The International Mission Board’s policy on baptism of November 2005 represents the historic Baptist understanding and, more importantly, the Scriptural teaching regarding this primary of the two church ordinances. Since the policy clarified by the Board is neither innovative nor more restrictive than the Bible itself, Southern Baptists should find it completely unremarkable.
Four key presuppositions derived from Scripture and consistent with historic Baptist ecclesiology inform and shape the IMB policy. First, that the only biblical mode for baptism is immersion. Second, that the only proper candidate for immersion is a regenerate believer in Jesus Christ. Third, that the act is purely symbolic and distinct from salvation itself and has no saving merit. Fourth, that baptism is a church ordinance and therefore the only proper administrator of it is a local New Testament church that holds to a proper view of salvation.
In all candor, the controversy that has erupted over this policy is nothing less than stunning and probably reflects decades of neglect of Baptist ecclesiology. Few pastors today have a historical or a biblical understanding of this ordinance, perhaps because Southern Baptist seminaries have not required ecclesiology and failed to teach it. This policy is one that would not have raised a question fifty years ago, and certainly not when the Southern Baptist Convention was founded.
The first two points do not seem to be in dispute, but deserve some attention nonetheless. Baptists have always insisted that baptism means “immersion.” Though the act is purely symbolic, the symbol itself is given by God Himself. Believers have no latitude to change the mode. Immersion clearly pictures burial and resurrection, unlike sprinkling or pouring. Furthermore, the Greek word baptizo unquestionably means to immerse. The BAG defines the word as “plunge, dip, wash.” The linguistic, historic, and even archaeological evidence for baptism by immersion is overwhelming. To deny baptism by immersion is to cease being Baptist.
Neither have Baptists had serious disagreement that the proper candidate for baptism is one who has believed in the Lord Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, repenting of sin and exercising faith in Him. On this basis Baptists have emphatically and categorically denied infant baptism and have insisted on rebaptizing anyone who truly comes to a saving faith in Christ at some point subsequent to a prior baptism. If a church member responds to the preaching of the gospel and confesses that she has never been born again but now gladly receives Christ into her heart, any Baptist pastor would surely counsel her that she needs to be baptized properly now as a believer. Her prior baptism would be a meaningless ritual or, worse yet, a lie, because she portrayed a truth that she did not believe. Now as a true follower of Christ, she must receive her baptism in its proper order—after her salvation.
The third point on which the IMB policy is based relates to the intention and purpose of that baptism. Southern Baptists have always understood the Bible to teach that baptism is not a part of salvation, but subsequent to it. When Alexander Campbell began to teach otherwise in the early 19th century, Baptist churches either stood against baptismal regeneration as heresy or else they dropped the Baptist name and became a part of a new denomination. Since that time Baptists have not and do not have any serious disagreement on this point. Southern Baptist churches teach that baptism is purely symbolic in nature and not essential to salvation as are repentance and faith. Understanding it as a symbolic ordinance, however, does not suggest that baptism is optional. Jesus both modeled and commanded baptism for His followers and we dare not allow our symbolic understanding of baptism to translate into deemphasizing or denigrating its importance.
If a Southern Baptist church were to begin to teach that baptism is essential to salvation and that one must be baptized to complete one’s commitment to Christ and ensure eternal life, that church would surely be dismissed from the local association and perhaps the denomination entirely. More likely, the church would voluntarily leave the denomination because it would be so radically out of step that the church would find little on which to base fellowship with other churches. Doctrinal parameters exist for a reason, after all, and to teach baptismal regeneration would simply redefine or negate what it means to be Baptist. All three versions of the Baptist Faith and Message (1925, 1963, and 2000) hold this point in common, expressing it as a symbolic act for a believer. If that is, by definition, a characteristic of a Baptist church, why would the denominational mission organization not require its missionaries not only to hold that position, but to have been baptized in precisely that manner? It seems confusing, contradictory, and just plain wrong to send missionaries to baptize with that understanding and in that way if they were themselves baptized in a church that understands baptism as a part of salvation.
Closely connected with the third point is the fourth, that baptism is a church ordinance. To whom did Christ give the authority to baptize? Did He authorize his followers individually, a denomination collectively, or the institution of His church? Baptists have long understood baptism as a church ordinance. Again, listen to the three doctrinal statements that Southern Baptists have written as a digest of their doctrinal understanding. The 1925 statement said, “(Baptism) is prerequisite to the privileges of a church relation and to the Lord's Supper, in which the members of the church, by the use of bread and wine, commemorate the dying love of Christ.” Note particularly the emphasis on the relation to the local church. The 1963 statement clarified it further, stating “Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper.” The 2000 statement keeps that exact language, acknowledging that baptism is a church ordinance.
