Archive for the ‘Baptism’ Category

Should Baptism by Immersion be Required for Church Membership. The Piper/Grudem Debate (Part 3)

Posted: January 9, 2012 in Baptism
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
0

Sam Storms disagrees with Dever on the Lord’s Supper

Because of this, both Mark Dever and Al Mohler made it clear that if Duncan were in attendance at either of their churches they would not permit him to partake of the elements of the Lord’s Supper.

Let me repeat that. Because of Duncan’s paedo-baptist convictions, both Dever and Mohler would prohibit his participation in the Eucharist. They would deny to him partnership in the table of our Lord. They would withhold the bread and the cup from him because of his disagreement with them on who are the proper recipients of Christian baptism.

As best I can tell (and I’m open to correction on this point), since Jesus clearly commanded (believer’s) baptism, a paedo-baptist (says Dever in his recent blog post) is guilty of “disobedience” and “unrepentant sin” (however unintentional it may be) and is thus disqualified from participating in the Lord’s Table.

Duncan believes that when an adult comes to faith in Christ he/she should be baptized in water (he prefers by effusion, but would acknowledge the validity of immersion). But he also believes that the infants of Christian parents should be brought to the baptismal font. I disagree with him on this latter point, but I’m disturbed that anyone would deny him access to the Lord’s Table on such grounds.

I have tremendous respect for both Mark Dever (whom I count as a good, personal friend) and Al Mohler (although I don’t know Dr. Mohler personally). Truly I do. They are both an incalculable blessing to the body of Christ. I also agree with them concerning the proper subjects of Christian baptism. But I find it remarkable that they would turn away Ligon Duncan from that ordinance of the church that above all else signifies and expresses the unity of the brethren in the body of Christ.

This may be offensive to some, but the claim to be “Together for the Gospel” rings a bit hollow to me when some would decline to fellowship with others around the Lord’s Table because of their disagreement on the proper recipients of baptism.

Let’s be sure we understand what the Eucharist is designed to communicate. Aside from differences of opinion concerning the nature of Christ’s “presence” (whether physical, spiritual, or merely symbolic), there can be no mistake that this ordinance signifies, embodies, and expresses the foundational essence of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Before us are the elements of bread and wine that unmistakably represent the body and blood of Jesus Christ given on behalf of sinners like Ligon Duncan, John Piper, Al Mohler, Mark Dever, and myself.

Jesus himself made it clear that the cup represented or pointed to or in some sense embodied “the forgiveness of sins” that would come from the saving efficacy of his atoning death (Matthew 26:28). In 1 Corinthians 11:26 Paul echoed this truth by telling us that every time we celebrate the Lord’s Table we “proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” In other words, the Eucharist is a dramatic, visible, vocal enactment of the gospel itself. It stirs our hearts to meditate on Christ’s redemptive work and is designed to stimulate the mind to reflect on the significance of all that he achieved on behalf of those for whom he died.

My question, then, is this: How can we claim to be “together” or “united” for the sake of the gospel and turn away a brother or sister from the very expression and proclamation of that gospel that is so central to the life and testimony of the church? What does this prohibition say to the world around us? What must they think of our professed “togetherness” or “unity” when the elements of the Eucharist would be withheld from a brother such as Ligon Duncan?

In effect, this is the message that is sent: “Ligon, we agree with you on the nature of the gospel. We agree with you that we must faithfully proclaim and preach the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and salvation by grace alone through faith alone in what he has accomplished on Calvary. But you cannot share with us the table of the Lord or the elements that represent and proclaim that gospel.”

I’m sorry, but that doesn’t sound to me like “together” or “united” or any such thing for the sake of the gospel. It sounds rather like a narrow sectarianism that fails to consider the unity of the one body as represented by the one bread (1 Corinthians 10:17). It sounds like the colossal loss of an excellent opportunity to deepen and strengthen Christian fellowship and bear witness to a lost and dying world both of the gospel itself and our unity that is grounded in it.

For some brethren to look at Ligon Duncan (or others in his camp) and say, “We believe the same gospel, we preach the same gospel, but we refuse to express that belief and proclaim that gospel with you by means of the ordinance that Jesus commissioned as an expression of our unity and our confident hope in its capacity to save,” calls into serious question the significance of the word “together”.

I hope none will conclude from this that I think the conference was a failure or was not beneficial to those in attendance. As I said, I plan on attending again in 2008. I hope none will think that Al Mohler and Mark Dever do not love their Christian brother, Ligon Duncan. Indeed, they would no doubt contend that it is precisely because of their love for him (among other reasons) that they feel compelled to hold firmly to their position. True love is never served by compromising the truth. There is no greater expression of love for another than the willingness to make painful and unpopular decisions for the sake of bringing an errant brother into the light.

One more thing should be noted. In his recent post, Dever indicated that he planned on having an Anglican and a Presbyterian preach from his pulpit in the near future. In the comment section of his blog, one person said: “The implication . . . is that there are people whom you are happy to have in your pulpit but not at the Lord’s Table. That seems a little odd.” Yes, it does.

In a similar vein, another comment asked: “why would you let someone in unrepentant sin be teaching the flock at Capitol Hill?”

Finally, more directly to the point of this article, the question was asked: “If your Anglican . . . friend were preaching in your pulpit on a Sunday where the Lord’s Table was observed, would you exclude him from participating?” The answer, clearly, is that Dever would indeed exclude him from participating.

In fact, let’s suppose, just for the sake of argument, that the Lord’s Table is celebrated every Sunday at Capitol Hill Baptist Church (although I don’t think it is). This would mean that Dever’s Anglican or Presbyterian friend might conceivably preach a profoundly biblical message on the gospel of the dying and rising Christ and salvation through him alone, only to be told (if not in words then surely by the actions then taken) that he must sit to the side and refrain from receiving the elements that symbolize and embody the very dying and rising Christ whom he only moments before so faithfully and biblically proclaimed.

