Baptism Revisited
A few weeks ago, I posted one of my sermons concerning baptism. Unfortunately the cut/paste from my sermon notes made for a difficult post to read, so today I would like to revisit baptism for a moment.
Let me take a side note for a second. I was a part of a completely unchurched family when I came to Christ at 5. After I accepted Christ the only thing I was ever told about Baptism was that you didn’t need it to be saved. Being pragmatic at a young age, I decided that if I didn’t need it, I wasn’t going to go through the trouble of getting it. 10 years later my family moved and I joined another church that taught me what Baptism was and why it was important – so I was Baptized at 15. I spent the first 10 years of my Christian life in disobedience to Christ because I did not follow Him in believer’s Baptism – through ignorance admittedly – but it was disobedience none the less. Because of this, the doctrine of Baptism is a doctrine that is very close to my heart – one that I revisit and revel in frequently.
Today, there are many who argue that when you are baptized, you are only baptized into Christ, and it does not matter who did it or what church it was done in. I disagree with that notion, so today I hope to explain why I believe the Bible clearly teaches that when we are Baptized, we are not only Baptized into an identification with Christ, but also the particular church which Baptizes us.
First, the command to Baptize was given to the local church. As such, what the church believes about the gospel and baptism matters.
Matthew 28:17-20 17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. 18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."
I hope that there is an agreement that this commissioning was indeed given to the whole of the church, and not just the Apostles (there are those who argue otherwise).
When a person is baptized, they are done so under the authority of their local church, which administers that baptism through an administrator (there are no requirements for this role, except that the church approves of him).
Because they are Baptized under the authority of their local church, there is an immediate identification with that local church. After said person was Baptized by that church, they became a member of that church (Acts 2:38-41) and as a member are identified with the churches teachings – whether they agree with them or not.
Second, baptism stands as the mark of covenant between a believer and his local church.
Colossians 2:10-12 in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; 11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
Here, Paul shows us that the nature of Baptism is related to the nature of circumcision. Now, before anyone freaks out let me be clear. Baptism is NOT the NT version of circumcision. There is NOT a one to one equivalence between the two. However, Paul makes it plain that they are similar in nature.
In the OT, circumcision was a mark of identification. A child was born to Jewish parents, after 8 days they were circumcised as a mark of entrance into God’s covenant community.
Baptism is similar in that when a person is born again, they are Baptized as a mark of entrance into God’s covenant community of the local church.
Because one enters into a covenant relationship with their church, they are identified with that church, and all that it believes. If they later realize that said church’s doctrine is false, that does not negate the fact that they are none the less identified with that teaching because of their covenant relationship with their church.
Think of it this way:
Not long ago I was doing a hospital visit in Jeff City. I got turned around on 50 & as I was making my way back to Missouri Blvd. there is a place where the speed limit drops from like 60 to 30 on a very steep hill. I missed the sign, coasted down the hill at 65 mph, was stopped by a cop, and learned a valuable lesson. Ignorance does not negate responsibility.
Equally:
When my wife and I were married, we entered into a covenant relationship with each other. As all married couples know, people encounter a very steep learning curve once the honeymoon is over. I learned that my sweet, beautiful wife had some not so sweet habits. However, I was in a covenant relationship with her. When I agreed to that relationship I got the whole package – everything I knew about, and everything I didn’t know about.
Equally, when you enter into a covenant relationship with a church, you get the whole package, and you cannot casually throw that relationship off.
Finally, the NT gives us the precedent of rebaptism when one is previously Baptized by a body that has a flawed view of salvation.
Acts 19:1-5 It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples. 2 He said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said to him, "No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit." 3 And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" And they said, "Into John's baptism." 4 Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Here, Paul finds a group of disciples – genuine Christ followers. Yet there was a problem, they had a faulty view of Salvation. After correcting their view of Salvation, Paul immediately Baptizes them.
Now, I don’t care what brand of "ism" you follow in your sotierology, to deny Eternal Security, or Perseverance of the Saints is a grievous error – a problem of the highest order. This is a direct denial of salvation through grace by faith, replacing it with salvation through grace by faith, and staying in the right with God.
If a person was raised/saved in this tradition, and later sought admission into an SBC church they should be rebaptized, based on the precedent set in Acts, for the reasons laid out in Matthew and Colossians.
posted by Pastor John @ 7:48 AM
6 Comments:
John,
This is a gracious treatment of your beliefs regarding baptism. As I was reading it, I thought of something that had not crossed my mind previously. You mentioned that, when believers were baptised in the NT church (Acts), they were granted membership in that church after baptism. Is there a passage that alludes to their 'membership' privileges? I think this may be a central point to the 'local church' part of the baptism discussion. One of thi issues I've had with 'church' for quite some time is the membership/attendance issue. I don't see that in Scripture. I just can't find precedent for 'taking roll' and all that jazz. Thoughts?
Grace brother,
PTL
PTL,
This is a great question that merits a good response. But, before I answer let me give you a quick caveat. I have not given near as much thought to membership issues as I have given to baptism – therefore my answer will be more “off the top of my head” than my original post. As such, while I think my response will be a good answer to your question, it should be subject to more thought in the future.
