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 Southern Baptist, I have been taught and have taught that followers of Christ must be “Great Commission Christians.” We have always understood that the GC and ACTs 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 when Christ gave the command to “Go. ” It 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 Baptists have a long history of understanding.
The term Church = Ekklesia, is literally the gathering of Christ’s people. In the New Testament it is used for specific gatherings, i.e. the church in ______ . Each gathering will have elders and deacons. Each gathering will baptize converts, and break bread. Each gathering encourages and disciplines one another. Why? Because these practices have been given to us by the command of Christ, the head of the Body of which all ekklesia’s belong. In our day, we emphasize the nature of the Ekklesia to the exclusion of a proper understanding of the Body of Christ. But Baptists at first had a different, I believe, more balanced understanding. Look at one of the first Great Confessions of the movement we now call Baptist:
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.
Interestingly, the entire understanding of “authorized chuches” and “authorized administrators” that so many like to talk about today, has not been built by Biblical texts, but only by inference, presuppositions, and supposed implications. Certainly the ordinances are for the use of the ekklesia, and in the fellowship of the ekklesia, and under the guidance of an ekklesia, but not in a way that is exclusionary to the understanding of how any ekklesia fits into the greater Body of Christ. In heaven there will be no ekklesia of Corinth, St. Louis, but only the Body and Bride of Christ.
The use of Christ’s ordianances were given to bring a sense of unity and harmony and oneness to His Body. The application of these ordinances today are sadly used to further sectarian divisions in the Body of our Lord. As much as it is possible we should strive to avoid this!
There are two great issues concerning the ordinances that we will not and should not compromise, but short of these, we do not have Biblical authority to remove the ordinances from the authority of Christ, as given to His Body, and make them just the ordinances of a denomination or a local church. The two things that we must not compromise:
1. Believer’s Baptism. Baptism is only for those who have already been converted and regenerated. Baptism does not have regenerative power. Baptism is an identification with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ Jesus, our Lord. Biblical baptism was and still is the immersion of the individual under water.
2. Regenerated Membership. The Lord’s Supper is only for those who have been converted and regenerated.
Now I would further add that the Lord’s Supper is for every person who is actually a member of the Body of Christ and not just members of a local ekklesia, See Here.
UNDER AUTHORITY NOT IN AUTHORITY
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.
There is a prevailing understanding in Baptist life that a person is Baptized by the Church and into the Church. But the Bible teaches that we are baptized by the Spirit into the Body and then become part of the ekklesia/church. We are certainly not intstructed in Scripture that Baptism is “under the authority” of anybody but Christ. Christ affirmed that “all authority” has been given to Him, then he says “Go Baptize.” To infer that the authority of Christ has been given to a church sounds stangely similiar to the papists. This is exactly why the first Baptist did not recognize such thinking and would revolt against it, because they lived under the tryanny of an entity that thought they had received and possessed authority rather than BEING UNDER the AUTHORITY of Christ.
Also we are never instructed 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 above). Why? Because Baptists came out of the Separatist arm of the Reformation. If they had felt this way from the beginning, they would have stayed in the Church of England. But they understood the ordinances to belong to Christ and His Body and NOT under the authority or power of a formal entity, but under the authority of Christ and handed down to His Body, His Ekklesia. Baptists felt compelled to dissent, separate, baptize and break bread outside of the boundary of an 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 resurrection of Christ (Romans 6.4 ) and then they 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 they certainly did not share our paradigm. Every person who became a Christian was automatically a part of the Ekklesia and expected to assemble together with all of Christ’s followers in a given city.
TC
35 Comments
12/21/2006 at 3:46 pm
Bold and AMEN
thanks
12/21/2006 at 4:01 pm
Tim,
Great post! I thought I could help in your study by listing all the verses of Scripture that connect the Greek term translated “baptism” (baptizo) with the Greek word translated “church” (ekklesia). Here is that list:
Thanks,
-Alan
12/21/2006 at 4:47 pm
Exactly Tim. Wonderfully and powerfully said.
12/21/2006 at 6:24 pm
Alycelee & Ddaufman
Thanks,
Alan,
That is great, very eyeopening, I will begin to research:)
12/21/2006 at 10:58 pm
Tim,
I believe that we have had one of the best-traveled discussions around. We started on the MO Bapt List, to Brad’s blog, to my blog, and now at last to yours. Each of our comments has been amended slightly during the progression, so I really don’t know what to address here.
For starters, from your comment to me, it sounds like we have common stomping grounds. I was born in Festus, spent my teen years in DeSoto, went to college in Columbia, seminary in Louisville, and now I have found myself serving in Eldon (my wife also grew up in Festus). We cut through St. Louis when we visit our parents, so if you would like to get together some time let me know. I have found that spending time with more experienced pastors can be very uplifting – even when there are no debates
Now to the post,
I do not find your dichotomy that baptism is an ordinance of Christ, not an ordinance of the church, convincing for several reasons.
Scripturally
When I was growing up, there was a commercial where an older lady asked, “where’s the beef?” As I read your post I could not help but ask myself “where’s the scripture?”
If this were a Baptist history class I would give you an A- on your post. But this isn’t about Baptist history; it’s about a Biblical principle. You and I have both posted on the need to remain scripturally centered in our arguments, as such, the both of us should be held to stricter standards in our arguments.
While I respect the ground covered by our spiritual forefathers, I hold their confessions very loosely. Mainly because confessions were written to show how one group differed from others, not to outline their specific theology point by point.
Semantically
I hate semantics, but it does bear on our discussion. The fact that said confessions does not specifically say “church ordinance” is not relevant. That is like denying the Trinity on the basis that the word is not found in the Bible. However, if we look at the articles of the church from the Waterland Confession of 1580 all the way to BFM 2000, Baptism & Lord Supper are consistently seen as things that individual churches were suppose to perform.
By Definition
What is an ordinance? An ordinance is something one performs at the command of another. Thus, there is no great difference between saying that baptism is an ordinance of Christ or the church. Baptism is commanded by Christ, thus it is his ordinance. But, that command was given to the church; thus it is also the church’s ordinance.
Authority of the Church
I fail to see how your arguments disprove points 1 & 2 of my original comment. As such I will let it stand.
As a final thought.