In this not unlikely scenario, the visiting paedo-baptist might even reinforce the truth of the gospel message by pointing to the elements on the table before him, articulating with passion and humility how the sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood, here symbolized by the bread and wine, have secured for all Christians forgiveness of sins and eternal life. He would then, I suppose, be led away from the elements and told that although he is no less trusting in what they represent than are his credo-baptist brothers and sisters, he cannot partake with them in the supper.

Does anyone see anything askew in this picture? I’d love to hear your comments.

Sam

Should Baptism by Immersion be Required for Church Membership. The Piper/Grudem Debate (Part 3)

Posted: January 9, 2012 in Baptism
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
7

Sam Storms disagrees with Dever on the Lord’s Supper

Because of this, both Mark Dever and Al Mohler made it clear that if Duncan were in attendance at either of their churches they would not permit him to partake of the elements of the Lord’s Supper.

Let me repeat that. Because of Duncan’s paedo-baptist convictions, both Dever and Mohler would prohibit his participation in the Eucharist. They would deny to him partnership in the table of our Lord. They would withhold the bread and the cup from him because of his disagreement with them on who are the proper recipients of Christian baptism.

As best I can tell (and I’m open to correction on this point), since Jesus clearly commanded (believer’s) baptism, a paedo-baptist (says Dever in his recent blog post) is guilty of “disobedience” and “unrepentant sin” (however unintentional it may be) and is thus disqualified from participating in the Lord’s Table.

Duncan believes that when an adult comes to faith in Christ he/she should be baptized in water (he prefers by effusion, but would acknowledge the validity of immersion). But he also believes that the infants of Christian parents should be brought to the baptismal font. I disagree with him on this latter point, but I’m disturbed that anyone would deny him access to the Lord’s Table on such grounds.

I have tremendous respect for both Mark Dever (whom I count as a good, personal friend) and Al Mohler (although I don’t know Dr. Mohler personally). Truly I do. They are both an incalculable blessing to the body of Christ. I also agree with them concerning the proper subjects of Christian baptism. But I find it remarkable that they would turn away Ligon Duncan from that ordinance of the church that above all else signifies and expresses the unity of the brethren in the body of Christ.

This may be offensive to some, but the claim to be “Together for the Gospel” rings a bit hollow to me when some would decline to fellowship with others around the Lord’s Table because of their disagreement on the proper recipients of baptism.

Let’s be sure we understand what the Eucharist is designed to communicate. Aside from differences of opinion concerning the nature of Christ’s “presence” (whether physical, spiritual, or merely symbolic), there can be no mistake that this ordinance signifies, embodies, and expresses the foundational essence of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Before us are the elements of bread and wine that unmistakably represent the body and blood of Jesus Christ given on behalf of sinners like Ligon Duncan, John Piper, Al Mohler, Mark Dever, and myself.

Jesus himself made it clear that the cup represented or pointed to or in some sense embodied “the forgiveness of sins” that would come from the saving efficacy of his atoning death (Matthew 26:28). In 1 Corinthians 11:26 Paul echoed this truth by telling us that every time we celebrate the Lord’s Table we “proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” In other words, the Eucharist is a dramatic, visible, vocal enactment of the gospel itself. It stirs our hearts to meditate on Christ’s redemptive work and is designed to stimulate the mind to reflect on the significance of all that he achieved on behalf of those for whom he died.

My question, then, is this: How can we claim to be “together” or “united” for the sake of the gospel and turn away a brother or sister from the very expression and proclamation of that gospel that is so central to the life and testimony of the church? What does this prohibition say to the world around us? What must they think of our professed “togetherness” or “unity” when the elements of the Eucharist would be withheld from a brother such as Ligon Duncan?

In effect, this is the message that is sent: “Ligon, we agree with you on the nature of the gospel. We agree with you that we must faithfully proclaim and preach the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and salvation by grace alone through faith alone in what he has accomplished on Calvary. But you cannot share with us the table of the Lord or the elements that represent and proclaim that gospel.”

I’m sorry, but that doesn’t sound to me like “together” or “united” or any such thing for the sake of the gospel. It sounds rather like a narrow sectarianism that fails to consider the unity of the one body as represented by the one bread (1 Corinthians 10:17). It sounds like the colossal loss of an excellent opportunity to deepen and strengthen Christian fellowship and bear witness to a lost and dying world both of the gospel itself and our unity that is grounded in it.

For some brethren to look at Ligon Duncan (or others in his camp) and say, “We believe the same gospel, we preach the same gospel, but we refuse to express that belief and proclaim that gospel with you by means of the ordinance that Jesus commissioned as an expression of our unity and our confident hope in its capacity to save,” calls into serious question the significance of the word “together”.

I hope none will conclude from this that I think the conference was a failure or was not beneficial to those in attendance. As I said, I plan on attending again in 2008. I hope none will think that Al Mohler and Mark Dever do not love their Christian brother, Ligon Duncan. Indeed, they would no doubt contend that it is precisely because of their love for him (among other reasons) that they feel compelled to hold firmly to their position. True love is never served by compromising the truth. There is no greater expression of love for another than the willingness to make painful and unpopular decisions for the sake of bringing an errant brother into the light.

One more thing should be noted. In his recent post, Dever indicated that he planned on having an Anglican and a Presbyterian preach from his pulpit in the near future. In the comment section of his blog, one person said: “The implication . . . is that there are people whom you are happy to have in your pulpit but not at the Lord’s Table. That seems a little odd.” Yes, it does.

In a similar vein, another comment asked: “why would you let someone in unrepentant sin be teaching the flock at Capitol Hill?”

Finally, more directly to the point of this article, the question was asked: “If your Anglican . . . friend were preaching in your pulpit on a Sunday where the Lord’s Table was observed, would you exclude him from participating?” The answer, clearly, is that Dever would indeed exclude him from participating.