That being said.
There is no passage of scripture that specifically spells out a church member’s privileges. However, from various passages we can make suppositions as to what a member’s rights/privileges are. For a full discussion of this let me direct you to one of my previous posts that goes into that a little better. It can be found at - http://thoughtsofacountrypreacher.blogspot.com/2006/10/roles-of-pastors-elders-and.html
A quick summary of that post is that:
“Throughout the course of the New Testament, we find that the congregation (individual church members) was the final temporal authority within their local church. In various passages, we find that the congregation was responsible for the authorization of new leaders, the discipline of church members, and the approval of plans and goals presented to them by their leadership.”
Typically, when addressing church members, the NT refers to their responsibilities as opposed to their privileges (Ephesians 4:1 Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called,).
One of those responsibilities is consistent corporate worship with other church members. (Hebrews 10:24-25 24 and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, 25 not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near.)
Admittedly, it is doubtful that the NT church had computerized roles and mass mailings and stuff like that. But at the same time membership and attendance was expected of Christians. Pastors of the time, in keeping with being a good shepherd of the flock, no doubt knew where his congregation was, and was concerned about their spiritual life individually and corporately.
I hope this answers your question. I realize that the concepts of membership/attendance is surrounded by many different issues, I hope I addressed the one you spoke of. If not I will be happy to speak to you about it again.
Blessings,
John
John,
I think I agree with you in all points you mentioned. To recap: (1) there is such a thing as being a 'member' of 'the church', and (2) responsibilities were/are given/expected for all members.
It seems to me that the 'koininea' involved in the new testament churches was deep enough that they didn't need sunday school rosters to know who's there and who's not - and who's fulfilling their responsibilities and who's not. Bro. Brad Reynolds labors the point that we are baptised into the 'local church' as opposed to the 'universal church' and that, in effect, is our initiatory rite of membership within that local church. The dilemna I find is that we have no Scriptural basis for asserting that baptism is any initiatory rite into anything - except the 'symbol' of our initiatory rite into Christ via the Holy Spirit.
Thank you so much for your time and consideration. I think I may meander over and read the elder/pastor blog as I've mixed feelings about the SB treatment of that issue as well....
Grace to you my friend,
PTL
John,
I know it is long, but you asked for it:) Since we are both in MO maybe we should get together sometime and talk about it. My issue is not about the ability or the right of the ekklesia, but with our sectarian use of the ordinaces to the exclusion of an appreciation for the Biblical teaching of the Body of Christ.
It is good to dialogue with you. I am in St. Louis. I grew up in Farmington. I have copied you points from the MOBAP list and will respond to your main points. Your words will be in bold.
1. First, the command to Baptize was given to the local church. As such, what the church believes about the gospel and baptism matters.
There are aspects about this statement that I do not agree with. There is no evidence that the command to Baptize was given just/or exclusively to a local church. It certainly was given to the followers of Christ. It was given to all those who were present at Christ’s ascension. All through my life, all being a SB, we have taught our people to be GC Christians. We have always understood that the GC and ACT 1.8 applied to all Christians. Acts 1.8 is somewhat of a parallel passage to the GC. We know from other passages that there were more then just the 11 present. I think that is an argument from silence to conclude that Baptism was given just to “the local church” as if it was given to an entity rather than the Body. Certainly it is an ordinance of the Church or a church. But ultimately it is the ordinance of Christ as Baptist have a long history of understanding. Church = Ekklesia, the gathering of Christ’s people. Each gathering will have elders and deacons. Each gathering will baptize converts, and break bread. Why? Because these practices have been given to us by the command of Christ, the head of the Body. But Baptists at first saw the ordiances as belonging to Christ and given to us for our participation:
1644 London Confession
Section XLI On Baptism.
The persons designed by Christ, to dispense this Ordinance (of baptism), the Scriptures hold forth to be a preaching Disciple, it being no where tied to a particular Church, Officer, or person extraordinarily sent, the Commission enjoining the administration, being given to them under no other consideration, but as considered Disciples. (Isa. 8:16; Matt. 28:16-19; John 4:1, 2; Acts 20:7; Matt. 26:26)
1646 FIRST LONDON BAPTIST CONFESSION
The phrase, “church ordinance” is not used. Instead, it reads, “Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, given by Christ.”
1742 PHILADELPHIA BAPTIST CONFESSION
The phrase “church ordinance” is not used. Instead, it reads, “Baptism and the Lord's Supper are ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus.”
1858 ABSTRACT OF PRINCIPLES
The phrase “church ordinance” is not used. Instead, it reads, “Baptism is an ordinance of the Lord Jesus.”
1925 BFM and the New Hampshire Confession of Faith.
The phrase “church ordinance” is not used. Instead, it says, “the ordinances of Christ.”
Baptism: 1 Corinthians 12.13 For we were all baptized by[a] one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.
