Tonight was the 113th annual meeting of the Frisco Baptist Association. It was a great time of sweet fellowship, challenging messages, and good food (we are Baptists, after all).
I had the privilege of serving on our association’s resolutions committee this year, and one of the five resolutions we submitted to the annual meeting was on baptism and church membership. This, with some modifications, is the resolution I had written for another annual meeting, and our director of missions asked that we make a statement on this topic, so the committee modified and submitted my resolution.
I’d be very interested in your thoughts. Below is the text of the unanimously adopted resolution:
On Baptism and Church Membership
Whereas, Baptism is chief among the doctrinal distinctives that we as Southern Baptists hold dear; and
Whereas, Baptism is a requirement, not for salvation, but for obedience to the example and to the explicit instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ, and
Whereas, Membership in the local church is a covenant relationship of mutual accountability and submission, both to one another and to the Lordship of Christ, and
Whereas, The Baptist Faith and Message adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Orlando, Florida, June 14, 2000 clearly states that baptism, as one of the two ordinances of the church, is a prerequisite to the privileges of church membership (Article VII), now therefore be it
Resolved, that the messengers of the Frisco Baptist Association, in annual session October 10, 2006 affirm our belief in and commitment to the principle of a regenerate and scripturally baptized church membership.
(Matthew 3:15; 28:19)
on Oct 11th, 2006 at 7:57 am
It’s good to take a stand and this is a good statement.
I’ve been asking myself lately: “What if baptism really is essential to salvation?” After all:
Acts 2:38: Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
How many times would the Bible have to say that for it to be true?
Where does the Bible countermand the thought in Acts 2:38 by saying baptism is not necessary?
Someone once asked “What if the man Jesus healed of blindness had said “I don’t need to go all the way to Siloam to wash the mud out of my eyes; just take me to the closest pond and I’ll do it there”?” Can we be sure he’d have gotten his sight?
Your statement sums up well, traditional baptist beliefs. But I may have to post on Eagles’ Rest about whether it’s really necessary for salvation.
Reply
on Oct 11th, 2006 at 8:06 am
Bob,
Thanks for the comment. I would enjoy reading your thoughts on the subject.
I think there are a couple of possible answers to the questions you raise. One is that baptism can sometimes mean “identification,” rather than a literal dunking in water. In that sense, baptism is absolutely required for salvation, in that one who refuses to be fully identified with Christ, or rather to fully surrender his identity to Christ, is not someone who is saved at all.
Another possible answer centers on the word “for” in Acts 2:38. “For” can mean “in order to receive,” but it can just as legitimately mean “because of,” as in “I am bleary-eyed for lack of sleep.” In this latter sense, baptism is not the prerequisite to remission, but and act of obedience born out of gratitude for the remission.
Or, perhaps none of this makes any sense. My son slept through the whole evening session last night, and arrived home at 9:30 all wound up and ready to go. Therefore, I am bleary-eyed for lack of sleep.
Reply
on Oct 11th, 2006 at 10:12 am
As I see it (me & my computer’s Strong’s Concordance), it’s the word “eis”, meaning “to, or into”. But, regardless of that, the verse lumps repent and be baptized together and equates them toward salvation. If one’s a prerequisite .. according to this verse .. so’s the other.
Another really wacky thought hit me in the shower this morning, after I’d posted the first comment: If Jesus’ righteousness is imputed to us, why isn’t His baptism, too?
It simply strikes me as odd .. I hasten to add less odd since I went to Greensboro … that we want to emphasize baptism’s importance, and even a prerequisite to lots of stuff … but we want to deny it’s a command. That part, I don’t get.
And I’ve never seen it as “identifying with” Jesus. Where does it say that? If it’s obedience, which I think it is, then it’s obedience to what we’re commanded to do. And the part about its being a public profession of faith? I don’t think so. That would be opening your mouth and saying so. Publicly. Strangely, that doesn’t happen at most of the baptisms I’ve witnessed.