In fact, let’s suppose, just for the sake of argument, that the Lord’s Table is celebrated every Sunday at Capitol Hill Baptist Church (although I don’t think it is). This would mean that Dever’s Anglican or Presbyterian friend might conceivably preach a profoundly biblical message on the gospel of the dying and rising Christ and salvation through him alone, only to be told (if not in words then surely by the actions then taken) that he must sit to the side and refrain from receiving the elements that symbolize and embody the very dying and rising Christ whom he only moments before so faithfully and biblically proclaimed.

In this not unlikely scenario, the visiting paedo-baptist might even reinforce the truth of the gospel message by pointing to the elements on the table before him, articulating with passion and humility how the sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood, here symbolized by the bread and wine, have secured for all Christians forgiveness of sins and eternal life. He would then, I suppose, be led away from the elements and told that although he is no less trusting in what they represent than are his credo-baptist brothers and sisters, he cannot partake with them in the supper.

Does anyone see anything askew in this picture? I’d love to hear your comments.

Sam

Should Baptism be Required for Church Membership? The Piper/Grudem Debate (Part 2)

Posted: January 4, 2012 in Baptism
Tags: , , , , , , ,
6

As you read these theological heavyweights, answer these important church polity questions for yourself: Should our church allow unbaptized candidates be church members? Should our church allow unbaptized by immersion quests to participate in the Lord’s Supper?

Here is Piper’s Response to Grudem changed position:

No, Wayne, this is not true. I would gladly admit Ligon Duncan or Sinclair Ferguson or R. C. Sproul or Philip Ryken to membership at Bethlehem (if I were allowed by our constitution), and in doing so I would not be giving up my view on the proper nature of baptism.

I would say to them: “Brothers, I think you are not baptized. But you believe on biblical grounds as you see them, with as much humility and openness to truth as God has given you, that you are baptized. Your understanding of baptism does not imply that Christ’s command may be neglected or that infant sprinkling is regenerating. You give good evidence of being born again and that you embrace Christ as your Savior and Lord and Treasure, and you manifest an authentic intention, on the basis of that faith, to follow Jesus as Lord and obey his teachings. Therefore, since there is good evidence that you are members of the Body of Christ, you may be members of this local expression of that body. But understand this: I will spend the rest of my ministry trying to persuade you that you and your children should follow through on the full obedience to Jesus and be baptized. In admitting you, I do not give up on my view of baptism. That is the whole point. We are finding a way to work on this disagreement from inside the body of Christ in its local expression.”

Piper formerly held to the immersion requirement for membership in a sermon May 25, 1997:

One might then ask: should you not then admit to membership those who are truly born again but who were sprinkled as believers? There are two ways to account for why we do not.

1) Should we call a manmade method of baptism “baptism,” if we believe on good evidence that it departs from the form that Christ inaugurated? Would this not run the risk of minimizing the significance that Christ himself invested in the ordinance?

2) Local Christian communities, called churches, are built around shared Biblical convictions, some of which are essential for salvation and some of which are not. We do not define our covenant life together only by the narrowest possible set of beliefs one must have to be saved. We believe rather that the importance of truth and the authority of Scripture are better honored when communities of Christian faith define themselves by clusters of Biblical convictions and stand by them, rather than redefining the meaning of membership each time one of their convictions is disputed. When different Christian communities can do this while expressing love and brotherly affection for other believers, both truth and love are well-served. For example, the fact that many of the speakers we invite to the Bethlehem Conference for Pastors could not be members of this church says that we take love and unity seriously and we take truth seriously.

Which non-essentials will be included from generation to generation in defining various communities depends largely on varying circumstances and varying assessments of what truths need to be emphasized.

Mark Dever jumped into the fray saying not only would he not allow Ligon Duncan to be a member of his church because he was not baptized as a believer, he would not allow him to participate in the Lord’s Supper.

Sam Storms has stated: “Let me repeat that. Because of Duncan’s paedo-baptist convictions, both Dever and Mohler would prohibit his participation in the Eucharist.”

Ligon Duncan, on the other hand, is a Presbyterian paedo-baptist. Because of this, both Mark Dever and Al Mohler made it clear that if Duncan were in attendance at either of their churches they would not permit him to partake of the elements of the Lord’s Supper.

Dever has now posted briefly about his views:

Baptism SHOULD be required for church membership:

Because Jesus clearly commanded baptism and to disobey this command is sin [whether intentional or not]. To continue in such an unbaptized state is unrepentant sin [whether intentional or not]. Thus, no careful paedo-baptist will follow John P’s apparent “generosity” about membership. That is, they will never knowingly admit someone to the Lord’s Table that they understand to be unbaptized (even if they took that evangelical Quaker or believing Salvationist to be their brother or sister in Christ). John P wants us to admit to the Lord’s Table those that he and we all agree are not baptized. John has no doubt that infant baptism is not baptism. He is solid on that point. But I think that actually leaves his position unusually open to other difficulties–knowingly admitting the unbaptized to regular communion. I simply don’t want to take the responsibility to so disregard Jesus’ commands (not that John P intends to in anyway disregard Jesus’ commands). I especially don’t want to do this in what has been an area of relatively unanimous Christian agreement from Jesus til now. Baptism precedes the Lord’s Table.


The Baptism of Jesus (Matthew 3) Part Two

Posted: January 4, 2012 in Baptism, Christ, LIfe of Christ
Tags: , , , , ,
1

I was baptized twice before I was saved. Once after VBS. The second time I was baptized, it was after some of us young people made false professions of faith in a church service. Finally, when I was genuinely saved at age 18, I then followed the Lord in believer’s baptism. The first two were duds, blanks, and empty of meaning. The last was an act of obedience that God blessed.

The importance of baptism is seen in the prerequisite for baptism and the person who was baptized.

I. The Prerequisite for Baptism (Matthew 3:1-12)

A. Only the repentant could be baptized.

John preached repentance. Repentance means to change your mind which results in turning from sin. We must change our mind about ourselves (we are sinners) and Christ.