In our initial discussion, you stated that SBC theology has been influenced by Landmarkism. The extent of that influence is debatable. But one thing that is not debatable is the fact that all evangelical Christians in the US has been very influenced by American culture. And a big part of that culture is rabid individualism. Bucking authority is a lot like moving blogs to wordpress – that’s what all the cool kids are doing these days
What we must realize is that we are a people under spiritual authority, several layers of it in fact. Yes we are under the authority of Christ, but lets remember that the church is the tangible representative of Christ on Earth.
Ephesians 3:10 tells us: the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church
As such, the local church maintains the authority of Christ, in that it maintains the commands of Christ (this is a completely different discussion).
With that I am done. My apology if this comment is not as gentle, cogent, or fully detailed as I strove for. This has been quite a day, full of hospital visits, grieving families, changed tires, and now I have a screaming, teething, 9 week old at my feet.
It’s a good thing pastors only work 1 day a week
Blessings,
John
12/22/2006 at 4:32 am
Tim,
Great post!
I laughed a little at Pastor John’s comment “Where’s the beef?”
Why?
The ‘beef’ according to Pastor John is ‘the Scripture,’ so Pastor John is asking you ‘Where’s the Scripture’ in your post.
Tim, I counted at least 10 Scripture references in your post — 10.
I counted 0 in Pastor John’s comment — that’s z-e-r-0!
Sigh.
12/22/2006 at 5:15 am
Wade,
Glad I could make you laugh. This has been an ongoing discussion between Tim and I. I’m afraid you jumped in toward the end of it.
My question of where’s the beef refers to his proposition that bapt. is only an ordinance of the church, which Tim supported w/ quotes from confessions. I conceed that he did indeed use scripture well in the rest of his post.
John
BTW – check out the Eph 3 quote in my 2nd to last paragraph, you missed o-n-e
12/22/2006 at 7:00 pm
Tim,
I trust your Friday filled with grace. I attempted to post a comment on this thread last evening, Tim. Evidently it was lost.
The comment, I believe, challenges your reading of the Baptist Confessions you cite.
If you like, I can repost it. Let me know. With that, I am…
Peter
12/22/2006 at 8:52 pm
John,
Where in the Bible is baptism referred to as being something that is done as an “entrance” to the church. I think Alan’s comment is on target. The Bible is very clear in revealing that we are Baptized into the Body of Christ and thus are part of the Ekklesia. The passages I cited point to this.
My point with the confessions is that Baptists did not always have the position that is so popular today and not built on clear Biblical teaching.
Certainly the ordinances or for the Church, but not in a possesive, authoritarian sense. They do not belong to a church or a denomination, they belong to Christ, He is the head.
Furthermore, Scritpure is very clear in telling us that Jesus is the Head of the church. Nowhere is it taught that the church is Christ’s authority on Earth, as you seem to imply. But the Catholics certainly would agree with you on th We are Christ’s Body, but not Christ’s Crown, if you will.
TC
12/22/2006 at 9:00 pm
Peter,
I would love to see what you have. My point for addressing previous statments was to reveal the late addition of the term “church ordinance.” Confessions are written through a process that typically scutinizes every word. In this case I think the lack of certain wording reveals a changing understanding on this subject throughout the years .
TC
12/22/2006 at 9:59 pm
Tim,
Hey, Tim. I moved over here from Dr. Reynolds blog. I’m glad I did for your post caught my attention. I think it clears up for me from where you are coming.
I have some observations, Tim, though forgive me in advance for its length.
First, my Brother, I am confused about your quotes from the Confessions. Interestingly, you were rather selective in your choices.
For example, you start in 1644. May I ask why? “A True Confession” (Separate Baptist) was published in 1596, of which, according to Lumpkin, was the model the “seven Particular Baptist Churches of London used when they drew up their earliest confession in 1644″ (p.81).
The Confession explicitly states “That being come forth of this antichristian estate…they are willingly to join together in Christian communion…to unite themselves into peculiar Congregations; wherein as members of one body whereof Christ is the head, they are to worship and serve God according to his word, remembering to keep the Lords day” (#33, Old English spelling edit mine).
Here what is valuable is Christ is pictured as Him being the “only head”, yet it is a local Church being spoken of—“”peculiar Congregations”.
In the next article, it speaks of Christ appointing “Offices” for the “public administration of His church, explicitly warning that “no Sacraments [Baptism & Lord’s Supper] to be administrated until the Pastors or Teachers be chosen and ordained in to their office”(#34, p.93).
An earlier Confession, then, than 1644—indeed the model upon which the 1644 was apparently based—a) speaks of the local Church as the church with “one head, Christ” b) ties the ordinances specifically to the local church body c) by forbidding no administration of the ordinances to be performed unless the body has “Pastors or Teachers chosen and ordained into their offices” to perform them.
Thus your opening statement that “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.” is seriously jeopardized, my Brother, if we are considering Baptist practice in history.
Another early Baptist Confession was “The Short Confession of Faith in XX Articles by John Smyth” (circa 1610). In it, are these words:
“That the church of Jesus Christ has power delegated to themselves of announcing the word, administering the sacraments {etc.}…That the ministers of the church are, not only bishops (“Episcopos”), to whom the power is given of dispensing both the word and the sacraments…” (Articles 13,16, p.101).
Once again, we see the local Body authorizing their officers alone to administer the ordinances. Baptism and the Supper was given to all who were present at Christ’s ascension? Not according to our Baptist ancestors.
Quite frankly, Tim, I could also quote similarly from the “Short Confession of 1610” (Art. 23, p.108), “The English Declaration at Amsterdam, 1611” (Art.13-15, p.120ff), “The Propositions and Conclusions, 1612” (Art. 76, p.138), all prior to the Confession you cite and even progressively led up to it.
Conclusively, the church was local not to the exclusion of the “mystical union” of the Body everywhere, but the sacraments–that is, Baptism and the Supper—were local Church ordinances administered by local Church “ordained officials’—definitively NOT the Church at large.
But I will by pass those momentarily and fast forward to another one of the early American Baptist Confessions—“The Articles of Faith of the Kehukee Association, 1777.” Though of the 17 Articles, there is strangely no statement concerning the church proper, there are explicit statements about the ordinances of the Church or, as the Confession calls them “gospel ordinances.”
It reads: “We believe baptism and the Lord’s supper are gospel ordinances both belonging to the converted or true believer…We believe that no minister has no [sic] right to administration of the ordinances, only as are regularly called and come under the imposition of hands by the presbytery.” (Art. 12, 16, p.356). Again, the Church ordinance or “gospel ordinance” is both locally administered by local officials of the church.
