MODE OF BAPTISM?

For Baptist churches the mode of baptism has been viewed as a very important part of the ordinance. By-in-large we believe that Scripture is clear enough that immersion--that is, submerging the candidate under the water-- (as opposed to effusion or sprinkling) is the proper way to be baptized. As a result, Baptist elders have encountered a handful of tricky theological and ecclesiological questions. For instance, when do you consider someone's previous 'baptism' as invalid and thus require a "rebaptism"?

EASY SITUATIONS:

1. He/she was baptized before conversion.
2. He/she believed the baptism was saving.
3. He/she was baptized by a non-Christian “church”.

In all of these situations I would say that his/her "baptism" (if the quotation marks haven't given it away) wasn't a genuine baptism at all. He/she should be baptized.


A DIFFICULT SITUATION

He/she was baptized as a believer by sprinkling as opposed to immersion. Here's a hypothetical situation. We have a girl named Libby Brighton who wants to join our Baptist church. She was baptized upon conversion in a PCA church by sprinkling. She had a proper understanding of the ordinance as a symbol representing a spiritual reality. Everything about her baptism fits the biblical description except for the mode. Should she be ‘rebaptized’?


MY REASONS TO SEE LIBBY'S PREVIOUS BAPTISM AS VALID

1. We wouldn’t say the Lord’s Supper is invalid simply because the mode isn't precise: grape juice instead of wine.

2. There is no EXPLICIT command in Scripture to be immersed--the Lord could have used more explicit language. We take our practice from what we consider to be very strong implicit evidence, from the physical accounts in the Gospels and Acts and the symbolism of baptism as going down into the grave and being raised with Christ. But even so, immersion isn’t explicitly commanded in Scripture.

3. She was baptized under the care and authority of her Gospel-believing elders. As a young believer she was submitting to her leaders, which in any case, we would say is the proper default (Heb. 13:17). I believe for this reason alone, this baptism was a true and genuine baptism with which the Lord was pleased.

4. There were baptisms in the first century when candidates were sprinkled because of a lack of water and these were seen as valid. Historically, immediacy has been given priority over precision of mode.

5. Out of all the details for a Christian baptism given in Scripture, mode seems to be the most inconsequential:
a. Baptized by a Gospel-preaching church under the authority of elders.
b. Had proper understanding of the ordinance as not saving, but symbolic of a spiritual reality
c. Was a believer when baptized
d. Baptized by immersion

6. A 're-baptism', even with an explanation could cause unhelpful doubt among the other members of a congregation.

7. Scripture seems to deal less severely with those lacking in knowledge: Luke 12:47-48, Matt. 11:20-22, James 3:1.

In my opinion Libby's situation is not preferable, but not enough to overturn a one-time ordinance. One caveat however: It is important to remember that conscience is key and while a good conscience doesn’t necessarily mean one shouldn’t be baptized again, a consistently guilty conscience over time would necessitate this.

CORRECTIVE CHURCH DISCIPLINE

I come to two different passages of Scripture teaching in detail on the process of church discipline: Matthew 18 and 1 Corinthians 5. On a simplistic reading, the two don't seem to fit neatly together. Jesus in Matthew 18 outlines very clearly that a brother/sister shouldn't be excommunicated until three levels of intervention have occurred: A single individual approaches the brother, a group of 2 or 3, and finally, the entire local congregation. Only at that point should the sinner "be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." Paul in 1 Corinthians 5 however seems (on a simplistic reading) to bypass both initial steps and moves directly to step 3: instant excommunication. Some would argue that Paul's 'bypass' is because this particular sin (a man sleeping with his father's wife) is in a different class than some other sins--namely because it was a 'public' and 'heinous/gross sin'. I don't think the text warrants this distinction. My reasons:

1. Matthew 18 is clear and didactic, whereas 1 Corinthians 5 is situational and relies in part on information that we aren't privy to (5:9's "I wrote to you...")--namely, a previous letter to this church. In any case, Paul's direction in this specific case when we aren't given all the details isn't reason enough to bypass the clear teaching of Jesus in Matthew 18.

2. Corrective discipline is a potentially disastrous tool. 2 Corinthians 2 says about a man who was under such discipline: "For such a one, this punishment by the majority is enough, so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him." Corrective discipline is designed by the Lord to shame and sorrow the sinner. Therefore, this is one topic where local churches should be particularly careful in their proceedings.

3. Every other example of the process of discipline or potential discipline in the New Testament stresses these initial steps.

a) Revelation 2:20-21: "But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality."

