, I know BI folks agree that Baptism is into Christ. But the question at hand is how important the local church is in baptism. They place a much higher priority on that than I do.
Passage 4: Acts 9:18-19 Paul’s Baptism
And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized; and taking food, he was strengthened.
Very little is gained in this discussion from this passage. Again, there is no mention of the local church, and there is no mention of who baptized him, though I suppose it was Ananias.
Silence is the weakest argument, of course. But I think that those who insist that baptism is into a local fellowship gain the burden of proof to establish that it is consistently true. And it is, in Acts, consistently NOT true, or at least not mentioned.
Passage 5:Acts 10:46-48 Cornelius
For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.
Again, there was no local church for the people to be baptized into. Some would argue that Peter represented the church in Jerusalem. Fine. But the people being baptized were not being baptized into the church of Jerusalem, were they?
One other trend you see beginning here. Baptism here is “in the name of Jesus Christ.” In other passages, we will see the phrase “into Christ.” It seems to me that baptism in the early church was seen as more into that universal body of Christ than into a local body. They were baptized into Christ, not into the church of Christ.
Passage 6: Acts 16:14-15 Lydia
The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.
Again, Paul may have operated on the authority of the church in Antioch, but there was no church there to which Lydia was baptized. If formed later (almost immediately after, but after nonetheless.)
Passage 7: Acts 16:30-33 The Philippian Jailer
Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.
This is the story of the Philippian jailer. It is one of pedobaptists favorite verses. They point out that the jailers whole family was baptized when he believed, and assume that there were children in the household, therefore proving infant baptism. I might point out (cruelly) that if this is one of your best proofs, you might be advocating a teaching without much biblical evidence. But, like baptismal regeneration, pedobaptism is not our focus here.
The point that would be made out of this passage is simple. Acts 16 gives the idea that there was already a small contingent of believers (Lydia’s household and the slave girl) by the time this event took place. But, when the jailer was saved, he was “baptized at once.” There is no evidence that Paul or Silas conferred with the local assembly. They just did the baptism. Once again, baptism seemed to be into Christ more than into a local body of believers.
Passage 8: Acts 19:3-5 Baptism of John’s Disciples
And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
The only issue here is that the disciples of John were baptized “in the name of the Lord Jesus.” There is again no mention of a local church involved, though we assume one formed.
The study of baptism in the book of Acts is definitive in answering the questions about which we agree. It clearly establishes baptism of believers by immersion as a symbol of salvation. But, it gives little support to the idea that baptism is strictly into a local church and that one key is the administrator of the baptism.
These issues are basically insignificant in Acts. Again, I know that silence is weak evidence, but it is evidence nonetheless. And I am convinced that if the baptizer or the administration of the local church was a key issue, it would be established in Acts better than it was here.
I invite comment, even disagreement. Again, if I am satisfied that I have made a mistake (horror of horrors – it happened once in the 80’s!) I will amend and revise my arguments.
Next time, Romans, Corinthians and other New Testament epistles – the authoritative evidence.
(NOTE: When I started this post, I had 8 passages copied over from Logos. As I wrote it out, I had only 7, so I changed the numbers. Then, David Rogers pointed out this passage, which must be the one I missed. So, I edited this to reflect the full 8 verses)
Most of the key issues are settled in this discussion among Baptists. We agree about the subject (believers only), mode (immersion only) , meaning (symbolic of salvation, not salvific itself) and formula (in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit) of Baptism. But we have some disagreements about other, I think lesser, issues. We disagree on whether baptism is into the universal church, into a local body of believers only, or some combination of the two. The Baptist Identity group is arguing for a more institutional purpose of Baptism, more closely related to the local church. We also disagree as to whether there is much significance attached to the administrator of baptism. Does it matter who did the baptism, or that it was done according to biblical guidelines.
This trigger issue of this discussion has been policies adopted by the International Mission Board discounting baptisms of candidates who were baptized in churches that had significantly flawed doctrine, especially those that believed in the possibility of a Christian losing his salvation. Some argue that it shouldn’t matter, as long as the one baptized was a believer, the baptism was by immersion and person understood it was symbolic, not salvific.
So, what does the Bible say? That is the purpose of this study. We will go through the relevant passages of scripture. I am going to state my opinion strongly and hope that people who disagree will feel welcome to do the same – arguing Biblical evidence, not Baptist history or tradition. I am not ashamed of our Baptist heritage, but one of the tenets of our faith is that we are responsible to the scriptures, not to creed or tradition.