Of course this begs the question, “What is a New Testament church?” Can we call a congregation a true New Testament church if they deny that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone? Can a crowd of well-intentioned worshippers really be a church if they add works to the atoning sacrifice of the Lord Jesus by teaching that baptism is essential for salvation? Can a cadre of Christians really be a church if they do not observe the ordinances properly or deny that we are kept by the power of God unto the day of redemption? Baptists have so carefully defined the church, the ordinances, and soteriology that we have historically denied that such are true New Testament churches. We do not insist on the name “Baptist” on the sign in the front yard, but we insist that the church be marked by New Testament doctrine, specifically as it relates to the ordinances and to salvation, including the eternal security of the blood-bought believer. We cannot have a settled peace that such churches have the authority to baptize since they do not hold to the teaching of the New Testament.
A church’s authority, of course, derives not from its denomination, but from its doctrine. The IMB recognized this by defining those doctrinal parameters in a way completely consistent with every Baptist Faith and Message. In the article on the church of the missionary candidate, the IMB stated:
a. Baptism is a church ordinance.
Baptism must take place in a church that practices believer’s baptism by immersion alone, does not view baptism as sacramental or regenerative, and a church that embraces the doctrine of the security of the believer.
b. A candidate who has not been baptized in a Southern Baptist church or in a church which meets the standards listed above is expected to request baptism in his/her Southern Baptist church as a testimony of identification with the system of belief held by Southern Baptist churches.
Any denomination sending missionaries would be within its rights and responsibility to make certain that every candidate representing its churches has been baptized in a way consistent with that denomination’s view on baptism.
The greater worry is what underlies the strong objections to this policy. Are they raised because we now deny what Southern Baptists have always held? Do we now understand our founders to be provincial and not as enlightened as we? Or are the objections because we have fallen prey to the age and find it uncomfortable to set doctrinal parameters in general?
The three versions of the BF&M demonstrate undeniably that Baptists have long held that baptism is neither a Christian nor a denominational ordinance, but an ordinance administered by a local church. Further, the church’s beliefs matter. The church that holds to a regenerative view of baptism is simply not holding New Testament baptism. If we say that regenerative baptism is valid, then we can have few doctrinal boundaries at all for our missionaries, will necessarily have close fellowship with churches that hold to that regenerative view (including exchanging church letters with them), and will find it incumbent to immediately change the Baptist Faith and Message to reflect this new view of soteriology as well as ecclesiology. A congregation is a church of the Lord Jesus Christ to the degree that it follows the New Testament pattern, preaches a true gospel, and observes the ordinances properly. We deny the authority of any baptism that does not have that authority.
Some object at this point that the individual’s understanding and appreciation of baptism matters, not the church that administered it. In other words, some say that even if a person was baptized by immersion in a church that taught baptismal regeneration, so long as the candidate himself did not believe that his baptism was part of his salvation, we should consider it valid. This argument has neither scriptural merit nor historical precedent, of course. It merely extricates church leaders, pastors, and denominational boards from uncomfortable duties, and we therefore find it extremely convenient. In fact, we wouldn’t apply that criterion in any other arena of life. A policeman doesn’t normally let a violator of the law go free because that person believed he was doing the right thing. A patient doesn’t get better if the doctor administers the wrong medicine because the patient believes that it is helpful.
Think of it like this. Imagine that a pastor has already agreed to marry a young couple before the groom ships off overseas with his Marine unit. He completed the premarital counseling and became convinced that they are reasonably ready to marry. They set the date and make all things ready. Unexpectedly, two weeks before the big day the groom receives notice at
The oblivious young couple believes they are married. They don’t know the law that requires that a minister or official first has to register with the state. The secretary doesn’t know that law either. They all believe that they are married. Everything was done exactly as the pastor would have done it, except for one thing. He is authorized to perform marriages, and his secretary is not, and no amount of good intentions and belief will change that. In the same way, we believe that New Testament baptism must conform to the New Testament pattern which is done only by a church that “practices believer’s baptism by immersion alone, does not view baptism as sacramental or regenerative, and a church that embraces the doctrine of the security of the believer.”