I doubt anyone in the world really has it “just right”. Hence it’s really REALLY good that God looks on the heart.
Maybe that’s why He said that. And maybe that’s why He does that.
Reply
on Oct 11th, 2006 at 10:25 am
Wes
Thanks for the post. We will be meeting in two weeks with the Cimarron Baptist Association. I hope you guys don’t have a copyright on that resolution. I am sure it can be used by many other associations.
God Bless
Bro. Robin
Reply
on Oct 11th, 2006 at 10:38 am
Bob,
I have to agree with Wes. “eis/for” can indeed be interpreted as “because of.”
He was decorated FOR bravery. – because of
He was rewarded FOR good grades. – because of
He was hanged FOR murder. – because of
IMHO it is reasonable to interpret the passage to mean that we are to be baptized BECAUSE OF our forgiveness of sins, not IN ORDER TO be forgiven of sins.
To be fair though, Robertson says the word could be used either way:
“‘The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T.’ (Robertson, Grammar, p. 592). One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received.” (Robertson’s Word Pictures)
As far as Baptism and “identifying with Christ,” I’m sure you are aware that there are different understanding of Romans 6:4, but for what it is worth:
Rom 6:4 “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. “
Reply
on Oct 11th, 2006 at 11:02 am
I’m with Wes on the interpretation of the word “for.”
As far as proclaiming our faith through baptism, sometimes people can preach an entire sermon without saying a word, and baptism is one of those times. Wasn’t it Eisenhower that was baptized while in office? What kind of message does it send out when a sitting president submits to the authority of Christ, identifies with His sufferings, and proclaims his faith? A very loud one.
Wes, I started my ministry in Frisco Association. It is a great place, you are right. There were some crazy antics that people pulled back in those days that are not for public consumption, so if you’re curious, email me and I’ll hook you up with some funny stories that are no doubt legendary by now.
Reply
on Oct 11th, 2006 at 11:45 am
Dear Brother Wes,
Bravo!
What is the biblical basis for your statement that church membership is a covenant relationship?
Love in Christ,
Jeff
Reply
on Oct 11th, 2006 at 1:13 pm
Wes,
I don’t understand why these issues are surfacing now. The place of Believer’s Baptism in Southern Baptist life was determined decades ago. Are we seeing the fruit of non-doctrinal preaching? Have the young pastors and laypersons not been taught these basics of SBC life?
Regards,
Les
Reply
on Oct 11th, 2006 at 2:18 pm
Les,
I would say that these issues are surfacing now because we have an entire generation of young pastors who have grown up with the belief that the Bible is the inerrant, authoritative, and sufficient Word of God. So it is only natural that we evaluate everything that we believe and do in light of Scripture. I believe the fact that we are having such discussions is a sign of health, because we do not accept “that’s the Baptist way” as a substitute for our own study of the biblical text. On many issues, such study will serve to strengthen our traditional Baptist views, because we understand the biblical basis for them. On other issues, however, we find that traditional Baptist views, although not necessarily wrong, are based more on tradition, history, and culture than on Scripture. If we ever reach the point where we cannot examine what Scripture says about a subject because the Baptist view was “determined decades ago” then we are in trouble.
Reply
on Oct 11th, 2006 at 2:32 pm
Wes,
I like it. Maybe we’ll steal it too.
Reply
on Oct 11th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
I think that this debate is going on now for more than the reason Tim mentions. I would add one thing to it.
Whose baptisms are acceptable and whose are not? Several years ago a lady joined our church who was led to Christ through the ministry of Grace Community Church and John MacArthur. She was converted and immersed, but when she came to our SBC church, we insisted that she be “re-baptized.” At the same time, a member of First Baptist Church downtown also joined, and we allowed them to join by letter, even though FBC had established a policy where they would accept members by statement, who had been baptized by a method other than immersion. We took the FBC person’s word for it, but we didn’t know. Grace Church’s transfer was unacceptable. This hyprocrisy and lack of consistency has left people searching for reasons why we baptize in the first place.