As a Baptist, I have to admit that it is a little surprising that the New Testament says so little about Christian Baptism. Most of the references in both the Gospels and Acts refer to John’s baptism.
I have chosen to largely discount all references to John’s baptism. Those passages help with issues like immersion but really have no impact on the focus of this discussion. Since the church was not established until Pentecost, and since John’s baptism is different from Jesus’ baptism, it does not seem like those passages will help us much in dealing with issues of the value of institutionalism and administrator in baptism.
I have found 8 passages in Acts which I believe are useful to look at, and 6 passages in the epistles. In this post, we will review the 8 passages in Acts, which give us some idea of what happened in the early church. Then, next time, we will deal with the more didactic portions of Paul’s and Peter’s instructions to the churches. After that, I will draw my conclusions, and leave you to do the same.
Passage 1: Acts 3:38-41 Pentecost
And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.
Acts 3:38 is one of the baptismal regenerationist’s favorite verses, but that is not our focus here. There are several answers to the false teaching of salvation through baptism which will wait another time. This is a discussion amongst Baptists, so we will focus on that.
In this passage, on the day of Pentecost, the Spirit falls on the church. Then, Peter preaches and 3000 souls are saved. I am not sure this passage has much to say about whether baptism was into the church or not. The church did not exist before that day.
It also does not say who did the baptism. Did only the apostles baptize? I would make one point. It would take a long time to baptize 3000 folks by immersion, if only Peter, or if only the 12 did the baptisms. I conjecture that many people probably got involved in the baptismal process, but that is conjecture – reading between the lines. It is an opinion, not evidence.
But this is a unique passage. Baptism on that day could not have really been into the church, because it was the inauguration of the church. Those who were baptized became the church.
Passage 2: Acts 8:12-13 Philip in Samaria
But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13 Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. And seeing signs and great miracles performed, he was amazed.
Acts 8 is sometimes called the Samaritan Pentecost and has some of the same issues as the Acts 2 passage. There was no organized church in Samaria prior to Philip’s ministry. They were baptized into Christ, received the Holy Spirit, and the Samaritan church was born.
I would point out two things. There is not here, or in any other Acts passage, any clear reference to the church being the focus of baptism. The message was the “kingdom of God” (a universal thing) and the “name of Christ” (again, universal.) There is no reference here or anywhere else to baptism into a church. Baptism is into Christ.
Passage 3: Acts 8: 37-40 Ethiopian Eunuch
And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. But Philip found himself at Azotus, and as he passed through he preached the gospel to all the towns until he came to Caesarea.
This is the favorite passage for those who argue against the Baptist Identity position. Philip is taken by the Holy Spirit out into the wilderness where he meets a lone man. That man comes to faith in Christ and requests baptism. Philip performs the baptism and the man continues his journey. He is then spirited to Azotus and begins preaching the gospel there.
I have heard the Identity folks deal with this passage, but a couple of things are incontrovertible here. Philip was far from any church when he baptized the Eunuch. And there was no church established here. Yes, I am sure the Ethiopian established a church when he went back home. But he was baptized in almost total separation from any significant involvement with any established local church.
Can too much be made of this? Perhaps. But it is hard to argue that baptism must be attached to a local church in this instance.
Before anyone objects, I know BI folks agree that Baptism is into Christ. But the question at hand is how important the local church is in baptism. They place a much higher priority on that than I do.
Passage 4: Acts 9:18-19 Paul’s Baptism
And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized; and taking food, he was strengthened.
Very little is gained in this discussion from this passage. Again, there is no mention of the local church, and there is no mention of who baptized him, though I suppose it was Ananias.
Silence is the weakest argument, of course. But I think that those who insist that baptism is into a local fellowship gain the burden of proof to establish that it is consistently true. And it is, in Acts, consistently NOT true, or at least not mentioned.
Passage 5:Acts 10:46-48 Cornelius
For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.
Again, there was no local church for the people to be baptized into. Some would argue that Peter represented the church in Jerusalem. Fine. But the people being baptized were not being baptized into the church of Jerusalem, were they?
One other trend you see beginning here. Baptism here is “in the name of Jesus Christ.” In other passages, we will see the phrase “into Christ.” It seems to me that baptism in the early church was seen as more into that universal body of Christ than into a local body. They were baptized into Christ, not into the church of Christ.
Passage 6: Acts 16:14-15 Lydia
The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.
Again, Paul may have operated on the authority of the church in Antioch, but there was no church there to which Lydia was baptized. If formed later (almost immediately after, but after nonetheless.)