John’s baptism caused a stir as seen in 3:4-6. Even though John was called the Baptist, he was not your typical Baptist preacher. He did not preach in a three-piece suit. He wore a camel hair mini shirt with a leather girdle. This is not what drew a crowd. I doubt if John’s hairy legs were provocative. He immersed Jews. In the OT only Gentile proselytes were immersed because they were considered unclean. A Gentile would make a profession of faith. Males would be circumcised. Then the gentile who was considered unclean would cleanse himself by immersing himself with a spiritual bath. John preached to the Jews, “It is not just gentiles who are spiritually unclean so are you.”

B. The unrepentant will be judged (3:7-12)

John refused to baptize the religionists who did not think they needed repentance (3:7-10).

There are two future baptisms that involve no water in 3:11-12. For future believers there is the baptism of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. Today the baptism of the Spirit takes place at conversion (1 Corinthians 12:13). For the unsaved who do not repent there is a baptism of fire in the future judgment when the unsaved will be immerse in fire for eternity.

II. The Person who was Baptized (3:13-17)

All four Gospel writers mention Jesus’ baptism and together give us the complete picture of the importance of His baptism.

1) Mark informs us that Jesus came from Nazareth to Jordan river. Jesus travelled three days to be baptized (Mark 1:9).

2) Luke adds that Jesus publically was baptized (Luke 3:21).

3) John says that the Baptist knew he was baptizing the Son on God (John 1:28) and that knowledge was probably part of the reason he was hesitant to baptize Him.

4) Matthew gives the reason why Jesus was baptized.

A. Why was Jesus baptized?

Not because He was sinful. As has been said, John had refused to baptize the Pharisees because they were unworthy and now he refuses to baptize Jesus because He is too worthy (3:14). Before John baptized Jesus, John declared, “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” (John 1:29). How could baptize Jesus with the baptism of repentance who would take away sin?

Jesus was baptized because it was right to be baptized. Just as the Jews needed to identify with John’s Kingdom message so did Jesus as their Messianic King. Jesus set an example of obedience. This was Jesus’ first public act. Unlike the imputed righteousness in Paul’s epistles, righteousness in Matthew refers to practical righteousness as in Matthew 1:19 when Joseph thought he must do what was right in divorcing his out of wedlock pregnant bride to be.

It is right for believers to be baptized. In Matthew 28:19-20, Jesus commanded the church to baptize. The early church followed Christ’s example and obeyed Christ’s command. F. F. Bruce says there are no unbaptized believers in the book of Acts. Neither should there be unbaptized believers in our churches.

B. How was Jesus baptized?

Practically baptism means to immerse, submerge or dip as in Luke 16:24. John was called the Baptist because introduced a new method. In Matthew 3:6, the text says that the Jews “were baptized of him in the Jordon” not “beside” the Jordon nor “with” the Jordon as in pouring or sprinkling but “in” as in immersing. “In the OT they washed only for religious significance. John immersed.

Doctrinally baptism means to identify. Jesus used the word “baptize” only two more times and both referred to His death on the cross (Luke 12:50; Mark 10:38).

Our baptism pictures our identification with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection according to Romans 6:1-4. Only immersion properly portrays the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.

Our baptism also identifies us with a local church according to Acts 2:41-42. When we get saved and baptized we are publically committing ourselves to be disciples of Christ. The command of the great commission in Matthew 28:19-20 is to make disciples. We are not just getting all wet in water we are getting immersed into the life of the church. On the day of Pentecost the believers were baptized and joined the church and sat under the apostles teaching (Acts 2:40-41). Church membership is part of discipleship. It is our public commitment to discipleship.

C. What were the Results of Jesus’ Baptism?

Jesus was empowered by the Holy Spirit in 3:16. As Jesus was coming up out of the water in obedience at that precise moment the Holy Spirit was coming down to empower Him for His public ministry. Some call this a theocratic anointing just as David received in order to be Israel’s king (1 Samuel 16).

In Matthew 12:28, Jesus said He cast out demons by the power of the Holy Spirit. In Luke 4:18, Jesus said, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel.” Obedience in our lives will also unleash God’s power.

Jesus was also approved by the Father in 3: 17. At the same time the Holy Spirit came down from Heaven God the Father spoke approvingly from Heaven. Our obedience pleases God. There is no higher nor important accomplishment in our lives. With God’s help we can bring Him pleasure: “For it is God who works in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure” (Philippians 2:13).

The Trinity showed up at Jesus’ baptism at the beginning of Jesus’s public ministry. Jesus also included the Trinity at the end of His public when He commanded His disciples to make disciples by winning sinners to Christ and baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. Baptism sounds important!

Should Baptism by Immersion be Required for Church Membership? The Piper/Grudem Debate (Part 1)

Posted: January 3, 2012 in Baptism
Tags: , , , , , ,
7

If you had a couple come to your church who wanted to join, and they had only been baptized as infants, would you allow them to unite with your church fellowship? A few years ago this very issue sparked a debate between several heavy weight theologians: John Piper, Wayne Grudem, Mark Dever and Albert Mohler.

John Piper argues that believers who have not been baptized by immersion, such as pedobaptism, should be allowed to join a Baptist church. Wayne Grudem disagrees. He has written that baptism by immersion or credobaptism should be requisite for church membership.

Matt Slick at CARM.ORG defines credobaptism as the practice of baptizing only those who are able to make a profession of faith. The credo comes from the Latin for “creed.”

What is ironic in this debate is that both theologians formerly held to the opposite view. Grudem’s former belief is found in his first edition of Systematic Theology first published in 1994.

Wayne Grudem urged both pedobaptists and credobaptists “to come to a common admission that baptism is not a major doctrine of the faith, and that they are willing to live with each other’s views on this matter and not allow differences over baptism to be a cause for division within the body of Christ.” Grudem used the example of the Evangelical Free Church in America (EFCA), which does not endorse one view over the other.

In a footnote, Grudem added, “Baptists and paedobaptists use very similar procedures as they seek to have a church membership consisting of believers only, and both love and teach and pray for their children as most precious members of the larger church family who they hope will someday become true members of the body of Christ.”