Reply
on Oct 11th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
Jason,
I would accept the person from MacArthur’s church. What happens to a person’s baptism if we find out the one Baptizing them wasn’t actually a believer? Does it count?
Reply
on Oct 11th, 2006 at 4:03 pm
Tim Sweatman,
I’m not saying that it’s not healthy to talk about doctrine. I’m just concerned that we have a whole generation of pastors who have not been taught the biblical basis of our doctrine.
I think this is a good example of why we have to teach each new generation biblically-based doctrine. I also believe this is one of the concerns raised by the Joshua Convergance and rightly so. That’s why I’m so glad to see expository preaching returning to SBC pulpits.
Regards,
Les
Reply
on Oct 11th, 2006 at 4:06 pm
Jason,
Good question, but I’m not so sure that the individual doing the baptizing is all that important. The church (not the clergy member) is the administrator. Baptism is not a clergy ordinance, but a church ordinance.
Reply
on Oct 11th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Sorry Jason. I meant to address that last comment to Kevin.
Reply
on Oct 11th, 2006 at 4:19 pm
Matt,
Unfortunately that is a proposal with IMB.
Reply
on Oct 11th, 2006 at 4:23 pm
Wes,
Good statement that I agree with wholeheartedly. I pray that we never stop wrestling with these things, because as we wrestle with them, the meaning and power of the truth becomes that much more clear to us. The worst thing that can happen is for us to just treat these eternal truths as passe.
Here’s an issue that I have: I am completely committed to believer’s baptism by immersion. However, we have a lady coming to our church who is a committed follower of Jesus. She got saved a few years ago and fully placed her trust in Christ. She received salvation by grace through faith as an adult. The church that she was attending offered both sprinkling and immersion as forms of baptism. She didn’t know the difference between the two, and just arbitrarily chose sprinkling. She was sprinkled as an adult as a testimony to her faith in Christ. We have told her that was not sufficient and she would have to be immersed. She is now confused, searching, and doesn’t know if that is right, because everything that baptism means she partook in when she was sprinkled. She is not objecting to our stance, but I can tell that her conscience is being violated. I don’t want her to do it just to do it, and we will work with her, but it seems that the heart of the matter is being set aside for the form. If she does it, will this be her true baptism? Will we say that initial profession of faith was worthless? Perhaps it is, but I have to deal with her spiritually and not just according to forms. I’ll not waver in our stance, but that is difficult.
Another lady has come to our church and was accepted as a member in a large Southern Baptist church in town. They just asked if she had been baptized and she said yes. What they didn’t realize is that she had been baptized in a Church of Christ as a child and had only come to faith in Christ as a 21 year old adult. But, since our SISTER church had not done their homework, I have to go back to her and tell her that, even though she has been a member of an SBC church, I cannot receive her by letter because she has not been Scripturally baptized. I have NO problem doing that, but she is about to be thrown into confusion as well.
My point is that both women now have a strong faith in Jesus as their Lord and Savior and are living for Him. The second woman is coming from a sister baptist church. The first is not. The first woman’s baptism, while wrong in form, is much closer to the truth than the second’s. They will both find themselves in the same boat, and I understand this needs to be corrected, but if baptism is really about the heart, then how do you do this without throwing into doubt all that has come before in their lives. I am not being argumentative, because I agree with your/the SBC position. I am actually just asking from a pastoral perspective.
What is disingenuous about this, is that when/if both agree to be baptized by immersion, both of them will appear on our annual report as baptisms as though they just got saved. There is no column for these types of cases. How many of our baptisms are adults who were baptized as kids and are getting baptized again because they realize they were never saved in the first place? If we knew, our numbers might look a bit different, don’t you think?
Reply
on Oct 11th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
Alan,
I wholeheartedly agree with your last statement. Perhaps we need to revise those ACP forms.
