In light of my stand on baptism within the IMB, I think I should clarify my position regarding this one church. As I understand it, the elders in this church have indicated that they intend to ask their congregation to adjust their bylaws so that members can be recieved into the church who have not be baptized. You can find their position papers here.
Although I respect the autonomy of the local church in making decisions related to baptism and will stand strong for cooperation, the decision by this church goes way beyond the dabate about alien immersion. The church in question is not requiring any form of baptism for membership at all.
Let's be clear, the traditional Baptist belief is that baptism is a requirement for membership. If someone from this church came to the IMB as a missionary candidate and yet had not been baptized (I am sure that this church would insist on their baptism before they approved the application, but just for the conjecture that I am sure people are already making...), the candidate consultant would rightly tell them they should be baptized before they can be considered as a missionary candidate.
This church is going beyond the Baptist Faith and Message and readily admits that. Those of us who have protested the policy changes in the IMB have done so because we believe the new policies are more narrow than the BFM 2000. By the same token, I am in disgreement with this church because I believe they have stepped outside the agreed upon doctrinal position of Southern Baptists.
Let me explain.
We must first frame the issue for many Baptist churches. We often encounter people who want to gain membership in our church but who do not want to be immersed, because they were "baptized" as infants. "What is wrong with my baptism?" they will say. Some may view this as a stumbling block for good Christian people who want to be members of Baptist churches. Baptists have traditionally said that this is an issue that we must get right, because it is an issue of discipleship.
So first of all, let me just point out that there is a distinction between paedobaptist (churches that practice infant baptism) and credobaptists (those who believe scripture teaches only believers baptism) that has a very long theological history and is the most profound distinguishing factor that separates Baptist belief and Presbyterian. The paedobaptist view baptism as a rite much different than the baptism of their Baptist counterparts. It is acceptable to baptize infants as a part of the new covenant according to this view because Baptism is not seen as being a necessary requirement for obedience, but rather a sign of the covenant promise.
The paedobaptist would cite 1 Corinthians 7:14:
For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
My Presbyterian friends would say that this is evidence that children in the homes of believing parents are under the same covenant promise as their parents, therefore it is only natural that they would be baptized as infants, as baptism is in their minds a kind of new circumcision (a sign of the covenant).
I am sympathetic with the issues that paedobaptists raise when they want to join a Baptist church. It is tempting for any church to lower the bar in order to accept strong Bible believing families who have a different position on the issue of baptism and have been baptized as infants.
As Baptists we respond that there is not one single bit of evidence of this practice in scripture, and that in fact the only baptism practiced in scripture is believers baptism. And besides, the passage in 1 Cor. 7 is referring to the terrible situation that occurs when a family is broken by divorce. It certainly is true that it is better for children to have their parents stay together. We know from experience that children from broken homes have more problems in general than children whose families are in tact. Paul was not speaking of the covenant promise, he was speaking of the practical situation that occurs in families as a result of divorce.
So, in our view, not all baptisms are equal. Scriptural baptism is immersion after salvation. It is done as an act of obedience to Christ, who set the example by his own baptism.
Consider this statement from William Cathcart's monumental Baptist Encyclopedia:The Baptists of this country hold that the Word of God is the only authority in religion, that its teachings are to be sacredly observed, and that to religious doctrines and observances there can be no additions except from it; they hold that a man should repent and be saved through faith in the meritorious Redeemer before he is baptized; that immersion alone is Scripture baptism; that only by it can the candidate represent his death to the world, burial with Christ, and resurrection to newness of life; that baptism is a prerequisite to the Lord's Supper; they hold the doctrines of the Trinity, of eternal and personal election, total depravity, regeneration by the Holy Spirit, justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ, progressive sanctification, final perseverance a special providence, immediate and eternal glory for the righteous after death, and instant and unending misery for the ungodly. They hold the doctrinal articles of the Presbyterian Church, and they only differ from that honored Calvinistical community in the mode and subjects of baptism, and in their congregational church government. They hold that all regenerated believers are saved, whether they are immersed or sprinkled, or lack both ceremonies; and they insist on the immersion of believers because Christ was immersed, and because he enjoins immersion upon all believers.
To be Baptist is to be credobaptist. Baptists down through history have given their lives for this belief. Charles H. Spurgeon, widely believed as the greatest preacher since the New Testament, was raised as a paedobaptist and surrounded by paedobatists his entire ministry and yet because of his strong conviction of the authority of God's word was baptized after his salvation and remained a champion of Baptist beliefs to the very end.
It is not a minor issue.
Some will say, "But the Bible does not explicitly teach that one must be baptized in order to be a member of the church. The Bible talks about membership, and it talks about baptism, but it never "hinges" the two together. It would wrong to go beyond scripture and make baptism a rite of entry."
That is like saying that the Bible never says that you must be a Christian to be a member of the church, why link the two together? In fact, there is no single passage in scripture that specifically gives us the requirements of membership into the church. But membership is certainly implied.
Speaking of the church in Jerusalem in Acts 2, Luke writes, "Those who accepted their message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day". This is the first indication we have in scripture of a church roll. There is a number, and it is being added to.
In 1 Corinthians 5, writing of a man who is to be disciplined in the church, Paul states plainly: "expel the wicked man from you." Expel from what? Logic would say that unless you have membership in a church, you cannot expel people from it.
So although the Bible does not teach the specific entrance requirement into the church, it does teach that churches have members and by implication we can only deduce that members in the local church have identified themselves with Christ and that they have spiritual knowledge, spiritual gifts and are committed to the teaching of the apostles and prophets and the commission of Christ.
Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you, and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age (Matthew 28:19).
The New Testament makes baptism a normative part of becoming a Christian.
Jesus said, "Make disciples, baptizing them..."
Which could be stated: "I intend for the natural starting point of becoming a disciple to be baptism." And that is what the early church did. In Acts 2:41 it says that after Peters first Pentecost sermon, "Those who received his word were baptized." And years later, when Paul wrote the church in Rome he assumed that everyone who was a member of that church had been baptized.
He said in Romans 6:1-3, "Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death..."
In other words, Paul assumes that the believers he is writing to in Rome have without question or argument received baptism and he makes the obedience of that spiritual act the basis for his instructions to them about how they are to live out their faith.
So Jesus made baptism the norm for becoming a Christian in Matthew 28:19 and the apostles continued this practice in the early church. This is why baptism is a membership requirement at CRBC.
There is no question that baptism is the first step in our obedience to Christ and that obedience is the sign and signature of being a Christian. "We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. The man who says, "I know Him", but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in Him."
The church is the Bride and Body of Christ, where people are challenged into discipleship. Making disciples is the primary role of the church, of which baptism is the first step. This is why we believe the paedobaptist is wrong in his interpretation of this ordinance, and it is why we believe no one should be a member of the church who has not taken this step of obedience.
No comments:
Post a Comment