If these are not the parameters, then what would they be? Should the IMB accept the immersion of a person who was immersed as a true believer, but by the Mormon church? And if the proper authority is not essential, then what makes immersion indispensable? After all, once we make the candidate’s conviction and understanding of what baptism meant the most important element, can we insist on any other parameters? After all, what makes the mode more essential than the purpose behind the mode? What makes the candidate’s understanding more significant than the administering church?
Acts 19 describes Paul’s arrival in
26 comments:
Hershael,
Thank you for your kind comment on my blog. Your spirit of graciousness is evident.
I find it refreshing that you acknowledge admiration for Dr. Gill, while disagreeing with him on his views of baptism. That kind of intellectual honesty is not often seen.
Of course, our guide is Scripture on these subjects and not a man, even one as erudite as Gill.
Every Baptist confession you mention in your post, however, is consistent. Each confession states,
"Baptism is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership . . ."
Websters defines prerequisite as "required beforehand, especially as a condition for something following."
Our confessions teach that Baptism is a church ordinance only to the extent that the church must determine if Scriptural baptism has taken place prior to admittance into church fellowship.
In other words, it is both Scriptural and ordinary for baptism to take place outside of a church setting, but the church is charged to examine one's faith and baptism prior to admittance into church membership.
This is the Scriptural way.
Therefore, to say Baptism identiifies a person with a body of church doctrine is contrary to Scripture.
Baptism identifies a person with Jesus Christ.
Let's make sure a person is a Christian and has followed Christ in believer's baptism prior to admitting him/her into church membership.
I would ask you just a couple of questions:
(1). If a person applied to your church having been baptized by immersion after having come to faith in Christ, trusting Christ alone for salvation, but had been baptized by a Methodist minister who served as a Chaplain in the desert of Iraq, would that person be granted membership in your church?
(2). Was the Great Commission given to only the Apostles or to every believer of Jesus Christ? In the Great Commission there is the command to baptize disciples. Who has the authority to baptize?
(3). Do you acknowledge that many Baptists don't hold to your views of baptism and the issue is not that you agree with us, but rather, that Baptists recognize disagreement in this minor doctrine of the authority of the baptizer and work to not exclude people of differing opinions on this subject from participating in missions?
Thank you pastor for your gentle and gracious spirit.
In Him,
Wade Burleson
No. I am not saying that. I know how to say that if I want to. No doubt some people who disagree do so with a full awareness of everything I have written. I believe, however, that many people are obviously ignorant of historic Southern Baptist ecclesiology or else they would not be so shocked by this position. In that case their argument would be that we acknowledge that this is the historic SBC position but we need to admit it is wrong and move past it. Their shock indicates they are mostly ignorant of the historic Southern Baptist position. Wade Burleson had to appeal to John Gill, a British Baptist, for his perspective, for instance, because he certainly wouldn't find B. H. Carroll saying anything other than what I have said. Spencer's History of the Kentucky Baptists, for instance, has this issue debated at length in the associations and they arrive at the conclusions I have drawn.
Dr. York, I'm wondering if you're accidently conflating two issues that should be kept distinct in your argument. I'm specifically referring to the sixth paragraph.
If your argument is that baptism is subsequent to regeneration, then I think I'd agree with you that Baptists across the board have held to that position and there is no serious opposition to it.
However, in that same paragraph, you move to a discussion that "Southern Baptist churches teach that baptism is purely symbolic in nature and not essential to salvation as are repentance and faith." Since it follows immediately after your discussion of the lack of disagreement about regeneration among Baptists, one might think by reading your account that Baptists don't contend this point. But that wouldn't be quite accurate, because many Baptists--including many Southern Baptists in the past--have held that baptism is more than symbolic while also holding that it is not essential for salvation.
For example, former SBTS prof George Beasley-Murray, in his book Baptism in the New Testament, argued this:
"In the light of the foregoing exposition fo the New Testament representations of baptism, the idea that baptism is a purely symbolic rite must be pronounced not alone unsatisfactory but out of harmony with the New Testament itself...The Apostolic writers make free use of the symbolism of the baptismal action; but they go further and view the act as a symbol with power, that is, a sacrament." (263)
If you've read Beasley-Murray's book, you'll know that he spends nearly the entire book exegeting scripture. He certainly does not think baptism is part of salvation or required for it, but he also does not think it is simply a symbol--and he points to the New Testament accounts for support.