Kevin,
After your comment, I had to go back and check the IMB policy again. As I read the IMB policy, I don’t think it is referring to the individual performing the ordinance, but rather the church who is the true administer of the ordinance.
2. The Church
a. Baptism is a church ordinance.
Baptism must take place in a church that practices believer’s baptism by immersion alone, does not view baptism as sacramental or regenerative, and a church that embraces the doctrine of the security of the believer.
b. A candidate who has not been baptized in a Southern Baptist church or in a church which meets the standards listed above is expected to request baptism in his/her Southern Baptist church as a testimony of identification with the system of belief held by Southern Baptist churches.
Reply
on Oct 11th, 2006 at 6:52 pm
Bingo … “identification with the system of belief held by Southern Baptist churches.”
And here I thought it was identifying with Jesus.
Hmmmm…..
Reply
on Oct 11th, 2006 at 9:18 pm
Brother Bob,
Could it be that the system of belief held by Southern Baptist Churches is the system which purports that Baptism is identifying with Jesus? Thus, there would be no conflict.
Reply
on Oct 12th, 2006 at 1:14 am
Matt (and others):
One the one hand, we say baptism is identifying with Jesus; on the other, we say it identifies with a system of belief. There’s a big difference. I really don’t care to identify with a system of belief. And I sure wasn’t “crucified with” a system, either.
The Bible authors probably didn’t have a “system of belief” in mind when those words were written.
Also, I looked up every instance of the word “for” in the book of Acts. The Strong’s #1519 .. eis. They are all the meaning of into .. unto .. toward .. none has the “as a result of” meaning or context, that I saw. That isn’t in the Strong’s concordance, either, and I suspect it is only an English language use.
I hasten to add I’m no Greek (nor any other sort of) scholar, which is why I ask questions. And the only context in which I am interested in the answer, anyway, is that I want to be sure I teach the truth and not tradition, where the two differ. The net result is that I always and I mean always challenge my class to be sure for themselves, and to lean on no man’s conclusions.
Reply
on Oct 12th, 2006 at 9:14 am
Brother Bob,
I sympathize with you about not being a Greek scholar. I must confess, I’m embarrassed at how poor my Greek skills are. That is why I defer to someone like Robertson who is about as reputable as one can get in the area of Greek translation. I appreciate the time you have spent digging through Strong’s concordance, but Robertson would not have written what he did unless he knew what he was talking about. I think the men on this blog who are far better at Greek than I am would affirm Robertson’s conclusion.
I also understand your disdain for following a system of belief. Baptists have always rejected a system for systems sake. We have always been a people of the Book. I think the rub comes when some of us read the Book differently than others. Those, like myself, who would identify with the Southern Baptists system of beliefs, do so, not for the sake of the system itself, but because we genuinely believe that it is indeed what the Bible teaches.
Reply
on Oct 12th, 2006 at 11:01 am
Brothers:
I’m no more Christian now than I was when I was a Presbyterian … and I’ve been three different brands of that. I got in there as I was sprinkled as an infant and that checked “yes” in the appropriate box for me. Much of what I learned about the Bible, I learned as a Presbyterian, as they’re quite good at teaching.
I had to get this body immersed to join FBC Pelham, as that’s where God wanted me, so I did.
And I hope we all read the book a bit differently, as God has different stuff for each of us. One of the problems with being a SS teacher in a SBC church, and having done that for a lot of years, is that nobody wants to disagree with me. At least not out loud.
I’ve missed the kind of sharpening I get on the blogs. I don’t think the higher-ups who criticize blogging understand that it’s filling a need that the churches … the ones with which I’m familiar … don’t.
This is soooooo much fun. And, for Dr. Welch and others, it’s a lot cheaper than booze.
God bless y’all.
Reply
on Oct 12th, 2006 at 10:38 pm
This is a little off topic, but….it was cool to visit your website and see a post about Frisco Baptist Association!!!
We really enjoyed our three years at FBC Hugo, and absolutely loved having Doug McClure as a pastor. He is one of the most humble, yet wise, men that I have ever met.