The text is particularly helpful because this sin is the same kind as that of the man in 1 Corinthians 5--gross public and heinous sexual sin. However, John in this text makes it clear that he had given her "time to repent" and presumably would have discontinued the process of corrective discipline if she had. Important verse for this discussion!

b) 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15: "If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn his as a brother." (Next post will be on what it means to "have nothing to do" with "your brother"... Kind of confusing)

This instruction follows the commands of Paul in his first letter to the Thessalonians in which he says, "And we urge you, brothers, admonish the idle, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all" (1 Thess. 5:14) He also notes his public teaching from his last visit to them: "For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat" (2 Thess. 3:10). What we see in the case of these rebellious Thessalonians is that they had at least two previous rebukes/appeals by Paul and the Thessalonian Christians. There is more reason to believe that in this way the steps of Matthew 18 had been taken than not.

c) 1 Timothy 5:19-20: "Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear."

Once again, there is no exception given which would lead to instant discipline. It is only when the offender "persists in sin" that discipline (in this case the public rebuke of an elder) takes place.

d) Titus 3:9-11: "But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned."

Same as above.

4) Finally, it's instructive to see where Matthew, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, places Jesus' teaching on church discipline--between the parable of the lost sheep and the unforgiving servant.

18:10-14 is the parable of the lost sheep--the point being that the shepherd will leave the ninety-nine, symbolizing his willingness to do anything to gain this sheep back. 18:21-35 is Jesus' parable of the unforgiving servant--the point being that a Christian should forgive their brother 'seventy times seven times' and "forgive your brother from your heart."

These parables corroborate the teaching in the rest of the New Testament that a believer is never to delay in any way forgiveness to a brother or sister as long as he/she is repentant.

CANON QUESTIONS

A brother reminded me this week about the importance of having adequate answers to questions about our canon of Scripture. For instance, it's pretty intuitive to ask, 'How do we know that the Bible books in our Bible are the ones that are supposed to be there?' I looked at this questions about two months ago and found lots of help from a couple of Herman's--Ridderbos and Bavinck. Bavinck in Volume 1 of his Church Dogmatics (which is well worth the 27 bones it's going for on half.com) says,

"The canonicity of the Bible books is rooted in their existence. They have authority of themselves, by their own right, because they exist. It is the Spirit of the Lord who guided the authors in writing them and the church in acknowledging them." (I:401)

PSALM 51

Have mercy on me, O God, according to your steadfast love; according to your abundant mercy blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin! For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment. Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. (Psalm 51:1-5)

I have been so thankful for this Psalm. Basically, it's allowed me to take 'Repentant Scott' and compare it to 'Repentant David under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit'. I have been challenged and humbled by seeing the differences. Two stand out:

1. I have trouble keeping my sin "ever before me".
2. I have trouble realizing that in a very real way, the most real way in fact, my sin is against God and God alone.

Calvin's commentary on this Psalm has given me advice on both these fronts.

1. HOW DO I KEEP MY SIN "EVER BEFORE ME"?

"The more easily satisfied we are under our sins, the more do we provoke God to punish them with severity, and if we really desire absolution from his hand, we must do more than confess our guilt in words; we must institute a rigid and formidable scrutiny into the character of our transgressions."

From this passage of Scripture (and Calvin's commentary) and conversation this week with some dear brothers, I've realized that the best first step for me in learning true repentance is studying my sin, or as Calvin says, "instituting a rigid and formidable scrutiny into its character". I have to anticipate the excuses which I in my flesh will no doubt employ to get myself off the hook and I must leave no room for these lies. I am guilty of sin and my sin is heinous with heinous consequences, for those whom I've sinned against directly, my local church family, and myself.

2. HOW DO I BELIEVE IN MY HEART THAT MY SIN IS TRULY AGAINST GOD?

"But I conceive his meaning to be, that though all the world should pardon him, he felt that God was the Judge with whom he had to do, that conscience hailed him to his bar, and that the voice of man could administer no relief to him, however much he might be disposed to forgive, or to excuse, or to flatter...To one who is thus overwhelmed with a sense of the dreadfulness of being obnoxious to the sentence of God, there needs no other accuser."

Scripture certainly acknowledges that as Christians, we sin against our brothers and sisters. And the Bible gives us clear direction and command to reconcile those relationships with repentance and forgiveness, but Calvin's point (which I think is also Scripture's point) is that God is our ultimate judge--and when compared to human judgment, the latter seems arbitrary. Two sinful tendencies get in the way of me believing this: My fear of man and my lack of fear of God.