When Wayne Grudem changed his position on this in his 2004 edition of Systematic Theology and stated only immersed believers should be granted church membership.

Here is Wayne Grudem’s revised statement found on pages 982-983:

Do Churches Need to Be Divided Over Baptism? In spite of many years of division over this question among Protestants, is there a way in which Christians who differ on baptism can demonstrate greater unity of fellowship? And is there a way that progress can be made in bringing the church closer to unity on this question?

Much progress in this regard has already been made. Christians who differ over baptism already demonstrate their unity in Christ through individual fellowship, Bible studies and prayer groups in their communities, occasional joint worship services, cooperation in city and regional evangelistic campaigns, joint support of many mission agencies and other parachurch groups, joint sponsorship of youth activities, pastors’ fellowship groups, and so forth. Although baptism remains a difference, that difference does not generally lead to harmful divisions. In fact, most Christians seem to realize that baptism is not a major doctrine of the faith.

A very few denominations have decided that they would allow both views of baptism to be taught and practiced within their denominations. The Evangelical Free Church of America (EFCA) does this, for example, as a result of a “compromise” reached in 1950 when the denomination was formed from two different groups that had different views on baptism. The EFCA allows ordination for pastors who hold to believer’s baptism and for pastors who hold to infant baptism. And they allow into membership those who had been baptized as infants in a Christian church, without requiring them to be baptized as believers before joining the church. If some parents want to have their infant child baptized and the local pastor does not hold to infant baptism, the local church invites some other Evangelical Free Church pastor who holds to infant baptism to come and baptize the infant.

Although the Evangelical Free Church continues as a strong, healthy denomination today, there still remain some difficulties inherent in this position. One is that there can be a tendency to minimize the importance of baptism: since members disagree on this topic, it is easier not to talk about it much or emphasize its importance.

But the most serious difficulty arises when people begin to think about what such a “compromise position” implies about the views of baptism held by the people who go along with this compromise. For people who hold to infant baptism, they have to be able to say that it is acceptable for believing parents not to baptize their infant children. But according to a paedobaptist view, this seems close to saying that it is acceptable for these parents to disobey a command of Scripture regarding the responsibility of parents to baptize their children. How can they really say this?

On the other side, those who hold to believer’s baptism (as I do) would have to be willing to admit into church membership people who have been baptized as infants, and who did not make a personal profession of faith at the time they were baptized. But from a believer’s baptism position, genuine baptism has to follow a personal profession of faith. So how can believer’s baptism advocates in good conscience say that infant baptism is also a valid form of baptism? That contradicts what they believe about the essential nature of baptism – that it is an outward sign of an inward spiritual change, so that the apostle Paul could say, “As many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27).

For someone who holds to believer’s baptism, admitting to church membership someone who has not been baptized upon profession of faith, and telling the person that he or she never has to be baptized as a believer, is really giving up one’s view on the proper nature of baptism. It is saying that infant baptism really is valid baptism! But then how could anyone who holds to this position tell anyone who had been baptized as an infant that he or she still needed to be baptized as a believer? This difficulty makes me think that some kind of “compromise” position on baptism is not very likely to be adopted by denominational groups in the future.

However, we should still be thankful that believers who differ on the issue of baptism can have wonderful fellowship with one another across denominational lines, and can have respect for each other’s sincerely held views.

Notes

1. I realize that some readers will object to this sentence and will say that baptism is very important because of what the differing positions represent: differing views of the nature of the church. Many Baptists would argue that practicing infant baptism is inherently inconsistent with the idea of a church made up of believers only, and many paedobaptists would argue that not practicing infant baptism is inherently inconsistent with the idea of a covenant community which includes the children of believers.

I would encourage those who reason this way to consider how much they hold in common with evangelical believers on the other side of this issue — not necessarily with those far from them on other matters as well, but especially with those on the other side who agree with them on most other aspects of the Christian life. Many Baptists do encourage and demonstrate a valued place for their children within their churches, and many paedobaptists do pray for the salvation of their baptized children with the same fervency with which Baptist parents pray for the salvation of their unbaptized children. Regarding church membership, evangelical paedobaptists do require a believable profession of faith before children can become full members of the church (their term is “communicant members”; that is, those who take Communion). They also require a believable profession of faith before any adults are allowed to join the church.

When these procedures are functioning well, both Baptists and paedobaptists use very similar procedures as they seek to have a church membership consisting of believers only, and both love and teach and pray for their children as most precious members of the larger church family who they hope will someday become true members of the body of Christ.

2. I did not realize this difficulty when I first published this book in 1994. I have revised this entire section for the 2007 printing.

John Piper took Grudem to task over his changed postion on baptism by immersion as a requirement for church membership which formerly was Piper’s position at Bethlehem Baptist Church. In my next post I will give Piper’s rebuttal.


Baptism of Christ (Matthew 3) Part One

Posted: January 3, 2012 in Baptism, Christ, LIfe of Christ
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
0

Pastor Kyle Lake was electrocuted while baptizing a new member. Pastor Lake at University Baptist Church in Waco, Texas on October 30, 2005, grabbed the microphone while standing in the baptistery and was electrocuted. Doctors who were in the service tried unsuccessfully to revive Pastor Lake with chest compressions for 40 minutes. The woman, Lake was baptizing was not hurt. Pastor Kyle Lake leaves a wife and three children.

Most of us do not think of baptisms being life threatening. But baptisms can be more dangerous spiritually than physically if not properly viewed. There has been and still is much confusion about baptism. A proper understanding of Jesus’ baptism, however, will clear up the confusion. Such churches teach

1. Infant baptism. When churches make pedobaptism necessary for salvation they mix works with grace which is contrary to the doctrine of Justification by grace alone (Romans 3:28). Jesus was not baptized as an infant.

2. Baptismal regeneration. Entire denominations teach that baptism is necessary for salvation. Then you have some in Baptist churches who practically believe in baptismal regeneration. They are credobaptist only in theory. You ask them if they are saved and they proceed to tell you when they got baptized as if baptism washed away their sins. Obviously, Jesus was not baptized to be regenerated.