Passage 7: Acts 16:30-33 The Philippian Jailer
Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.
This is the story of the Philippian jailer. It is one of pedobaptists favorite verses. They point out that the jailers whole family was baptized when he believed, and assume that there were children in the household, therefore proving infant baptism. I might point out (cruelly) that if this is one of your best proofs, you might be advocating a teaching without much biblical evidence. But, like baptismal regeneration, pedobaptism is not our focus here.
The point that would be made out of this passage is simple. Acts 16 gives the idea that there was already a small contingent of believers (Lydia’s household and the slave girl) by the time this event took place. But, when the jailer was saved, he was “baptized at once.” There is no evidence that Paul or Silas conferred with the local assembly. They just did the baptism. Once again, baptism seemed to be into Christ more than into a local body of believers.
Passage 8: Acts 19:3-5 Baptism of John’s Disciples
And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
The only issue here is that the disciples of John were baptized “in the name of the Lord Jesus.” There is again no mention of a local church involved, though we assume one formed.
The study of baptism in the book of Acts is definitive in answering the questions about which we agree. It clearly establishes baptism of believers by immersion as a symbol of salvation. But, it gives little support to the idea that baptism is strictly into a local church and that one key is the administrator of the baptism.
These issues are basically insignificant in Acts. Again, I know that silence is weak evidence, but it is evidence nonetheless. And I am convinced that if the baptizer or the administration of the local church was a key issue, it would be established in Acts better than it was here.
I invite comment, even disagreement. Again, if I am satisfied that I have made a mistake (horror of horrors – it happened once in the 80’s!) I will amend and revise my arguments.
Next time, Romans, Corinthians and other New Testament epistles – the authoritative evidence.
(NOTE: When I started this post, I had 8 passages copied over from Logos. As I wrote it out, I had only 7, so I changed the numbers. Then, David Rogers pointed out this passage, which must be the one I missed. So, I edited this to reflect the full 8 verses)
Thursday, May 22, 2008
What is Biblical Baptism?
Just about every Christian believes in baptism. Just about every Christian believes in “biblical baptism.” The problem comes when we have to define a “biblical baptism.” R.C. Sproul is convinced he practices biblical baptism. I am just as convinced that he does not.
Encapsulation always risks oversimplification. But I see four prominent groupings of opinions on what comprises a biblical baptism.
1) Pedobaptism – baptizing children or infants into the church at a very early age. Generally, they believe that baptism replaced circumcision as the visible sign of our covenant with God. They mostly practice sprinkling or pouring, but do not usually consider the method of baptism to be a big deal. Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians – most of the mainline groups practice this form of baptism.
2) Baptismal Regeneration groups – they believe that baptism is essential for a person’s salvation. Among these groups are the Church of Christ, some Apostolic groups and a branch of Pentecostals. Many of them also practice baptism only in the name of Jesus (non-trinitarian, often called “Jesus-only” for obvious reasons).
3) Baptist-Practice groups – they believe in baptism of believers by immersion, and practice it to varying degrees. Some believe this is the best way, but do not require it as the only way. They say it is a non-essential and do not require baptism for church membership. Generally, these groups do see believers’ baptism as the biblical way, and do not practice pedobaptism, and they usually believe in the practice of immersion. Many “Bible Churches” and other evangelical groups fall into this category, as do most charismatic and Pentecostal groups that do not believe in baptismal regeneration. There is also a small but perhaps growing movement of Baptist churches who are treating believer’s baptism by immersion as an option.
4) Baptist groups – we believe that baptism is an important act of obedience to Christ which symbolizes and publicly testifies to our conversion in Christ. We believe that immersion, which symbolizes the death, burial and resurrection of Christ and testifies that we are “raised to walk a new life in him,” is the only acceptable mode of baptism. We believe that only those who make a clear profession of faith in Jesus Christ should be baptized, so we do not baptize infants. Because we believe this is an important act of obedience to Christ, we require baptism for church membership.
The Problem
I am not writing to argue the pedobaptist or immersion issues. They are settled in my own mind and I have no urgent need to deal with them. Whoever might read this will almost certainly be from a Baptist perspective, so dealing with these issues is moot. The same is true of baptismal regeneration. It is unlikely that any proponents of that doctrine will be reading this. I am also not going to spend a lot of time with the baptistic groups, except as they relate to the issue I will be dealing with. My focus will be on a growing rift between groups that are clearly within the Baptist circle. There is a strong difference of opinion brewing between those who are part of a group loosely called “Baptist Identity” and those who oppose them. For the sake of convenience, I will use the Baptist Identity term or even BI to describe that group. It is not meant as a pejorative, just a descriptive term. If someone would like to suggest another term, I would consider it.