My point is that you seem to connect a commitment to a non-regenerative view of baptism and the idea that it is a symbolic ordinance, as if the two necessarily go hand-in-hand. You also seem to imply that there has been no diagreement at all among baptists on the idea that baptism is only a symbol, and that to think otherwise is to be ignorant of the Baptist tradition. I believe that you can--and many Baptists have--held that baptism can be more than a symbol but still not be regenerative for salvation. In other words, the tradition is not nearly as uniform on these issues as you seem to want to make it. I would hope that we could at least acknowledge the diversity among Baptists in the past on this aspect of the baptism issue.
There is much diversity on these issues in our past, and yet Baptists in the past were able to overcome these minor differences and minister in the name of Jesus Christ together. The question for us today is: why can't we do the same for the sake of the Gospel? Why have minor differences on non-central matters become so important that they threaten to disrupt our missionary work to a dying world?
Wade, the previous comment was a response to someone who asked if I were saying that anyone who disagrees with me is ecclesiologically ignorant. Apparently that person withdrew the comment.
I understand and appreciate your arguments, but I think separating baptism from the church is like separating a ring from the wedding. Just as a wedding band is offered in a particular context, so is baptism. I believe you simply misunderstand or misinterpret the statement that baptism is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership. That statement is intended to rule out a person's participation in communion or the democratic processes of the church until he or she has been baptized. I would be stunned to find any SBC founder who had that understanding. And when you say "our confessions" teach that baptism is a church ordinance only in the sense that the church must determine if Scriptural baptism has taken place, you have the distinct advantage of asking anyone on the BF&M 2000 committee if that was indeed their intention.
Baptism can certainly take place outside a church setting, but it should not take place outside church authority. Just as Philip acted as an agent of the church at Jerusalem, we are free to commission and send representatives who are authorized to baptize. Church authority means accountability and to circumvent accountability is to risk a great deal.
In answer to your three questions, I must first give a disclaimer. In all candor, I hold a more restrictive position than the church I have served for the last two years. I have chosen not to demand my way in this matter or to risk splitting the church over it, but I have not changed my position. So I will answer question one as I believe is best.
Assuming that the chaplain who administered the baptism was not acting as an agent of a church that held to the doctrinal norms I mentioned, I would ask that person to submit to authoritative baptism and explain to him why I believe that he should be rebaptized. I believe scriptural baptism has four ingredients: a proper candidate, a proper mode, a proper purpose, and a proper authority, and I deny the authority of a Methodist minister to administer baptism that my church should recognize as much as I would deny him the right to administer communion in my church--and you may disagree with that, too.
But let's make it interesting. Let's say a Jewish chaplain is all that is available to the young convert, and he agrees to administer the Christian rite. Would you accept that baptism? I think you are going to say yes, but I am curious to know for sure. If you deny the Jewish chaplain the authority to baptize, at the very least you are admitting that the administrator matters. If that is the case, then we have to determine what belief or understanding that he holds matters.
You can find the answer to your second question in my answer to your first question. The institution of the church was given the authority to baptize. If the disciples were given that authority, then they died and no one else has it. If all Christians were given that authority, then we ought to tell our members just to baptize anyone they lead to Christ at any time and anywhere they can. Christians who baptize apart from accountability to a local church will not be held to any doctrinal standard long, nor will their converts. If the church is the pillar and ground of the truth, we had best make sure that our observances of the ordinances are within the context of the church.
As to your third question, of course I acknowledge that wonderful brothers and sisters in Christ disagree with me on this issue. I am more than willing to work with them in many ways. I do every day, as a matter of fact, since I am probably in the minority that hold this view on the faculty of Southern Seminary. I very deeply love my colleagues who see this differently than I do. But to say that I see this as a minor doctrine would also not be accurate. The issue might seem minor now, but two and three generations later I fear we will reap the results of surrendering this point. Though I believe in charity in our disagreements, I also want to strive desperately for maximum conformity to the Word of God, not minimum. Is it reasonable to ask our missionaries to have submitted themselves to the baptism that our churches administer? Are we going to ask our missionaries to hold to a Baptist understanding of baptism, or are we going to surrender Baptist distinctives in favor of becoming a nebulous and amorphous evangelical cooperation? I really believe that is at the heart of the question and the answers that I am hearing.
I doubt you can find it, but the best book on the subject that I ever read was a book by Buell Kazee called The Church and the Ordinances. Wayne Ward wrote the forward to it, I think. Kazee argues this point well. I encourage you to read it because Kazee articulates the position very well.