Now let’s move back to one of the Confessions you did quote, Tim. You quoted the 1646 Confession as: ““Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, given by Christ.” That is, Baptism, in your words, Tim, “was given to the followers of Christ…to all those who were present at Christ’s ascension.”
However, the full statement in the 1644 Confession reads: “That Baptism is an Ordinance of the new Testament, given by Christ, to be dispensed only upon persons professing faith…” By leaving off the last part of the statement—“to be dispensed” Tim, it sounds as though the Confession makes a statement that lifts Baptism into practice that, because it belongs to Christ, no restrictions are placed upon on it.
In addition, Tim, I’m afraid your quoting The Philadelphia Confession 1742 makes your case even worse, from my view. Of the Confession, you write:
“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.”
Afterward you conclude:” Interestingly, the entire understanding of “authorized chuches”[sic] and “authorized administrators” that so many like to talk about today, has not been built by Biblical texts, but only by inference, presuppositions, and supposed implications.”
Had you read the 1742 Confession carefully, my Brother Tim, you would have noted that it concludes precisely the opposite than do you. Let me show you what I mean.
While you rightly quote the Confession above, you also leave out a significant portion of the statement. It reads:” Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, to be continued in his church to the end of the world.” You make it sound like that the only significant thing the Confession states is that Baptism and the Supper are “ordinances…appointed by the Lord Jesus.” But to whom are the ordinances appointed? In His church they are to be continued till the end of the world.
By the way, the proof texts offered include Matt. 28:19, 20—Jesus giving to His Disciples the command to Baptize, which you, Tim, contra the Confession, apply to “the followers of Christ. It was given to all those who were present at Christ’s ascension.” The Confession took the words Christ spoke to the Disciples as He ascended to be to the Church ordinance of Baptism.
In addition, one may ask, according to the 1742 Confession, is there a restriction placed on those who administer Baptism to qualified subjects? Or, another way of asking it, Is it proper, according to the Confession of 1742, for those who qualify for Baptism to be Baptized only by one who is also a qualified official of the local Church? We must answer in the affirmative.
In Chapter 29, Articles 1 and 2, the Confession is clear: “Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are ordinances…appointed by the Lord Jesus…to be continued in his church to the end of the world. These holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ.”
Thus, we see only qualified ones may Baptize according to the Confession. The way I understand your view, Tim, is that any professing Disciple of the Church may do so since, in your words, Baptism was given to “to all those who were present at Christ’s ascension.” That is, all Disciples are apparently qualified, the way I understand you.
Note, however, Chapter 27, On the Church, specifically Articles 8-9:
“A particular church, gathered and completely organized according to the mind of Christ, consists of officers and members; and the officers appointed by Christ to be chosen and set apart by the church (so called and gathered), for the peculiar administration of ordinances, and execution of power or duty, which he entrusts them with, or calls them to, to be continued to the end of the world, are bishops or elders, and deacons. The way appointed by Christ for the calling of any person…unto the office of bishop or elder in a church, is, that he be chosen thereunto by the common suffrage of the church itself; and solemnly set apart by fasting and prayer, with imposition of hands of the eldership of the church…”
Thus, Tim, from the 1742 Confession it seems clear that
a) the church was both local and “mystical”
b) ordinances were administered at the local level
c) ordinances were administered only by those qualified
d) those qualified were only those sanctioned by the church, that is the ordained Body.
Time fails me, Tim, to look at what I observe as a strange view of 1 Corinthians 12.13. Quite honestly, I do not think I have ever encountered an interpretation of it exactly in your terms before.
Leon Morris comes close in his New Testament theology, I think. But Morris is an evangelical sacramentalist, not a Baptist. That makes a difference, of course.
Forgive my long tome. I usually do not do such. I trust you evening is well.
With that, I am…
Peter
12/23/2006 at 3:44 am
Tim,
Given that Peter appears to have a much firmer grasp of our past confessions, I will allow him to speak to the issue on that flank.
Scripturally, I think that you are missing my argument, so for the sake of discussion, I will go over it again.
You asked;
“Where in the Bible is baptism referred to as being something that is done as an “entrance” to the church.”
I have answered this in my previous posts, but will again and expand my ideas if I may.
From history –
Every group that has ever practiced water baptism has seen it as a rite of initiation. This included pre Christian Jewish proselyte baptism, early Christian baptism, Gnostic baptism, and even modern LDS & Jehovah Witness baptism. It seems that throughout history, everyone has seen baptism as initiatory except for some Baptists today.
In his book, The Baptist Way, R. Stanton Norman argues that: “Baptism is a declaration by the believer that he or she will stand with Christ AND HIS PEOPLE. By submitting to the public act of baptism, a person formally joins with the church in its confession that “Jesus is Lord” and EXPRESS HIS INTENTION TO BE CONSIDERED A MEMBER OF THE CONGREGATION (emphasis mine).
History is well and good, but what does the Bible say?
The Bible says;
Colossians 2:9-12 in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, 10 and 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.
Baptism is like circumcision in that it marks those who are members of the covenant community of the church.
Baptism is that circumcision made without hands. Baptism marks you as a follower of Christ, and a member of His church.
Many people ask me why it is that it is so important that a person be baptized before they become a member of a church.
It’s important because Baptism serves as an initiation rite.
I remember when I was initiated into the Cub Scouts.
I had earned my very first badge – the bobcat badge. After you earned your bobcat badge, you were then initiated into the cub scouts. What they did was that you went up in front of the pack with your parents. The pack leader gave your bobcat patch to your mother and she would pin it onto your uniform while your father picked you up and held you upside down.
And the deal was that your bobcat badge had to stay pinned to your uniform upside down until you did a good deed.
After that it could be turned over, sewn onto your uniform, making you and “official” Cub Scout.
And in the same way, when you are baptized by a church, then you become an official member of that church.
In the book of Acts, at Pentecost, and the preaching of John and Peter, we read that there were thousands added to the church in those days.
How were they added to the church?
Acts 2:40-41 40 And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation!” 41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.
In Acts, we see an ongoing progression. First they were saved, then they were baptized, and were added to the church.
How were they added to the church? They were added through baptism.
They were given the spiritual mark of belief, and were accepted into the covenant community of the church.
Because of Biblical evidence such as this, Christians throughout the ages have viewed baptism as an initiation into the church.
In his institutes, John Calvin said
“Baptism is the sign of initiation by which we are admitted to the fellowship of the church. In Christ, we are accepted as children of God. He has given baptism to encourage our faith in him and also as a way of confessing it before others.