Both groups believe that baptism by immersion of believers is essential. But there are several issues that have become points of contention. This controversy hit the convention when policies that reflected the Baptist Identity position were enacted at the International Mission Board.
The following are the points of contention:
1) Is baptism into the church (local) or into Christ (universal church)? Of course, everyone believes that ultimately, baptism is into Christ, but the BI groups believe that Baptism is strictly a church ordinance. (Their opponents also believe baptism is a church ordinance, but remove the word “strictly.”)
2) Does it matter who does the baptism? This is one of the key issues that came out in the IMB policies. If someone has been baptized in a church that believes you can lose your salvation, they are considered disqualified for missionary service until they have been rebaptized (or scripturally baptized for the first time). They are, therefore, making “man” of baptism on an equal footing with the mode of baptism. It is not enough to be baptized by immersion as a believer. You have to be baptized by immersion as a believer by someone who believes as we do. Others argue that a baptism is biblical as long as it is done by immersion after profession of faith and is understood as symbolic of salvation, not necessary to it.
Dr. Thomas White, in his CTR “White Paper” has identified 6 key issues in valid baptism: subject (believers only), mode (immersion only), meaning (symbolic, not saving or sanctifying), church (connected to a local church), administrator (representative of local church) and formula (traditional formula or at least in the name of Christ).
There seems to be little disagreement among us about subject, mode, meaning and formula. The issues that arise are relative to church (how important is it that baptism be officially connected to a local assembly?) and administrator (how much does the administrator of baptism matter?).
Methodology
I am going to reflect on these issues in several blogs. Again, I never know how many are reading what I write. But, I will follow this pattern.
Step 1: Definition of issues. I would love for people from both sides (all sides?) of these issues to comment on whether I have adequately represented your viewpoints. As I read blogs, one of the biggest problems I see is the constant tendency to misrepresent the viewpoints of those you argue against. So, before I go charging off writing about something no one believes in or cares about, I would ask proponents of all sides of these issues to correct me if I have misrepresented your viewpoint.
Step 2: Dealing with scriptures. I am working on an analysis of scriptural evidence. I am not an expert in Baptist history like Bart Barber, Malcolm Yarnell or Nathan Finn. I am not going to venture into whether we are descended from the Anabaptists or the English Separatists, or simians. I will leave that to those with more expertise than I. I am just going to look at scriptures about baptism. Ultimately, I think we would all agree that what ultimately matters is biblical truth, not Baptist history.
Step 3: Delineating my ignorance. You will, I hope, tell me how badly I have missed the mark and how I lack insight into the scriptures. I hope you will do it in Christian love and based on scripture. I maintain the power of deletion, and am willing to wield it arbitrarily. But I love a good theological debate. At some point, I intend to answer a critic with “I am rubber and you are glue – whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.” I will just wait for the proper time.
It seems clear to me that if we are Baptist, we ought to at least find agreement on what that means, and on what it requires.
One more thing – as people make comments, and if I see the wisdom of those comments, I reserve the right to edit my post to reflect my new understanding and insight. I can’t have myself look stupid on my own blog, can I?
And, if no one reads this, at least I will grow from studying and writing.
Encapsulation always risks oversimplification. But I see four prominent groupings of opinions on what comprises a biblical baptism.
1) Pedobaptism – baptizing children or infants into the church at a very early age. Generally, they believe that baptism replaced circumcision as the visible sign of our covenant with God. They mostly practice sprinkling or pouring, but do not usually consider the method of baptism to be a big deal. Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians – most of the mainline groups practice this form of baptism.
2) Baptismal Regeneration groups – they believe that baptism is essential for a person’s salvation. Among these groups are the Church of Christ, some Apostolic groups and a branch of Pentecostals. Many of them also practice baptism only in the name of Jesus (non-trinitarian, often called “Jesus-only” for obvious reasons).
3) Baptist-Practice groups – they believe in baptism of believers by immersion, and practice it to varying degrees. Some believe this is the best way, but do not require it as the only way. They say it is a non-essential and do not require baptism for church membership. Generally, these groups do see believers’ baptism as the biblical way, and do not practice pedobaptism, and they usually believe in the practice of immersion. Many “Bible Churches” and other evangelical groups fall into this category, as do most charismatic and Pentecostal groups that do not believe in baptismal regeneration. There is also a small but perhaps growing movement of Baptist churches who are treating believer’s baptism by immersion as an option.