The good news is that the rest of this Psalm goes on to anticipate the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on behalf of sinners--the Just for the unjust. And because I have placed faith in Jesus' person and work, I am seen as innocent in my Father's eyes. And not only that, but God by his Holy Spirit is actually making me into what He has declared me to be in Christ. The New Testament makes clear that this is motivation for acknowledging and battling sin--recognizing who I am in Christ.

GEORGE LADD ON DIFFERENCES BETWEEN JESUS AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES

"The one bond which brought his disciples together was personal relationship to his person. This set him apart from other Jewish leaders. The disciples of the rabbis found common ties in the rabbinic teachings, the Pharisees in their observances, the apocalyptists in their eschatological hopes, while Jews as a whole recognized a common bond in their Abrahamic descent and the covenant. The disciples of Jesus had no common bond other than the person of Jesus."

(The Presence of the Future, 247)

Ladd has reminded me once again that as Christians, we don't follow a system of thought or philosophy. We don't follow a particular set of ethical teachings. We follow a man--the Son of Man--Jesus Christ. This is why new believers can be justified by faith without really understanding the ins and outs of the doctrine. We aren't saved by a doctrine, but by a man.

Wright on Resurrection/Afterlife in the Old Testament

I've found some help in N.T. Wright's Resurrection of the Son of God--in particular his chapter on the development of 'resurrection/afterlife' in the Old Testament. An astute reader of the Old Testament notices that it seems to lack the emphasis placed on resurrection and afterlife found in the New Testament. In fact, in some parts of the Old Testament--the pentateuch, the history, and some parts of the wisdom literature--there seems to be no expectation of an afterlife at all! However there are some Psalms as well as parts of the latter prophets that mention the idea explicitly and some that aren't explicit, but at least leave room for it. Wright explains well the revelational progress of this idea through Israel's history.

His main contention is that even when God hadn't clearly revealed to Israel that there was an afterlife, he had given the Israelites categories to make sliding into this doctrinal belief very easy. Wright traces the development of Israel's idea from belief that:

1) When you die you're dead spiritually, physically, the whole nine yards.

TO...
2) When you die, you're still alive spiritually and can be spiritually blessed, or spiritually cursed.

TO...
3) When you die, if you are one of God's people, you will be raised from the dead in a physical body, i.e., resurrection.

Wright says,

It would be easy, and wrong, to see the hope for resurrection as a new and extraneous element, something which has come into ancient Israelite thinking by a backdoor or roundabout route. (121)

In other words, this is not a move away from the hope which characterized all of ancient Israel, but a reaffirmation of it. It is a reaffirmation, indeed, in a way which the hope simply for a blessed but non-bodily personal life after death (as perhaps witnessed by Psalm 73 and one or two other passages) would not be. (122)

We might suggest that the likely turning point in the sequence--the moment when somebody really begins to think in terms of human beings themselves actually dying and actually being given a newly embodied life at some point thereafter--is to be found in Isaiah's servant passages. (123)

The idea that God reveals Himself and His eternal plan progressively throughout redemptive history in the canon as opposed to all at once is the foundational idea for the discipline of biblical theology. It's interesting that B.B. Warfield basically argued the same way for recognition of God's triunity as Wright does here for belief in resurrection. Warfield said that although we don't have reason to think Israel believed in a Three-Person God, the Lord had at least prepared them with the main categories they would need--namely, that the way God revealed Himself to them was multi-faceted and yet, 'the Lord your God is one'!

WHAT SHOULD THE CHURCH DO? Part I

The distinction between individual Christians and the church is helpful in and of itself. For instance, if what I wrote below is true, this distinction will keep the church from what I consider to be a huge danger--namely, making pronouncements for her members (and her members' consciences) that aren't clearly spoken to in the Bible.

However, making this distinction shouldn't be our final destination, but more of an onramp--an onramp to a bigger issue. And that issue is this: It seems to me that many local churches are involved in pursuits for which the New Testament gives no precedent and further, these pursuits occur to the detriment of those which the New Testament does give precedent (a commanding precedent in fact!).

The way that these local churches (including their various associations and church planting organizations) argue for this faulty understanding is by appealing to Systematic categories and frameworks developed from human reason that they believe are implied in the text, but which, I think, are in fact contrary to clear and plain scriptural teaching.