To this Spurgeon adds
“What connection has this baptism with faith? I think it has just this, baptism is the avowal of faith. The man believed in Christ, but his faith remained between God and his own soul. In baptism he says to the baptizer, “I believe in Jesus Christ;” he says to the Church, “I unite with you as a believer in the common truths of Christianity.”
Like Peter, I have a difficult time understanding your focus on 1 Cor. 12:13 in this discussion. I believe that you are looking at it outside of its overall context. In 1 Cor. 12, Paul examines the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer’s life. In verse 13, Paul points out that the Spirit effects salvation in the lives of those who believe, and thus gives them a spiritual baptism into the ekklesia (church universal).
In his commentary on 1 Corinthians, John MacArthur writes
“Parenthetically, it should be noted that Paul is not speaking here of water baptism. Water baptism is an outward, physical ordinance believers submit to themselves and which is performed by other believers, in obedience to Christ’s command (Matt. 28:19, cf. Acts 2:38). Water baptism plays no part in conversion, but is a testimony to the church and to the world of conversion that has already taken place inwardly. Spirit baptism, on the other hand, is entirely the work of God and is virtually synonymous with salvation.”
I think the source of confusion here is that you are postulating that 1 Cor. 12:13 refers to water baptism when it in fact refers to baptism by the Holy Spirit.
Concerning the Authority of the Church
You said:
“Certainly the ordinances or for the Church, but not in a possessive, authoritarian sense.”
Well, the church possesses the authority of Christ in the respect that Christ’s authority has been delegated to the church.
Remember, the church is the visible, tangible representative of Christ on earth.
Ephesians 3:10 tells us: the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church
Later, Paul shows us that God puts his glory on display through the church:
Ephesians 3:21 21 to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen.
The church’s authority is directly tied to the authority of Christ.
Matthew 16:18-19 18 “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”
In his commentary on Matthew, MacArthur writes:
Christians have such authority because they have the truth of God’s authoritative word by which to judge. The source of the church’s authority is not in itself… Christians can authoritatively declare what is acceptable to God of forbidden by Him because they have his word.”
I believe that the best example of how the church wields the authority of Christ can be best seen in its role of church discipline.
1 Corinthians 5:1-4 It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife. 2 You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst. 3 For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus
Here, Paul calls on the church to out this sinning member. He does not remove him through his authority as an Apostle, nor does he call on the elders to do so on their authority. Instead, he calls on the corporate local church to exercise its authority in this matter. An authority exercised through the “power of our Lord Jesus.”
You are right that the church does not independently possess the authority of Christ. But, said authority has been delegated to it.
Your argument that I am wrong on this point because of a previous, similar Catholic error is not valid. Your argument is better known as “guilt by association.” This is not a biblical argument, it is in fact a logical fallacy.
If you would like to disprove me on this point, please point out my hermenutical errors, or passages that I have missed.
I apologize for the length of my post, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with you. I hope you have a wonderful evening.
Blessings,
John
12/23/2006 at 9:09 pm
Peter,
Thank you for the research. The purpose of my selective examples was to show that my position is not foreign to Baptist thinking, as some have attempted to say. I am well aware that there has been tension among those who have held varying positions regarding this issue. At different times in Baptist history, different sides have “won the day” if you will. Basically I was saying, “I am not crazy, see Baptists from the begining and throughout history have held a similiar understanding.”
John, you went on to say,
“Thus your opening statement that “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.” is seriously jeopardized, my Brother, if we are considering Baptist practice in history.”
The opposite is clear Peter. Otherwise the first that separated did so outside of the authority of the local church, and thus were wrong! By what authority did the first baptists baptize? It was not the authority of the local church. In fact because they refused to accept the churches authority, they were imprisoned and even killed. They recognized authority as given by Christ to His followers.
Now each ekklesia may set aside those whom the Lord has called to be their elders. They recognize, as it says in Ephesians that they are “gifts” given to the church by Christ. But the church is not granting authority they are really recognizing authority. Because Christ the Head has called them and because they are set aside because of that call by the Lord, the church recognizes their authority, they do not grant or give authority.
The first apostles were not given authority by the first church in Jerusalem. The people recognized the authority they had as given by Christ the Head. Maybe this is why in so many SBC churches we have such a problem with disrespect toward the position of pastor and abuse God’s leaders, because in their mind they think the church is the authority and the pastor is hired to minister to them…. ?
In closing, I really have no desire to wrangle over what confessions said or did not say or which ones are authority and which ones are not, again, the 1644 confession clearly shows that at one time, Baptists held a different understanding. Certainly it has changed. My meaning was not to say that my understanding is right and yours is wrong, because of the confessions, it was simply to share that it is not foreign to baptist thinking.
I am really interested in what you think I meant in using 1 cor 12.13, my purpose was to remind us that at salvation the Holy Spirit brings us into the Body of Christ. Furthermore water baptism is a visible testimony of what Christ did for us on the cross and what the Spirit did for us in our lives. It is a sign of our relationship to Christ, not a denomination.
TC
12/23/2006 at 10:30 pm
Tim,
(1) Let me thank you again for letting me discuss this with you on your blog. I greatly appreciate the fact that we have avoided labels, accusations, and “motive guessing” here. Though we disagree you strike my as the type of person I can easily cooperate with on any level.
Frankly, we are discussing a very fine point in theology and it is easy to disagree over it. I am surprised though at how many are freaking out and pointing fingers over it.
(2) I will admit I had a hard time following the line of your argument on your last comment. Our discussion has taken many twists and turns. In order to better follow and interact with each other’s comments I will begin to number my paragraphs. I would suggest that you begin to do the same. Admittedly it’s your blog & you may do what you like, but I think it will help the flow of our discussion.
(3) In the second paragraph of your comment, you quoted me as saying ““Thus your opening statement that “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.” is seriously jeopardized, my Brother, if we are considering Baptist practice in history.”
I honestly don’t recall that statement. Where is it from?
(4) I think a large part of our discussion has to do with emphasis. You seem to be emphasizing the universal church over the local. I do very much emphasize the local over the universal, mainly because I have been called to pastor the local church. As the visible manifestation of the body of Christ, the local church is where the rubber meets the road so to speak.
(5) I do NOT deny in any way shape or form that every person who accepts Christ by faith is indeed baptized into the church universal (1 Cor 12:13), and will be risen with him in the last day.