You stated:
When a person is baptized, they are done so under the authority of their local church, which administers that baptism through an administrator
Because they are Baptized under the authority of their local church, there is an immediate identification with that local church. After said person was Baptized by that church, they became a member of that church (Acts 2:38-41) and as a member are identified with the churches teachings – whether they agree with them or not.
Again, I am having trouble fully supporting this line of reasoning from Scripture. We are certainly not told that Baptism is “under the authority” of anybody but Christ. We are not told that the person who baptizes has to be “authorized.” Baptists certainly did not feel this way at the beginning of our existence (see the 1644 London Confession). Why? Because we came out of the Separatist arm of the Reformation. If we had felt this way from the beginning, we would have stayed in the Church of England. But because we understood the ordinances to belong to Christ and His Body and NOT under the authority or power of a formal entity, but given by Christ to His Body, His Ekklesia, we they felt compelled to dissent, separate, and baptize and break bread outside of the boundary of a authorized church and their authorized administrators.
Of course when one is Baptized by the Spirit, they enter into the Body of Christ 1 Cor 12.13. There is not a verse in the Bible that says they are baptized into the Church. They become part of the Ekklesia, the gathering of Christ’s followers. But they are baptized into the Body of Christ.
When one is water baptized, they are identifying with the Death, burial, and ress of Christ Romans 6.4 In the Bile there are clear evidences of Baptism to identify with Christ, and then they automatically become a member of Christ’s Ekklesia. Remember, they did not have all the options of which “church to join” like us. Certainly they were seen as a “member” but not as in our concept. Every person who became a Christian was automatically a part of the Ekklesia and expected to assemble together with the all of Christ’s followers.
Second, baptism stands as the mark of covenant between a believer and his local church.
Colossians 2:10-12 in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; 11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
This circumcision of which is identified, or this covenant is the New Covenant between Christ and His people. Again it is not a “covenant” that we have with each other. I understand the whole church covenant concept, the necessity for a ekklesia to covenant with one another. But this covenant does not speak of that, but points to the covenant made by the blood of Christ. Again, authority here is not directed towards a “church” but to the head.
Finally, the NT gives us the precedent of rebaptism when one is previously Baptized by a body that has a flawed view of salvation.
Acts 19:1-5 It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples. 2 He said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said to him, "No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit." 3 And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" And they said, "Into John's baptism." 4 Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Here, Paul finds a group of disciples – genuine Christ followers.
Yet there was a problem, they had a faulty view of Salvation. After correcting their view of Salvation, Paul immediately Baptizes them.
Now, I don’t care what brand of "ism" you follow in your sotierology, to deny Eternal Security, or Perseverance of the Saints is a grievous error – a problem of the highest order. This is a direct denial of salvation through grace by faith, replacing it with salvation through grace by faith, and staying in the right with God.
No one who identifies with this type of theology should be admitted into a Bible believing church. No one who identifies with this type of theology should be admitted to the IMB.
If a person was raised/saved in this tradition, they should be rebaptized, based on the precedent set in Acts, for the reasons laid out in Matthew and Colossians.
John, look closely at the passage, “we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” These men were not “genuine Christ followers.” They “believed” yes, but in what? We do not really know at to act as if we do would be to argue from silence. What do we know? They were not regenerated yet, they did not know about the Holy Spirit. They were baptized by John, but not around on the day of Pentecost, obviously, for they now were baptized “in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Furthermore, I think it is important to the text what happenend next,
6And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.
This passage does not parallel the issue of the IMB policy. These men had never been baptized in Jesus name and had not received the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit. They had not been converted yet. They had repented and were baptized by John, preparing for the Messiah. Somehow they missed much of the excitement in Jerusalem
I have typed enough, but I would like to pick up on the issue of connecting Baptism to the acceptance of eternal security, I think it is wrong. Certainly I would agree that anybody that believes in Baptismal regeneration, must be baptized to identify with Christ, not to “get saved.”
TC
PS
Evidences of Baptism outside of “church authority” or “oversight”
Please consider what John Gill has said about Baptism, the first Baptist to write a systematic theology, and reveals the thinking of the first Baptists as evidenced in the 1644 London Confession, adopted by the first Baptists.
“When I say baptism is not a church ordinance, I mean baptism is not an ordinance administered in the church, but out of it, and in order to admission into it, and communion with it; it is preparatory to it, and a qualification for it; it does not make a person a member of a church, or admit him into a visible church; persons must first be baptized, and then added to the church, as the three thousand converts were; a church has nothing to do with the baptism of any, but to be satisfied they are baptized before they are admitted into communion with it.”
Gill also makes this telling observation:
“So Saul, when converted, was immediately baptized by Ananias, without any previous knowledge and consent of the church; and, it was many days after this that he proposed to join himself to the disciples, and was received, Acts 9.18,19,23,26-28”
Acts 8
Philip baptized the Ethiopian. It was not done in the presence of the church. He did not say, let’s go to the church. He baptized him.
John,
Read my post on my page, I think I edited this response and think I may have clarified my position a little better.
TC
Tim,
For the sake of simplicity I will go to your blog to discuss this with you.
Blessings,
John
Post a Comment
<< Home