Thank you for hearing my heart even in my staunch disagreement. May God be honored in the way we conduct ourselves as ministers of His glorious gospel.
Keith, surely you jest. Do you really think Beasley-Murray represents a single Southern Baptist pastor? Beasley-Murray is much closer to John Stott than to Jerry Vines. Beasley-Murray's view of baptism is simply not Southern Baptist. Even when he taught at Southern in the pre-Mohler days he was way outside (even moderate) Baptist thinking about the ordinances. Beasley-Murray has about as much influence on the SBC as the Log Cabin Republicans do on the GOP.
I stand by my assertion that Southern Baptists simply do not disagree that baptism is symbolic AND non-regenerative. Can you find someone among our 16 million members who disagrees? Certainly. Is anyone listening to them. No.
Professor York, I'm afraid that I'm not jesting.
My assertion was that there was more diversity on the issue of the symbolic nature of baptism in the past than your post acknowledges, and that Baptists were able to work together despite those differences to spread the Gospel. Whether or not anyone in today's SBC would hold that view is beside the point, at least in terms of my argument.
The point was to say that, in my view, the implication that all Southern Baptists have always agreed on these issues without serious disagreement is an inaccurate reading of Southern Baptist history. In addition, the fact that Southern Baptists were able to disagree and still maintain fellowship with one another in mission endeavors for the sake of the Gospel seems to me to be more in line with our Baptist heritage than breaking fellowship in missions over secondary doctrinal issues concerning baptism.
The question, then, is not whether or not there is disagreement--there always has been. The question is: why can't we work together to spread the Gospel despite those differences? Southern Baptists have been able to do that in the past to the glory of God. Now, for some reason, some Southern Baptists no longer think it is possible.
I think that's a fair question for all Southern Baptists to consider and discuss.
Wade Burleson had to appeal to John Gill, a British Baptist, for his perspective, for instance, because he certainly wouldn't find B. H. Carroll saying anything other than what I have said. Spencer's History of the Kentucky Baptists, for instance, has this issue debated at length in the associations and they arrive at the conclusions I have drawn.
A. Yet John L. Waller, editor of the Western Bapt. Review, disagreed with those conclusions.
B. You are also citing KY Baptist history as if that is Southern Baptist history. Not all Southern Baptists are KY Baptists, so you have committed a basic category error.
C. Appeals to authority are generally invalid in the manner you seem to be using them. I would say that you appeal to Carroll because he was a TX Baptist who affirmed your position, but that does not translate into a majority of Southern Baptists.
D. As I recall, the reason we had no BFM until 1925 is because the churches founding the SBC almost universally used the Philadelphia Confession, which recapitulates the 2LCBF. So, we're already dealing with a theological tradition that antedates the founding of the SBC and a tradition to which our SBC fathers appealed themselves.
E. The issues is whether or not your position is sustainable. Do the Assemblies of God constitute true churches since they repudiate the security of the believer?
The logic of saying eternal security is the doctrine to which to look to determine if John Smith Missions Candidate needs to be rebaptized looks something like this:
If a person believes he can lose his salvation, it follows he is denies Sola Fide.
Hence, he believes in salvation by works.
Hence, he is unregenerate.
Hence any ecclesiastical body formed by such persons cannot, by definition, constitute a true church, since they are all unregenerate, since Baptist ecclesiology, at a minimum demands a regenerate membership.
Is this what you believe?
Dr. York,
I'm glad to see that you have weighed in on this matter. As expected, your statement was very thorough and articulate. I still disagree with the policy, but it is good to finally see someone try to justify it.
I have one question about your statement. The way I read it, you seem to be saying that Baptist churches are the only true NT churches. Is this actually what you meant to say? If so, then I will give you credit for being logically consistent in your views, as opposed to those who support the new policy but don't go so far as to say that other churches are not true churches.
I am saying that the only churches of which I can be sure are true churches are those which hold the doctrines of the NT. Frankly, that would leave some churches with the name Baptist out, so to say that I believe Baptist churches are the only true assemblies of Christ would be an overstatement. Authority is found in fidelity to the New Testament.
How much error can a church have and still be a church of the Lord Jesus? I don't know. Jesus threatened the Ephesian church with removing their lampstand for a lack of their first love. Still, I think it a reasonable practice to require our missionaries to have submitted themselves to the same baptism we administer.