(6) However, acceptance into the universal church does not warrant an unqualified acceptance of an individual into the local church. (Matt. 18:17, 1 Cor. 5:1-4, 2 Jn 1:10).
(7) I think you may be off in your 3rd to last paragraph. The office of Apostle is very different from the office of pastor. Are you suggesting that pastors possess absolute authority? Are you denying congregationalism?
(8) In your third paragraph, you asked Peter “By what authority did the first baptists baptize?” I will not speak for Peter, but with your permission I will add my 2 cents. John Smyth baptized himself because he felt that there was no one who was qualified as an administrator. The early Baptists realized that church authority does not come from ecclesiastical decree or from succession. Rather, the local church maintains is authority to the degree that it maintains Christ’s command.
(9) I will leave you with the same question that I left you with before. Where am I wrong? Where have I missed in my hermeneutic? You have established what some have believed in the past. But, we are not people of the tradition; we are people of the book. Now, what does the Bible say?
Blessings to you and your household this Christmas season.
John
12/24/2006 at 3:54 am
John,
I addressed Peter’s post and have not gotten to yours yet. The last two days have been very busy, as you know:) I inadvertently used a “john” when it should have been “peter.”
Hope you have a great Christmas! I look forward to continued discussion.
Wade recently posted “Eureka” which really describes my sentiments, that was where I was going next, but wow, he beat me to it.
TC
12/24/2006 at 4:35 am
Tim,
No worries. When I was growing up and mom started yelling at us boys she usually just started naming off names no matter who she was talking to.
No rush on responding to my post. My parents & in laws only have dial up, so I doubt that I’ll be doing much on the net.
John
12/24/2006 at 5:35 am
Tim,
Frankly, my Brother, it was not I who brought up the Confessions. You quoted from three Confessions attempting to demonstrate the historicity of your position arguing that ” the entire understanding of “authorized chuches” and “authorized administrators” that so many like to talk about today, has not been built by Biblical texts, but only by inference, presuppositions, and supposed implications. ”
The Confessional evidence, Tim, stands squarely against such a conclusion and if I have misread the Confessions, I suggest you poke me right in the historical eye by marshalling the evidence against it. Nor, I do not believe you will find your alledged “tension” that exists on the Baptist view of Ordinance. I would surely be interested in such.
As for 1Cor. 12.13, I do not know what to say. This tired old body has been around the block, but I do not think I’ve ever heard a defense of ecclesiastical baptism based upon that verse. Paul was clearly speaking of Spirit Baptism in that verse, in my view. I would be interested in some NT scholars who argue your view from 1Cor.12.13.
In closing, Tim, I find it humorous that Erickson titles his chapters on Baptism & The Supper in his systematic theology respectively “The Initiatory Rite of the Church: Baptism” and “The Continuing Rite of the Church: The Lord’s Supper.” Dagg also speaks of the Ordinances as “rites” in his Manual of Church Order. New and unsubstantiated? Not quite, my Brother Tim.
I trust your Lord’s Day gracious. With that, I am…
Peter
12/24/2006 at 5:38 am
John,
I agree, our posts are long and it is hard to stay on focus. We may need to address one our two issues and then move on one at a time. I will respond to your paragraphs:
3. that was to Peter, not you, I used the wrong name.
4. I have no wish to talk about the universal church. I have not used that term in my posts for a distinct reason, every time I talk about the Body, you refer to it as the “universal church. ” The Bible clearly talks about ekklesia’s and the one body. Romans 12.4-5 tells us that we are all members of one body. Ephesians 2.14-16 declare that both Jews and Gentiles are all members of one body. Eph 4. 4 “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, … ”
We have forgotten this teaching. The ordiances were given by Christ the head, to His body. His body is manifested in ekklesia’s/gatherings all over the earth. But we are all in the same Body.
Your local church is not a visible gathering of “the body of Christ” as you stated. It is a visible gathering of just a part of “the body of Christ.” There is only 1 Body but who knows how many ekklesias. This is why I insist that when any 1 ekklesia acts as if the ordinances belong to them alone, they are in part not understanding the greater significance of the ordinances; to remind us and teach us of our being part of not only an ekklesia but the one Body of Christ.
5. Again, you are using language that I think is more than semantical. I never said, nor does the Bible say that we are brought into some “universal ekklesia.” It does say that by “one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.” 1 Cor 12.13 I use this verse to reveal a Scripture that explicitly reveals that at salvation the Holy Spirit brings us into the Body of Christ. There is no verse that explicitly teaches that Water Baptism is an initiation into the church. You think it implies it, I do not, in any case there is no verse that explicitly says it. Again see Wades current post against Baptism as an initiation, I completely concur with His assessment.
6. My point exactly and I think it also is true of Water Baptism. In our church, one does not become a member just because we Baptized them. I have Bapitzed people who in fact have not become members. What church was the Ethiopean “baptized into.” What church were the disciples baptized into in Acts 19? But there are those who are saying that Baptism is connected to an identity with the SBC. This is simply not supported in Scripture. Baptism identifies us with the work of the Christ on the Cross and the Holy Spirit in our lives.
7. I am not denying congregationalism, although I do not think that the congregationlism that is practised in many Baptist churches reflects the Biblical model, but that is another issue. I am stating that authority is not possessed by the congregation and then given to a pastor. The congregation does however recognize and submit to the authority that flows from Christ.
God gives ministry to individuals, not just local assemblies. Paul, Peter, John, Aquila, Pricilla, Tychicus, Archippus, Artistarchus, Mark, Justus, Timothy, Erastus, Trophimus, Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, Claudia — these and others, they were given ministry directly from the Lord, not some local assembly or leader in the body. Paul tells the assembly in Colossae, “Say to Archippus, ‘Take heed to the ministry which you have received in the Lord, that you may fulfill it’” (Colossians 4:17). Paul states that Archippus received his ministry directly from the Lord. Paul also received his ministry directly from the Lord (Acts 9.15-16; Galatians 1.11-12,15-17). This is why I say that the local church is under authority and recognizes authority.
The church does not have authority accept for that authority that flows from Christ, the Head. When a church looks for a pastor, they reflect this when they say that they are, “looking for the man that God has chosen to be their pastor.” And no Pastors do not have “absolute authority.” They only have authority to do that which Christ has called them to do. If they are out of God’s will and have sinned, 2-3 witnesses should verify, and if he is found wrong, he must be publicly disciplined.