4) Baptist groups – we believe that baptism is an important act of obedience to Christ which symbolizes and publicly testifies to our conversion in Christ. We believe that immersion, which symbolizes the death, burial and resurrection of Christ and testifies that we are “raised to walk a new life in him,” is the only acceptable mode of baptism. We believe that only those who make a clear profession of faith in Jesus Christ should be baptized, so we do not baptize infants. Because we believe this is an important act of obedience to Christ, we require baptism for church membership.
The Problem
I am not writing to argue the pedobaptist or immersion issues. They are settled in my own mind and I have no urgent need to deal with them. Whoever might read this will almost certainly be from a Baptist perspective, so dealing with these issues is moot. The same is true of baptismal regeneration. It is unlikely that any proponents of that doctrine will be reading this. I am also not going to spend a lot of time with the baptistic groups, except as they relate to the issue I will be dealing with. My focus will be on a growing rift between groups that are clearly within the Baptist circle. There is a strong difference of opinion brewing between those who are part of a group loosely called “Baptist Identity” and those who oppose them. For the sake of convenience, I will use the Baptist Identity term or even BI to describe that group. It is not meant as a pejorative, just a descriptive term. If someone would like to suggest another term, I would consider it.
Both groups believe that baptism by immersion of believers is essential. But there are several issues that have become points of contention. This controversy hit the convention when policies that reflected the Baptist Identity position were enacted at the International Mission Board.
The following are the points of contention:
1) Is baptism into the church (local) or into Christ (universal church)? Of course, everyone believes that ultimately, baptism is into Christ, but the BI groups believe that Baptism is strictly a church ordinance. (Their opponents also believe baptism is a church ordinance, but remove the word “strictly.”)
2) Does it matter who does the baptism? This is one of the key issues that came out in the IMB policies. If someone has been baptized in a church that believes you can lose your salvation, they are considered disqualified for missionary service until they have been rebaptized (or scripturally baptized for the first time). They are, therefore, making “man” of baptism on an equal footing with the mode of baptism. It is not enough to be baptized by immersion as a believer. You have to be baptized by immersion as a believer by someone who believes as we do. Others argue that a baptism is biblical as long as it is done by immersion after profession of faith and is understood as symbolic of salvation, not necessary to it.
Dr. Thomas White, in his CTR “White Paper” has identified 6 key issues in valid baptism: subject (believers only), mode (immersion only), meaning (symbolic, not saving or sanctifying), church (connected to a local church), administrator (representative of local church) and formula (traditional formula or at least in the name of Christ).
There seems to be little disagreement among us about subject, mode, meaning and formula. The issues that arise are relative to church (how important is it that baptism be officially connected to a local assembly?) and administrator (how much does the administrator of baptism matter?).
Methodology
I am going to reflect on these issues in several blogs. Again, I never know how many are reading what I write. But, I will follow this pattern.
Step 1: Definition of issues. I would love for people from both sides (all sides?) of these issues to comment on whether I have adequately represented your viewpoints. As I read blogs, one of the biggest problems I see is the constant tendency to misrepresent the viewpoints of those you argue against. So, before I go charging off writing about something no one believes in or cares about, I would ask proponents of all sides of these issues to correct me if I have misrepresented your viewpoint.
Step 2: Dealing with scriptures. I am working on an analysis of scriptural evidence. I am not an expert in Baptist history like Bart Barber, Malcolm Yarnell or Nathan Finn. I am not going to venture into whether we are descended from the Anabaptists or the English Separatists, or simians. I will leave that to those with more expertise than I. I am just going to look at scriptures about baptism. Ultimately, I think we would all agree that what ultimately matters is biblical truth, not Baptist history.
Step 3: Delineating my ignorance. You will, I hope, tell me how badly I have missed the mark and how I lack insight into the scriptures. I hope you will do it in Christian love and based on scripture. I maintain the power of deletion, and am willing to wield it arbitrarily. But I love a good theological debate. At some point, I intend to answer a critic with “I am rubber and you are glue – whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.” I will just wait for the proper time.
It seems clear to me that if we are Baptist, we ought to at least find agreement on what that means, and on what it requires.
One more thing – as people make comments, and if I see the wisdom of those comments, I reserve the right to edit my post to reflect my new understanding and insight. I can’t have myself look stupid on my own blog, can I?
And, if no one reads this, at least I will grow from studying and writing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