Dr. York,
I found your post to be interesting! Although I disagree, it is good to see a thought-out response coming from those who support the new IMB ruling.
What about the Free-Will Baptist churches? Would their baptism be a true baptism? Or what about a church like Southeast Christian here in Louisville? Or how about the Asssemblies of God? Church of the Nazarene?
Also, I wonder if the IMB would say the same thing about those churches on the other extreme: what about the so-called "Free Grace" churches (Grace Evangical Society type) that say that one can disown God and still be saved as long as they at one time believed?
I appreciate this opportunity to discuss and ask questions. Thanks!
Dr. York, with all due respect, your answer to Tim is very unsettling to me. If I carry it to it's logical conclusion, many of you that agree now on the IMB policy, could all turn on each other in the future because you might discover differences among yourselves you can't live with, and you would rebaptize each other's church members if they change churches.
How narrow will the path of fellowship become, and who gets to decide? Our polity, if I understand it correctly, is that the messengers of all SBC churches in good standing should be deciding.
Thank you for prompting this discussion. I hope many will join in.
Dr. York, I too respectfully disagree with your position on this matter. It seems that this position is very dangerous, and could cause significant division in the Church.
Imagine, if you will, a scenario where a brother comes from another congregation to yours, and desires to be a member of your church to participate in the great things God is doing. He holds to all of the essential doctrines of faith, to the authority of the scripture, and to the deity of Jesus. Would you then deny that person membership and opportunity to serve in your congregation because he was baptized by a Methodist minister? With complete respect, I cannot disagree with you more.
The point of Baptism is to associate yourself with Jesus, not the Baptists. If you are prepared to require rebaptism for a former Methodist, to what end will you expand that thinking?
We need to stress unity, and aceptance of differences. These positions only place rifts between churches, and that moves contrary, in my opinion, to the heart of Jesus.
“Nor is it necessary to suppose that any church had given him [Philip when baptizing the Ethiopian eunuch] any special authority in the matter. Such a supposition would be a pure assumption with no ascertainable facts to justify it. Where there is no church, we believe any Christian or group of Christians could administer the ordinance.” - W.T. Connor
“…if a man is baptized by a preacher who turns out to be an apostate, his baptism is not invalidated.” - W.A. Criswell
Just throwing out an alternative view of Baptist history and interpretation.
Dr. York, thank you for your post. Our blog was beginning to feel like a lone voice of agreement for the policy on the blogsphere concerning this issue.
Dr. York,
Thanks for the explanation. I basically agree with what you said in your response to my comment. I agree that anyone whose baptism does not meet all of these standards---by immersion, subsequent to conversion, viewed as symbolic of salvation and not as regenerative or sacramental---should be rebaptized. Not because their baptism was not a Baptist baptism, but because it was not a biblical baptism.
Where we seem to disagree is about whether the doctrinal views of the administrator determine the validity of baptism. I agree that a baptism administered under the authority of a non-Christian group cannot be considered a Christian baptism, but I just don't find any biblical basis for rejecting a baptism administered according to the biblical pattern by a Christian church, even if that church is wrong on certain points of doctrine. I would guess that all of our Southern Baptist churches are wrong on some point of doctrine, even regarding soteriology (Calvinists and Arminians can't both be completely right), but that doesn't invalidate our baptisms.
Hey Dr. York -
I'd be interested in hearing your perspective on the issue of private prayer languages.
Thanks!
Dr. York,
I am shocked that you would compare a Jewish rabbi to a Methodist pastor, as if they were equally not Christian.
I have been a Southern Baptist pastor for over 25 years in Mississippi and Georgia, and I can tell you that millions of Southern Baptists would say your views are far too narrow. One of your own posts above implies that even your own congregation is not as narrow as you.
People posting comments have been asking, "What does scripture say?" Here's a pertinent quote from a Famous Bible Person: "You strain out a gnat, yet gulp down a camel!" (Matthew 23:24, HCSB)
Dr. York,
I appreciate your views on this. I have been reading various opinions on this issue and a thought comes to mind. My thought probably has more to do with procedure and less with theology but I believe it may get to the definition of the IMB trustees' role in this matter.
As I understand, (and feel free to correct me if I am wrong), the various entities of the SBC exist for the purpose of serving the local churches. They of course do not have the authority to dictate to the local churches how they are to believe or practice.