Other than this, the elders are God’s men to lead the church and the church is told to “obey and submit,” (Hebrews 13.17) Why? because Christ has given them authority to lead. 1 Thess 5.12, says “And we urge you, brethren, to recognize those who labor among you, and are over you in the Lord …” Note that they are over them “in the Lord.” Authority flows from the head down, not from the pew up to the head. This is not to say that it is not possible for a Baptist church to vote and act in such a way that is in total denial of Christ’s rightful rule. Baptist churches do it all the time.
8. You said, “The early Baptists realized that church authority does not come from ecclesiastical decree or from succession. ”
Exactly! This is what I have been saying all along. When Baptists say that the only person that is authorized to baptize another person is a deacon or a pastor……..is this not ecclesiastical decree? I cannot find in Scripture where it says that only deacons and elders should baptize. I cannot find it anywhere in Scripure where it says only deacons and elders can pass out the LS. How are we being any different then when in England our forefathers were told that they were not authorized to preach, baptize, and take communion?
What is the context? I am reacting and responding to the IMB’s policy. Read Wade’s story about a man that was baptized by a missionary in Africa. He came to the US. Was admitted by statement into an SBC Church. But the IMB wants him rebaptized because it was not in a “church.” This is what I am writing against.
Read the letter of the pastor that was asked to rebaptize his member because they were immersed by freewill baptists. The SB pastor rebaptized him but outside of a church service. This was also rejected, and he was re-re-baptized to please the IMB.
If any of my nephews or nieces decide to go to the IMB, they would have to be rebapitzed under this current unbiblical policy. Why, because I baptized each of them in grandpas’ pond. They each joined their church by testimony of faith and their previous immersions in the lake. I guess you think those churches were wrong? If they were, then so was Philip when he didn’t ask the Ethiopean to return to Jerusalem for a service.
9. Where are you wrong? I do not find a verse that says that authority transferred from the 11 apostles or that the GC and ACTs 1.8 were only given to tehe 11 and then they “gave it” to the church at some undetermind time later. Where does the Bible describe this tranfer of authority from the apostles to the church? When did the apostles give this authority to the ekklesia? Where is the verse that the apostles told the ekklesia, “as Jesus has sent us, now we are sending the church?” From reading Mt 28 and Acts 1.8 and seeing Paul’s later description of Jesus appearing to 500… From Seeing Jesus telling them to tarry, until they receive power to fulfill Acts 1.8 and then being told later that there were 120 tarrying… I truly feel that at least 109 people thought Jesus was speaking to them also!
TC
12/24/2006 at 7:05 am
Peter,
I still stand by my statement, all the confessions in the world do not change the Biblical record. I still think that when one says, “Jesus gave authority to the 11, and then they transferred authority to the church” they are doing so without a the ability to show in Scripture how or when this happened. You can read (9) in my response to John.
Again, my use of the confessions was to show that there are those who thought otherwise, and the 1644 is definitly the most pronounced. Furthermore, the BFM’s that I pointed out call the ordinance the ordinances of Christ. My argument is that they are given to the church, not “owned” by the church and are still under the authority of our Lord.
We maybe misunderstanding each other with 1 Cor 12.13, I affirm that it is speaking of Spirit baptism. I am just showing that at salvation the Bible clearly indicates that we are brought into the Body of Christ. Water Baptism is a testimony of indentification with this previous event.
TC
12/24/2006 at 1:14 pm
Tim,
I suppose I just need to move on but I must make one thing perfectly clear, my Brother: I definitively do not argue my beliefs from Confessions. For me, Warfield was correct–”Whatever Scripture Says, God Says.”
Confessions are not prescriptive; rather they fundamentally are descriptive and, consequently, remain very helpful in understanding historically what Baptists have believed.
Given that, I reiterate, Tim, your post cited four Confessions to demonstrate the historicity of your view, implied as being first in Baptist origin (1644), first in Colonial America (1742), first in SBC life (1858) as well as one of the most recent (1925). Unhappily for your position, upon closer reading, the Confessions stated just the opposite from what you still conclude is a Confessional stance. I am puzzled by that, my Brother Tim.
By the way, you strangely continue to cite the 1925 BFM as significant for your view: “Furthermore, the BFM’s that I pointed out call the ordinance the ordinances of Christ.” I thought it odd you would cite 1925 and not the more recent ones. I now see apparently why.
As you state, the 1925 statement does speak of the ordinances as the “ordinances of Christ” as does the 1963 &2000 statements, the latter two only specifying that there are only “two ordinances.” Interestingly, however, both the 1963 & 2000 add this statement: “[Speaking of Baptism] Being a CHURCH ORDINANCE, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper.” (emphasis mine)
Tim, I simply do not understand your reading these documents so selectively, at least from my vantage point, as you appear to be doing.
One final note (promise:) on 1Cor. 12.13: the disagreement we possess is over “Spirit baptism” and “water baptism” the latter of which you state is “a testimony of identification with this previous event.” Where in Scripture is water baptism a testimony of Spirit baptism? My understanding of your argument has been different. You wrote: “Baptism is an identification with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ Jesus, our Lord.” Where in that identification is the Baptism of the Spirit?
1Cor. 12.13 is definitively about Spirit baptism without the least mention of water baptism. I’m with you: I like Scripture alone too. And, I would be interested to know of some NT scholars who would argue water baptism is in view in 1Cor. 12.13.
I trust this Lord’s Day Christmas is a gracious time, Tim. I trust your family and Church will magnificently experience God’s grace today. With that, I am…
Peter
12/24/2006 at 1:40 pm
Peter,
“being an ordinance of the church,” is as you described a later rendering. There has been a change in terminology from some previous confessions… is this not correct?
Romans 6.4 states “…we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead, by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.”
Now I have always been taught that this is precisely why we immerse, because it best pictures what happenend at salvation. I think Romans 6.4 as well as 1 Cor 12.13 describe the work of the Holy Spirit, and so Water Baptism pictures-represents our death, burial and being raised to live a new life. I frequently hear Baptists say, as they raise one out of the water, “raised to a new life” or something of the sort. Did that really occur as they were being raised? NO, but they did recieve new life when the Spirit regenerated them, bapitized them into the body, sealed them, washed them… or whatever other Biblical description of that blessed moment you want to use. And in part, water baptism represents that previous conversion experience.
TC
MERRY CHRISTMAS
12/25/2006 at 5:58 am
Tim,
I believe, my Brother, we’ve squeezed about as much as we are going to out of this one. Before moving along, and since I am a guest here will rightfully concede to you the final word, two small matters.