3. The mode of baptism is not important. Jesus was baptized by immersion as well those  baptized by the early church. Jesus was not sprinkled nor poured. A few years back there was a debate between Wayne Gurdem and John Piper over the requirement of baptism by immersion for church membership. Piper took Grudem to task for saying baptism by immersion should be a requirement. I agree with Grudem.

4. Baptism is not important just as long as you are saved. You have ultradispensationalist of the Grace Movement, such as Charles Baker, who even say that baptism is not an ordinance for today. Then why was Jesus baptized? Why did Jesus baptize more converts than His disciples? Why did Jesus commission the church to make disciples by baptizing converts in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? I know that moderate ultradispensationalists like Baker reject water baptism because it is a ritual. But they don’t reject the Lord’s Supper which is just as much a ritual.

Matthew, in his account of Jesus’ baptism, jumped 30 years of Jesus’ life to what he considered the next important event in Jesus’ life after His virgin birth. Matthew skips the “hidden years” of Jesus’ life in Nazareth.  Matthew did not mention Jesus’ circumcision when Jesus was eight days old nor Jesus’ trip to Jerusalem when he was 12 years old. Matthew like all the Gospel writers (Mark, Luke, and John) writes about His baptism. After the virgin birth of Christ, Matthew highlights Jesus’ baptism.

Part of the confusion about baptism maybe the fact that there are different baptisms in Scripture. There are four different baptisms in story of Jesus’ baptism.

The first is the baptism of John (Matt 3:6). Matthew is the Kingdom Gospel and John’s baptism was a kingdom baptism. The recipients of John’s baptism were identifying with his kingdom message concerning Christ’s offer of the kingdom to Israel. Believer’s baptism today is not the same as John’s baptism of repentance for the nation of Israel. Because John’s baptism was an OT baptism, Paul required the believers at Ephesus who had been baptized by John to be re-baptized in the name of Jesus (Acts 19:1-7).

John mentions two future baptisms that involve no water. The first was a baptism of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:11) which was fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost. This Spirit baptism happens today at the moment of conversion and identifies the new convert with the Body of Christ or the universal church (1 Corinthians 12:13). The next future baptism was the baptism of fire (Matt 3:11) which is a baptism of judgment for the unsaved. Obviously there is no water in this baptism or immersion in the Lake of Fire. Last, there is the baptism of Jesus (Matt 3:13) which is in a category of its own. While Jesus identified with John’s kingdom message, He did not need to repent. This was the reason John refused to baptize Jesus.

The importance of baptism is seen in the baptism of Jesus for the these two reasons which we will discuss in the following posts:

 I. The Prerequisite for Baptism (Matthew 3:1-6)

II. The Person who was Baptized (Matthew 3:7-17)

Back to The Basics Sermon Series: Believer’s Baptism is Necessary for Spiritual Growth

Posted: October 14, 2010 in Baptism, Sermons
Tags:
15

The reason for including Believer’s Baptism in our Back to the Basic Series is because when someone was saved in the New Testament, many times that person was immediately baptized by immersion.

There are several examples of new converts taking this first step of obedience and being baptized.

1. The first believers who made up the first church in the New Testament were baptized immediately after their conversion and joined the first church in Acts 2:41.

Peter preached “Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” in 2:38. Baptism identifies a new convert with Christ. Baptism is a public identification to Christ and His church. One cannot be properly identified to Christ and not identified with His church.

The wedding ring is the outward symbol of our marriage. Can you be married without a wedding ring? Of course, but I am glad my wife wears her wedding rings to let everyone know she has identified with me.

2. The next example of new converts being baptized is in Acts 8:12.

The Samaritans first believed and then were baptized. That is always the order. That order is never reversed as in infant baptism. Infants cannot believe in Christ.

3. Another example is in Acts 8:26-40 where Philip leads the Ethiopian bachelor to the Lord. Once Philip was certain that the Ethiopian had believed, he baptized him.

4. Saul of Tarsus was converted and baptized three days later in Acts 9:9, 18.

In Acts 22:16, Ananias said to Paul, “And now why do you tarry? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Paul had already called on the name of the Lord three days earlier and so now he was to be baptized which symbolized his sins were washed away. So baptism not only speaks of identification but also purification. Only those whose sins have been washed away can be baptized. Titus used similar language. Titus said a person is saved “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5). Baptism pictures that washing.

Why Should Believers be Baptized?

1. Because Christ was baptized (Mt. 3:15-17).

This was Christ’s first public act and Peter taught that believers should follow the example of Christ (1 Pet. 2:21). This was the righteous thing to do (Mt. 3:15). I know a pastor who was discussing the need of baptism with a believer who responded, “Well D. L. Moody was not baptized.” The pastor replied, “Well Jesus was!”

2. Because Christ commanded the Church to baptize (Mt. 28:19-20; 1 John 2:3).

Baptism is not optional, just as discipleship is not optional. Baptism is not just getting the believer all wet. Baptism is immersing the believer into the life of the church in learning, growing and serving.

Part of the discipleship process is baptism according to the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20. Baptism is a public commitment to discipleship. Most of you have already been baptized so thinking about baptism can be like attending a wedding where you hear again the vows you made to your mate and in your heart you renew those vows.

Some people today are saying, “I love Jesus but not the church.” You cannot love Jesus and not love what He loves. “Husbands, love your wives even as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it” (Ephesians 5:25).

Some people think they cannot be committed to the church because it is not perfect. They say there are hypocrites in the church. If Jesus had one hypocrite, Judas, among His twelve apostles why should we be surprise if we have some hypocrites in the church?

Is your mate perfect? That is like saying, “I was committed to my mate when we got married but since then I found out that she is not perfect. I mean when we wake up in the morning she has bad breathe.” Do you not have bad breathe in the mornings? I feel like saying to the people who always bring up hypocrites, “Come on in and join us, we have room for one more.”