But a vital part of their responsibility is to make sure that they operate in a manner that is consistent with the majority of the churches they represent.If the views on baptism that you presented are representative of the belief of the majority of our denomination, (I think that I can agree with what you said), then I feel the board may indeed be justified in the new policy.
Some have argued that the policy exceeds the BF&M. While that is certainly a fine document, it is neither infallible, nor is it comprehensive enough to anticipate every point of doctrine that may arise. The fact that a recent update was needed is evidence of this.
I think that we as Southern Baptists need to accept the fact that our doctrine determines our identity within the larger realm of the "church". As practices contrary to what we hold dear arise, they must be confronted.
God Bless.
Bro. York,
Would you not agree that the explicit statement linking baptism and eternal security is, in fact, innovative? I have found no Baptist confession of faith that either explicitly or implicitly ties the two together like this policy does. In addition, J.L. Dagg spends 60 pages discussing baptism in his Manual of Church Order and never links the two either directly or indirectly. Neither does W.T. Connor in his Christian Doctrines. In fact, Connor spends nearly three pages discussing the proper administrator of baptism. He believed that re-baptism was valid for three of the four cases listed in the IMB baptism policy (if the person was unconverted at baptism, if the mode was other than immersion and if it was seen as regenerative). The only case he does not list is if the church did not believe in eternal security. If this is the historic Baptist position why would he not include that?
Would you also not agree that there is no explicit statement in Scripture linking the two directly? Isn’t it true that the best we have is an implicit statement from one passage in Acts 19? Even John Polhill in our own Southern Baptist NAC commentary on Acts says that the problem was not the doctrine of the Ephesians, but that they were not saved. I. Howard Marshall agrees in his commentary on Acts (which was the text of choice for my Acts class in seminary). Is it not true that at best scholars, even Southern Baptist scholars, would disagree on the meaning there?
Isn’t it true that this policy is the first time in Baptist and Southern Baptist history that baptism and eternal security have been linked together explicitly in a written document? Doesn’t that make it both innovative and remarkable?
And do we really want to establish a policy for all Southern Baptist missionary candidates based upon a disputed implication from Scripture that has no precedent in Baptist thought?
A more complete response can be found here.
Dr. York,
I am sorry that we were not able to get together in these two days while I am visiting Louisville. I wanted to discuss this issue with you. As I said in my email, though, I understand the issues of scheduling. I have posted a response to your position on my blog. It can be found at http://jasonsampler.blogspot.com/2006/02/response-to-drs-york-and-caner-and.html (sorry, I don't know how to make it a hyperlink). I look forward to any and all dialogue that might proceed on this issue. May God bless you as you train up others to preach and as you lead your congregation towards greater holines.
Blessings,
Jason Sampler
Dr. York,
It seems to me that to hold your position and still be doctrinally consistent you must hold a belief in Baptist succession. Without that, by your own reasoning Baptists would be ecclesiologically illegitimate. Do you subscribe to the Baptist Succession theory?
Tim
Thanks for your willingness to explain your position. I think that such conversation is crucial. I have a question about the arguments you made for what constitutes a church that is qualified to baptize and where such arguments lead.
You wrote:
"Baptists have so carefully defined the church, the ordinances, and soteriology that we have historically denied that such are true New Testament churches."
and
"A congregation is a church of the Lord Jesus Christ to the degree that it follows the New Testament pattern, preaches a true gospel, and observes the ordinances properly. We deny the authority of any baptism that does not have that authority."
The New Testament pattern for a church is clearly one of practiced church discipline. Jesus and his apostles commanded it. Paul saw that it was practiced. Church discipline has historically been considered one of the marks of a true church. From what I understand, historically (meaning prior to 75 years ago) the churches of the SBC had practiced it.
According to your arguments, it would seem to follow that a church that does not practice biblical church discipline is not a church since it does not follow the pattern of the NT church. Therefore, such a "congregation" would have no authority to baptize. It would therefore follow that the baptism of those baptized in such churches would be invalid.
Today, the majority of SBC churches do not practice church discipline. (This is evidenced by the fact that only 6 million of our [not worth boasting about] 16 million members bother to show up on a Sunday morning.) Therefore, it would seem that the majority of SBC members (if baptized in such churches) stand in need of valid baptism and are not qualified as IMB missionaries.
Am I following this right? Or, do I wrongly understand part of the argument?
Tim,
I don't mean to be short, but you are simply wrong. The point is that a church must hold correct doctrine. Jesus commissioned his type of church, and the marks of that church are New Testament doctrine, the ordinances, and the Great Commission.