First, if you will look carefully at the Confessions broadly, and not selectively, you will discover a relatively consistent pattern of usage for the ordinances.
Moreover, Tim, No: The 63 &2k did not change terminology. You assume such because otherwise it bleeds out the life of the point you trying to make.
I asked twice for some credible NT scholars who interpret 1Cor 12.13 as do you, Tim. I think it’s important to know what scholars are saying even if we may disagree. Do you have one in your library on 1Cor. that does so?
May the Lord bless you. With that, I am…
Peter
12/26/2006 at 5:34 am
Pastor Tim,
Your post is well-done. I agree completely that water baptism really does not serve as an initiatory rite.
For example, take the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8. His baptismal experience could hardly be said was initiatory. If he later found a local church, then he did not have to “enter” it by being baptized again. To me, this suggests that water baptism cannot normatively be considered an initiatory rite. What do you think?
Merry Christmas,
Jonathan
PS: Come visit my blog at http://worldoffaith.wordpress.com/, as I have also recently taken up this subject.
12/26/2006 at 2:25 pm
Peter,
Peter look here:
http://www.baptiststandard.com/postnuke/themes/PostNukeBlue/comparison.html
In the 1923 BFM, they are the “ordinances of Christ.” There is no mention of them being “church ordinances.” Yes the terminology did change.
Please explain what I am saying in regards to 1 Cor 12.13 that you object to, I do not understand your point.
TC
12/26/2006 at 5:31 pm
Tim,
I said I was moving on and gave an opportunity to speak the final word; however, since you left me with a new question, I guess I should oblige.
Concerning the BF&M, Tim, I have already compared it. That’s the very reason I brought it up. As you point out, the 1925 Mullins’ committee did employ terminology for the Ordinances as the “ordinances of Christ. It reads:
“A church of Christ is a congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel; observing the ORDINANCES OF CHRIST…” (XXII The Gospel Church, emphasis mine).
But Tim, my concern once again is your selective reading to establish your position. Let me show you.
Both the Hobbs’ committee (1963) and Rogers’ committee (2000) employed different language about the Ordinances from the 1925, but identical language to each other. They respectively read:
”Being a CHURCH ORDINANCE, it [BAPTISM] is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper.” (VII, Baptism and The Lord’s Supper, emphasis mine).
The problem, Tim, is that you simply stop there and prematurely assume you case is estableished.
Notice: while the “ordinances of Christ” is mentioned in “XXII, The Gospel Church” in 1925, Baptism as a “church ordinance” is mentioned under a different article in both the 1963 & 2000 statements. (VII, Baptism & The Lord’s Supper).
If, however, you will look under “VI The Church”, in both 1963 & 2000—the very article that corresponds to “XXII The Gospel Church” in 1925–you will find these words: “A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is a local body of baptized believers who are associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel, observing THE TWO ORDINANCES OF CHRIST,…” (emphasis mine)–the sole difference being quantitative not qualitative.
My fear, Tim, is that your a priori commitment colors your reading of these documents. Indeed using different terms for the same theological phenomenon is not new. Dr. Gill employed precisely the very same measure in his prolific defenses of believer’s baptism by speaking of Baptism as an “ordinance of Christ,” a “church ordinance,” a “gospel-ordinance,” a “command of Christ”, etc.
Thus, if both the Hobbs and Rogers’ committees are questioned in their duplicitous usage of words pertaining to Baptism and The Supper—indeed indicted for “changed” terms, indicative of a theological shift from former Baptist understanding—then consistency demands you also aim your sights toward Gill himself.
As for 1Cor. 12.13, the matter is simple. Does the Apostle have in his radar screen water baptism in this verse? My answer is that he does not. If I am in error, I would really like to know if NT scholarship overturns my answer to that question. If it does, I place my hand over my mouth and repent in double sackcloth and triple ashes.
So, which NT scholars views 1Cor. 12.13 as relating to the ordinance of water baptism? If they do not, were I you, Tim, I would at least question my conclusion about the matter.
Grace today, my Brother. With that, I am…
Peter
12/26/2006 at 6:33 pm
Peter,
First, I do not think that water baptism was on the “radar screen.” I am simply stating that the terminology concerning salvation referred to an entrance into the Body of Christ. Now the important question is when does one become part of the ecclesia. There are those who want to say that water baptim is a rite of initiation into the ekklesia. My point is that water baptim represents what happened at Spirit Baptism/salvation.
Is there any Biblical evidence that water baptism was used as an identification with the ecclesia? The IMB wants to say yes and so do others. This is what started the entire conversation. I say that as long as one has been baptized by immersion as an identification with Chirst’s work on the cross and the Spirit’s work of regeneration in their life, that we should recieve their immersion (as long as it was not seen as regenerative).
The IMB policy connects immersion with identification with SBC doctrine.
Therefore, my argument was that the ordincances are Christ’s and that they belong to the Body, they are ordinances that are to be observed in all ekklesia’s.
I will re-read Gill, where does he use such language synonymously? My initial point was to show that the term “church ordinance” is absent from older confessions. Certainly the terms used are “Christ’s ordinances” and “gospel ordinances” etc… but the term “church ordinance” was not typically used from 1500’s to 1963.
TC
12/26/2006 at 7:19 pm
Peter,
I have gone back through all the confessions. The ordinances are called in various places as:
1. ordinances of the New Testament
2. ordinances appointed by the Lord
3. ordinances of the gospel
4. ordiances of the Lord
5. ordinances of the Lord Jesus
6. ordinances of Christ
But in 1963, we see the addition of the phrase “being a church ordinance.”
TC
12/27/2006 at 3:01 am
Tim,
I simply do not know what else to say. I’ve given what, to me, is clear evidence that your reading is selective. I offer only once more, that, given your last post, your reading remains selective.
You offered six varying phrases you say are in “All the Confessions.” Somehow, however, you failed to list the following phrases spoken pertaining to the ordinances:
“A True Confession” (1596)–”sacraments”–which, again was the model used by the 7 Particular Baptist Churches in London who created the 1644 Confession
“A Short Confession of Faith” (1610)–”holy sacraments”
“English Declaration at Amsterdam” (1611)–”holy ordinances”
“Propositions & Conclusions” (1612)–”sacraments”
“Somerset Confession”(1656)–”duty”
“The Orthodox Creed” (1678)–”sacraments”; ordinance of positive, sovereign & holy institution”; “ordinance of the NT”; “ordinance”
“Philadelphia Confession” (1742)–”ordinance of positive & sovereign institution”; “sacred ordinance”; “ordinance”
Tim, throughout our history, confessions have used various names for the ordinances. Note especially the latter two which employed four different terms for the ordinances.