Southeast Oklahoma, though, was quite an experience. (Wal-mart shooting, tiger escaped from the circus, Mayor murdered the deputy sheriff, multiple drug busts with zero arrests, etc.) It was kind of like living in the Wild West.
All I remember about your town, Valliant, was that when the wind blew a certain way you could smell the Weyerhauser plant. : )
Thanks for the memories!!!
Reply
on Oct 12th, 2006 at 10:52 pm
Kiki,
Thanks for dropping by. Yes, the smell of the paper mill permeates everything. We have automatic air freshener dispensers throughout the church, and when those canisters run out, you sure know it.
Doug McClure was a member of the resolutions committee with us. He is certainly just as you have described, and I’ve enjoyed getting to know him.
As I’ve said before, next time you and Doug are in the area, let us know. I’d love to have you guys tell our church about the great work you guys are doing on a difficult field.
You are in our prayers.
Reply
on Oct 13th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
Wes, I don’t want to hijack your post and if you think this is inappropriate feel free to send this to the nether regions.
I believe in believer’s baptism by immersion as Nathan Finn has so ably defined for us. There’s a question that’s been running through my mind for a while about how the sort of stance in our churches and reflected in this resolution jives with our stance on the Lord’s Supper.
More specifically, we view the mode of baptism to be essential in our practice. At the same time we hold baptism to be symbolic in nature. At the same time we hold the Lord’s Supper to be symbolic in nature, and yet we do not view the mode to be essential.
I don’t have a good answer for why that is. Perhaps someone here can help.
Reply
on Oct 13th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
Paul,
I’m no Greek scholar, but perhaps the answer lies in the fact that there is nothing in the NT descriptions of the Lord’s Supper that is as descriptive as the word baptizo. The mode of baptism is what the word means, which is why it is important.
That’s my take, anyway. Does it make any sense?
Reply
on Oct 13th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
Dear Brother Alan,
My heart goes out to your two ladies and other like them who have been cheated of baptism in the past. I affirm your stance that you will not bend the truth of our Baptist practice to accommodate the errors of other denominations or pastors.
Please do not allow the women to do anything that will violate their consciences. If a person is not convinced of the need for baptism, believing that he already is baptized, then do NOT baptize him or her. Do not allow anyone to be baptized just to join the church. Just wait, teach about true baptism, and let the Spirit do His work.
Great to hear from you!
Love in Christ,
Jeff
Reply
on Oct 13th, 2006 at 8:44 pm
Wes,
I don’t know that I find detailed, step-by-step instructions for the Lord’s Supper, but there surely are some things that we know about it as certainly as we know what baptizo means, right?
1 Cor. 11, for instance, clearly teaches that wine with an alcoholic content was being used, for Paul said that some were getting drunk. We also know that a common loaf was used by Jesus both from the Gospel accounts and from Paul’s instructions that “Jesus took the bread and broke it.” He didn’t use prepackaged crackers 1/4″ squared. In fact, there is not one Biblical reference to any practice other than using a common loaf and breaking it into pieces during the observance.
I’m really not trying to split hairs here, any more than what we do when we approach the subject of baptism. If the mode is important then surely it is important on exegetical grounds as well as lexical grounds. And, in fact, the lixical argument is only a part of the argument regarding baptism. Do we not have enough exigetical evidence regarding the Lord’s Supper to draw some conclusions? Why do we not do so? It just seems odd that we’ll eliminate people from church membership and missionary service over one, but we pay little regard whatsoever to the other. For instance, a church could celebrate the Lord’s Supper using Teddy Grahams and orange juice and maintain its membership in good standing and send its people to the mission field. Why is that?
Reply
on Oct 16th, 2006 at 6:51 am
Wes,
I hope you don’t mind us changing the topic from one ordinance to the other. Hopefully by this point, anyone who wanted to comment on Baptism has done so.