Baptism pictures our commitment to discipleship which happens in and through the church.

3.  Because the early Church practiced baptism (Acts 2:38-41; 8:12; 36, 38; 9:18; 10:47; 16:33).

F. F. Bruce said “The idea of an unbaptized Christian is simply not entertained in the N.T. (F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, p. 77).” Baptism is not necessary for salvation because salvation is by grace through faith in Christ. But salvation is soon evidenced in water baptism. Look at the order in the last two examples. In Acts 10:44-48, the people “heard the word” then they “received the Holy Spirit” that is, they were converted, and then they were “baptized.” In Acts 16:25, the Philippian jailor “heard” Paul and Silas, then he believed (16:31) and having believed, he and all his family who believed were baptized (16:33-34).

Why Should Believers be Immersed?

1. The first reason to baptize by immersion is the meaning of the word.

The word “baptize” means to immerse. Lexicons define the Greek word baptizo to mean to dip, immerge, submerge (Joseph H. Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 94).

Secular writers used the Greek word to describe a sinking ship (H. G. Liddell and Robert Scott, eds., A Greek-English Lexicon, pp. 305-6). This is how the word is used in Scripture (Lk.16:24). There is a word for sprinkling in Scripture: rantidzo (1 Pet.1:2). There is also a word of pouring in Scripture: ekcheo (Acts 2:17). But neither of these words is used for baptism.

“Consider also the testimonies of three non-Baptist who led the Protestant Reformation. John Calvin, founder of Presbyterianism, declared, ‘The word baptize itself signifies immerse, and it is certain that the rite of immersion was observed by the ancient church.’ In commenting on Romans 6:3-5, John Wesley, founder of Methodism, said, ‘Buried with Him, alluding to the ancient manner of baptism by immersion.’ In speaking of the meaning of baptism, Martin Luther, founder of Lutheranism, said, ‘They ought to be entirely immersed, and immediately drawn out. For this the etymology of the name seems to demand.’ I have always appreciated Luther’s practical theology when he advised the pastor to immediately draw out the person being immersed.

2. Another reason for baptism by immersion is the examples in Scripture.

John in Mt. 3:6 was baptizing “in” the Jordan River, not “beside” or “by” or “near” or “with.” Berkhof objected: “Was John the Baptist capable of the enormous task of immersing the multitudes that flocked unto him at the river Jordan” (p. 630). Grudem responded: “Certainly over a period of several days he would have been capable of immersing many hundreds of people, but it is also possible that his disciples (Mt. 9:14) assisted him with some of the baptism” (p. 967).

John 3:23 says there was “much water” where John was baptizing. Much water is needed only for baptism by immersion. When Philip lead the Ethiopian bachelor to the Lord and they proceeded on their way, just as soon as they came to a body of water, the new convert wanted to be immersed (Acts 8:35-39). They needed a body of water to immerse. If they could have baptized by sprinkling or pouring they could have used the canteens of water they were carrying.

3. The final reason for baptism by immersion is the symbolism of baptism.

We have already seen that baptism does have a symbolical meaning (Acts 22:16). Baptism pictures the believer’s identification with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection in Romans 6. At salvation we were identified with Christ’s death (6:3). Our obligation to live in sin is dead; not our capacity. At salvation we were identified with Christ’s burial (6:4a). Our old way of life was buried at salvation (1 Pet. 3:18-22). Peter says that the Flood symbolized baptism. Baptism pictures a complete break with one’s past life. Noah was delivered from the old sinful world by water. For believers, baptism marks the transition to a new life, a new fellowship of friends. At salvation we were identified with Christ’s resurrection (6:4b).

This point goes back to the symbolism of purification in baptism. Not only does baptism symbolize that our sins have been washed away, but we have also been empowered not to sin in our union with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection.

I was baptized twice before I was saved. Once after VBS I was baptized. The next time I was baptized after a revival when I went forward just because some of my friends went forward at the invitation. The next day after each of these baptisms I knew nothing had changed. But when I was 18, and trusted Christ, I knew I was saved because my life, desires, and interests were changed and my baptism was not a mechanical ritual but a meaningful act of obedience.

These are three powerful reasons to baptize by immersion.

Different Views on Baptism, Part Last: Baptism by Immersion

Posted: March 26, 2009 in Baptism
Tags: , , , , ,
18

“Theologically, baptism may be defined as an act of association or identification with someone, some group, some message, or some event. John the Baptist’s baptism associated His followers with His message of righteousness (he had no group for them to join)” (Ryrie, page 488). John the Baptist’s baptism was a kingdom baptism that identified his baptized converts with the kingdom he was offering (Matthew 3:1-6).

Christ’s baptism also was a kingdom baptism for He was fulfilling all Messianic righteousness by identifying with Israel. Church baptism also means identification. Church Baptism is the first of two ordinances and is the initiatory ordinance. “Christian baptism means identification with the message of the Gospel, the person of the Savior, and the group of believers” (Ryrie, page 489).

Why Should Believers be Baptized?

1. Because Christ was baptized (Mt. 3:15-17). This was Christ’s first public act (1 Pet. 2:21). This was the righteous thing to do (Mt. 3:15).

2. Also Christ commanded the Church to baptize (Mt. 28:19-20; 1 Jo. 2:3).                                                                                                                             

3. The early Church practiced baptism (Acts 2:38-41; 8:12; 36, 38; 9:18; 10:47; 16:33). F. F. Bruce said “The idea of an unbaptized Christian is simply not entertained in the N.T.”

How Should Believers be Baptized? Belieers are baptized by immersion.

1. The first reason to baptize by immersion is the meaning of the word. The word “baptize” means to immerse. Lexicons define the Greek word baptizo to mean to dip, immerge, submerge. “Consider also the testimonies of three non-Baptist who led the Protestant Reformation. John Calvin, founder of Presbyterianism, declared, ‘The word baptize itself signifies immerse, and it is certain that the rite of immersion was observed by the ancient church.’ In commenting on Romans 6:3-5, John Wesley, founder of Methodism, said, ‘Buried with Him, alluding to the ancient manner of baptism by immersion.’ In speaking of the meaning of baptism, Martin Luther, founder of Lutheranism, said, ‘They ought to be entirely immersed, and immediately drawn out. For this the etymology of the name seems to demand.’ I have always appreciated Luther’s practical theology when he advised the pastor to immediately draw out the person being immersed.