You assume that I think there has to be an regressive chain of authority for baptism to be administered, but I don't think that at all. My grandmother was illegitimate, but that doesn't make my mother and me illegitimate, too, you understand. In the same way, some believers no doubt had baptism that didn't meet all scriptural requirements, but that doesn't negate the baptism of all who follow. Some churches started in illegitimate ways and with bad doctrine, but later came to the truth. The test is not what happened a generation ago, but what doctrine do we hold now. Does it meet the qualifications of the NT.
I am not so naive as to think you will suddenly agree with me, but I just don't like it when people assume that I must believe one thing or another. My father used to say "You're jumping to a concussion!" and many in the blogs have done that. So, no, I don't believe in organic succession as you assume I must.
Some interesting quotes from Dagg:
"Admission to membership belongs to churches; but admission to baptism belongs properly to the ministry. A single minister has the right to receive to baptism, on his own responsibility; as is clear from the baptism of the eunoch by Philip, when alone. But when a minister is officiating as pastor of a church, it is expedient that they should unite their counsels in judging of a candidate's qualifications; but the pastor ought to remember, that the responsibility of receiving to baptism is properly his. The superior knowledge which he is supposed to possess, and his office as the shepherd of the flock, and the priority of baptism to church membership, all combine to render it necessary that he first and chiefly should meet this responsibility, and act upon it in fear of the Lord."
J. L. Dagg, "A Treatise on Church Order" (Harrisonberg, VA: Gano Books, 1982), page 269. (originally published in 1858 by The Southern Baptist Publication Society)
"From the investigations in the preceding part of this work, we have learned that a candidate has no right to baptize himself, or select his own administrator, without regard to his being duly qualified according to the divine will. The proper administrators are persons called of God to the ministerial office, and introduced into it according to the order established by the apostles. To such persons the candidate was bound to apply; and, if he received the ordinance from any other, it was as if he had selected the administrator at his own will, or had immersed himself. . . . Because when church order has been destroyed, something unusual may be done to restore it, we are not, on this account, justified in neglecting the regular order when it does exist. Every church is bound to respect this order, and a candidate who has failed to respect it in a former baptism, may, with a good conscience, proceed anew to obey the Lord's command, in exact conformity to the divine requirement. . . . By a wise provision the social tendency of Christianity is shown at the very beginning of the Christian profession. The candidate cannot obey alone, but he must seek an administrator to unite with him in the act of obedience, and by this arrangement Christian fellowship begins with Christian profession. But that two may walk together in this act of obedience, it is necessary that they should be agreed. If the administrator and candidate differ widely in their views respecting the nature and design of the ordinance, they cannot have fellowship with each other in the service."
Ibid., page 285.
Mr. York,
I am not a theologian and have not been trained in a seminary. Perhaps this has been a hinderance in my understanding of your points. In particular, when you call baptism a church ordinance, I agree with you, but our understanding of what that means seems to differ. Obviously the authority for baptism comes directly from Christ Jesus. The ordinance is one validated by his partaking in it and instructing his disciples to administer it. So there is the question of who is the church? For your argument to be valid, only baptists are the church. Secondly, in your response to Wade, you imply that certain christians cannot administer baptism. But scripture defines us as a royal priesthood, conferring the authority of priestly acts to all believers, not just "authorised administrators" who were given authority by the SBC/IMB/etcetera. I have always seen this to confer the authority to administer baptism upon ALL believers. Though I understand your concern about accountability, the administering authority of judgement is also God. Certainly He is capable of executing his judgements against those who refuse accountability. He disciplines those He loves. Certainly He may at times administer His authority through Southern Baptists, but I don't see any Scripture that limits His administration of His authority to Baptists in particular, nor to any particular Baptists. So I will continue baptizing all those who come to Christ and want to be baptized recognizing my authority to do so is derived from God, not man. As I said, I am not a seminary trained theologian so I might have missed some things here. Please let me know what you think of my comments.
Regards,
David Baruch
P.S. I also consider myself a Jew. So I might be that Jewish chaplain administering baptism to someone in Iraq who ends up joining your church.
I'm not a seminary professor.
I do happen to agree with the decision of the honorable Trustees of the IMB, so I thought I'd post my own approval of the IMB Trustees' decision in my new little blog. I'm new at this, but all comments are welcome.
Please visit:
http://sbjournaltoday.blogspot.com/
Post a Comment