Given this pattern, it stands totally unreasonable to suggest that because the 1963 & 2000 BF&M employed a second term–”church ordinance”–after it already employed the term “ordinances of Christ” from the 1925 Confession, they somehow were shifting the theological meaning. I plain just do NOT get the connection. And, personally, I don’t think you get too many who reads the evidence to be persuaded of the connection either.
Indeed, what is even more interesting is, The Articles of Faith of the Baptist Bibles Union of America” (1923), a Fundamentalist confession, influenced significantly by Landmark thinking, employs the term, pertaining to the Ordinances, “ordinances of Christ.” Using your reasoning, Tim, I should be calling you “Fundamentalist-Landmark” because you desire to exclusively employ the same terminology as they!
In the end, you are welcome to conclude whatever you desire. But you cannot change history, Tim. And history dmeonstrates conclusively Baptists have employed a host of phrases to identify the two ordinances He wished to perpetuate.
As for Gill, I suggest you pop one of his many sermons on Baptism in your search engine, and see for yourself. He too employed a rich terminology pertaining to the ordinances.
Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
12/27/2006 at 11:05 am
Peter,
Words do have meaning. The first time in 300 years the words, “being an ordinance of the church” appeared in a confession was in the 1963 Confession.
Now you are saying that it does not matter, or that it does not change anything. It obviously has changed the way people look at the ordinances. I have seen that in this entire discussion over Baptism. We are now currently embroiled in a controversy over the use of Baptism to identify with a particual church and its system of belief. If they are “church ordinances” then individuals can stretch the NT use, to cover also the use of Baptism to identify with a church. This is being argued now.
But I argue that it is not a “church ordinance” that it has always been seen as a sacrament, a holy ordinace, a gospel ordinance, a ordinance of Christ… but the first time it was ever called an ordinance of the church = in a confession, was 1963. I am saying that they have been given by Christ to be used by the ekklesia. But the ordinance of Baptism is to identify with Christ. When a church takes the ordinance and uses it in such a way as to exclude or to deny the legitimacy of another in the Body of Christ, in my opinion they are in error. This is why I use 1 Cor 12.13, when we are saved, we are brought into the Body of Christ, not the SBC or any other denomination. When I was baptized, it was a testimony to Christ, not the Church or adherence to whatever nuances of doctrine they may have (of course this excludes baptisms of mormons, and any baptisms that were thought to be regernerative, I am referring to Believer’s Baptism of other individuals).
Now the heart of the issue Peter is do you think that when one is immersed that they are identifying with, pledging their unity with a “system of belief” held by that body? If I am baptized by a FreeWill Baptist, am I identifying with all that they are. In essences when I am baptized, am I baptized a Free Will baptist, or a Southern Baptist, or an Assembly of God, or a Church of God… etc.
TC
12/27/2006 at 11:19 am
Tim,
Tim, my Brother, if you do not see the total emptiness of your point, I know nothing else to say. So, go right on believing it history as you see it, my Brother. You have my express permission.
Indeed, why don’t you bring this up at the next SBC? Do not be surpsried, however, if all you get are blank stares.
No, the heart of the issue is definitively NOT what I think. Sorry. Grace now and forever. With that, I am…
Peter
12/27/2006 at 11:40 am
Peter,
Now you are being disingenuous. No need for that. The heart of the matter = the central point of this issue concerning all that are debating it.
Ignore my previous question if you want…. you have my permission…Not once have you expressed in this line of discussion what your opinion is about the use of baptism by a particular church or denomination to symbolize acceptance of their particular doctrine. Your the historian so answer this: would Particular Baptists accept the immersions of General Baptists or would they demand rebaptisms?
PS Sorry that you are obviously frustrated with me, but the fact remains that you cannot produce a confession with this terminology before 1963. The nature of Confessions are such that they are written with scrutiny over every word.
Words shape later understandings. The 1963 BFM was the first to remove the use of the word “elders.” Now we have many who think the Biblical word “elder” is foreign to “Southern Baptist.” Words do have meaning.
TC
12/27/2006 at 3:36 pm
Tim,
As for my temperment in this discussion, Tim, I will simply leave you to think as you wish. I cannot change that.
But, once again you misread. I definitively am not an historian. Frankly, I’ve only been checking yours. Recall, Tim, you are the one who attempted to summons history to your aid. I simply read what you read but curiously found much more than you admit.
No one argues words do not have meanings, least of all me. Nevertheless, we possess an obligation to carefully avoid reading my our meanings into the words of others, Tim, do you not agree?
And, at least for me, to argue as do you, that Hobbs’ Committee shifted a “300 year’ Baptist tradition because he led the committee to speak of Baptism & The Supper as “church ordinances” in the very same document they were already dubbed as “the two ordinances of Jesus Christ” stands as incredible, my dear Tim.
Not to mention as I’ve shown now in several posts that various terms have been employed pertaining to the ordinances that all refer to the same thing. A phenomenon you simply fail to acknowledge, Tim. By the way, did you consider Gill’s various usages of terms toward the ordinances?
Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
12/27/2006 at 4:30 pm
Peter,
I have looked at Gill, again, and this is what I noted that got me thinking from the begining, Gill said of the LS:
“this is a standing ordinance in the church of Christ.”
Of Baptism he says:
“for though it is not a church ordinance, it is an ordinance of God, and a part and branch of public worship. When I say it is not a church ordinance, I mean it 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 definitly uses many different terms but he remains consistent in teaching that they are not “church ordinances.” They are observed by the church, but they do not “belong” to the church, they belong to Christ and are given to be observed by His people. They symbolize unity with Christ, not dogma or denominations.
Peter, I have tried to anwer your question, will you answer mine? Is it correct for the IMB to requrie candidates to be baptized as a “testimony to the system of belief commonly held by SB?” Is this a proper understanding of one of the purposes of Baptism?
TC
01/01/2007 at 9:05 pm
Tim,
It has been awhile since we last spoke, I hope your Christmas and New Year have both gone well.
I agree with your last post to me that our conversations are getting long and hard to follow. It appears that the bulk of our disagreement on baptism may stem from our understanding of the church. Would you like to shift our conversation to this?
John
12/20/2007 at 1:26 am
I would like to see a continuation of the topic