Secular writers used the Greek word to describe a sinking ship. This is how the word is used in Scripture (Lk.16:24). There is a word for sprinkling in Scripture: rantidzo (1 Pet.1:2). There is also a word of pouring in Scripture: ekcheo (Acts 2:17). But neither of these words is used for baptism.

2. Another reason for baptism by immersion is the examples in Scripture. John in Mt. 3:6 was baptizing “in” the Jordan River, not “beside” or “by” or “near” or “with.” Berkhof objected: “Was John the Baptist capable of the enormous task of immersing the multitudes that flocked unto him at the river Jordan” (p. 630). Grudem responded: “Certainly over a period of several days he would have been capable of immersing many hundreds of people, but it is also possible that his disciples (Mt. 9:14) assisted him with some of the baptism” (p. 967). John 3:23 says there was “much water” where John was baptizing. Much water is needed only for baptism by immersion.

3. The final reason for baptism by immersion is the symbolism of baptism. Baptism does have a symbolical meaning (Acts 22:16). Baptism pictures the believer’s identification with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection in Romans 6. At salvation we were identified with Christ’s death (6:3). Our obligation to live in sin is dead; not our capacity. At salvation we were identified with Christ’s burial (6:4a). Our old way of life was buried at salvation (1 Pet. 3:18-22). Baptism pictures a complete break with one’s past life. Noah was delivered from the old sinful world by water. For believers, baptism marks the transition to a new life, a new fellowship of friends. At salvation we were identified with Christ’s resurrection (6:4b).

These are three powerful reasons to baptize by immersion.

Different Views on Baptism: Part Nine: Proxy Baptism

Posted: March 26, 2009 in Baptism
Tags: , , ,
19

Bible Knowledge Commentary states that there are approximately 200 explanations for 1 Cor. 15:29 (page 544). The Mormons’ practice of vicarious or proxy baptism is a perversion of this verse as explained by C. Penrose in Mormon Doctrine: “Millions of earth’s sons and daughters have passed out of the body without obeying the law of baptism. Many of them will gladly accept the word and law of the Lord when it is proclaimed to them in the spirit world. But they cannot there attend to ordinances that belong to the sphere which they have left. Can nothing be done in their case? Must they forever be shut out of the kingdom of heaven? Both justice and mercy join in answering ‘yes’ to the first ‘no’ to the last question. What, then, is the way of their deliverance? The living man may be baptized for the dead. Other essential ordinances may be attended to vicariously. This glorious truth, hid from human knowledge for centuries, has been made know in this greatest of all divine dispensations….It gives men and women the power to become ‘Saviours on Mount Zion,’ Jesus being the great Captain in the army of redeemers” (page 48).

Some believe Paul is referring to an early version of this false teaching in 1 Cor. 15:29. “Paul does not endorse or support the practice. Indeed his language indicates that he dissociates himself and orthodox believers from it. He asks, ‘What shall they do which are baptized for the dead?’ Not ‘what shall we do.’ Yet he does use we in the next verse: ‘And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?’ If he is referring to vicarious baptism at all, Paul appears to draw a clear line of demarcation between they and we” (Alan Cairns, Dictionary of Theological Terms, page 55.

Another plausible explanation is Paul’s motivation from the truth of the resurrection that we should seek to win people to Christ who will be baptized and serve in the local church in the place of those believers who have died. The “they” Paul is referring to are the ones who will be baptized and take the place of the deceased workers in the church.

We know proxy baptism is unbiblical because salvation is by grace through faith, not of works according to Eph. 2:8-9. Baptismal regeneration is unbiblical for the living and therefore cannot be salvific for the dead either. No one can be saved after death according to Biblical texts like Luke 16:19-31 and Heb. 9:27.

The Different Views on Baptism, Part Eight: Trine Baptism

Posted: March 24, 2009 in Baptism
Tags: , , ,
17

The Church of the Brethren actually have six ordinances which include the love feast, the anointing with oil, the laying on of hands, the assembling together for worship, the holy kiss, and trine baptism.

There are several reasons the Church of the Brethren believe in trine baptism which means to baptize the person face forward three times. One reason for the face forward aspect of baptism is that baptism pictures our crucifixion with Christ and John 19:30 says that when Jesus died on the cross “he bowed his head and gave up the ghost.” Therefore baptism face forward is a literal application of the Scripture. The identification with the death of Christ pictured in water baptism by immersion is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (Romans 6:1-4) not all of the details of the death of Christ. Because Christ was nailed to a cross, does this mean that this detail must be duplicated in baptism.

The three times forward aspect of water baptism is based on the Trinity in the Great Commission in Matt. 28:19-20. Each baptismal candidate is baptized forward as each name to the Trinity is mentioned. In the Great Commission of Matt. 28:19-20, Jesus said to baptize “in the name (singular) of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” Baptizing once in the singular name of the Trinity emphasizes the deity or essence of the Trinity. There is no evidence from any baptismal passage that the converts were immersed three times face forward. Also in Acts 19:5, the believers were baptized in the short formula of Jesus’ name only and therefore were not baptized three times.

The Didache, also called the The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, and written around the turn of the 1st century is referenced as evidence for trine baptism. The part quoted reads: “But concerning baptism, thus baptize, ye having first recited all these precepts, baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water.” “The Didache states that if immersion is not possible then water was to be poured three times on the head (chap. 7). Notice that this early work does not say to immerse three times, only pour three times” (Ryrie, page 491).

Ryrie also states that “Proponents of trine immersion point out that some lexicons say that baptizo means to dip repeatedly but some do not). The evidence for this view is not strong” (page 492).

Older Entries