Paul,
I appreciate your desire to observe the Lord’s Supper Biblically, but I would disagree about the certainty of a couple of your points.
1. While it is true that some Corinthians were drunk at the Lord’s Supper, I’m not so sure that it is clear that the cup of the Lord’s Supper is what made them drunk. 1 Corinthians 11:21 says, “everyone taketh before other HIS OWN SUPPER: and one is hungry and another is drunken.” It was not the Lord’s Supper that was making them drunk but their own. I would question whether it was ever God’s intention for us to use alcoholic wine to partake of the Lord’s Supper.
The terminology “fruit of the vine” in Matthew 26:29 and Mark 14:25 in my opinion does necessarily imply alcoholic wine. I have a difficult time equating the precious and perfect blood of my Lord with something fermented/soured/rotten. I don’t think that Jesus would have symbolized His blood that way either.
2. Your comment about the common loaf is interesting. I had never thought much about the symbolism of eating from a common piece and how that relates to the unity of the church body. I would, however, disagree with the idea of a “loaf” of bread. Jesus was celebrating the Passover meal with His disciples and therefore the bread would have been unleavened. When I picture Jesus breaking bread, I imagine He took one large piece of unleavened bread (or cracker) and broke it into smaller pieces for the disciples to share together. While most Baptist churches do not publicly break the bread, that is in essence what has happened. When I was a child, my grandmother used to make the unleavened bread for their church’s observance, and I vividly remember helping her break the pieces. I think that Jesus did it much the same way.
This new idea that some support of having everyone go forward and tear a piece of fluffy white bread off of a loaf, dip it in alcoholic wine, eat it and then call it the Lord’s Supper is something that I could never endorse. I don’t think that it is closer to the Biblical model as some would suggest. Actually, I think it is just the opposite.
I would love to hear more of your thoughts about all of this.
Reply
on Oct 16th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
Matt,
I will disagree with your conclusions from point #1 but will concede their possibility. Some Southern Baptists have been arguing that the wine of the first century was for purification purposes (safe to drink), not to make it rotten. If, in fact, water was mixed with even the slightest amount of unmixed wine (which was actually more like a paste) in order to purify it then I think that speaks in favor of the cup of the Lord’s Supper being fermented wine, not against it. I also think your point is extremely problematic exegetically concerning 1 Cor. 11. Paul certainly had the vocabulary available to him to make it clear that the cup they were drinking before everyone showed up was different from the cup used in the observance. Nevertheless, I can still concede the validity of your point.
Regarding your second point, by “loaf” I am not inferring anything other than unleaven bread. I still think of it technically as a “loaf,” just one without yeast to make it rise. But the balance of your point is the interesting part to me. You view the practice of dipping the bread into wine as something you could never endorse. Others apparently do. Both fall within the BFM and both would be accepted as appropriate “Baptist” expressions of the observance. But not so with baptism. We are dogmatic about the mode of baptism, yet we are not dogmatic about the mode of the Lord’s Supper. Both are ordinances of the church. Both are treated together in the BFM. Both are viewed symbolically. Yet if you differ in the mode of one (baptism) you will no longer be considered “Baptist” while you can differ in the mode of the other (Lord’s Supper) and it may violate your own personal understanding, but we’ll still allow fellowship around our differences.
It would seem to me, at a minimum, that we would require a common loaf (or whatever you want to call it. It really wasn’t a cracker.) and that the one leading would be the one to break it before the people, following Jesus’ example. The leader would also be required to distribute it, as Jesus did. We might also require the participants to lie around a table together, since we really have no other example in Scripture but that one (as we have no other example for baptism but immersion). It might even require a common cup (though Luke could possibly be interpreted as to not require that).
While all of this makes for an interesting debate, the real question I’m interested in is: Why are we dogmatic about the mode of baptism, making it a test of fellowship, and we are not dogmatic about the mode of the Lord’s Supper – at least to do that which we should all be able to agree is the clear biblical example and teaching?
Reply