December 02, 2005

Perspective

From the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message

Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper.

And
A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel; observing the two ordinances of Christ, governed by His laws, exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word, and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth. Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons.
Emphasis added in each, of course.

Now, from the IMB

Regarding a candidateÂ’s baptism, trustees voted two to one to establish a guideline that specifies (1) believerÂ’s baptism by immersion; (2) baptism follows salvation; (3) baptism is symbolic, picturing the experience of the believerÂ’s death to sin and resurrection to a new life in Christ; (4) baptism does not regenerate; and (5) baptism is a church ordinance.

The guideline establishes that candidates must have been baptized in a Southern Baptist church or in a church of another denomination that practices believerÂ’s baptism by immersion alone. Also, the baptism must not be viewed as sacramental or regenerative, and the church must embrace the doctrine of the security of the believer.

Emphasis, again, added. The IMB has gone beyond what the BF&M says about baptism in defining specific doctrines that a local, autonomous church must adhere to for baptisms to be considered Scriptural.

I believe that baptism is not regenerative. I believe in the doctrine of eternal security. I would have to have the term 'sacrament' defined, but as I think it's being used, I would probably agree with the IMB there as well. My issue is not that I disagree with the doctrines being affirmed -- my problem is that the IMB has taken it upon itself to decide what Southern Baptists consider Scriptural baptism. That is the role of the local church, since baptism is an ordinance of the local church.

Regarding the 'private prayer language' issue, I have to agree with Marty Duren:

It seems that this had less to do with missionary guidelines and more to do with insulting Jerry Rankin. If you truly believe that this is an unbiblical practice, you should have fired him ...
Dr. Rankin let everyone know that he used a private prayer language when he became IMB President. Suddenly, the IMB trustees have created a rule that effectively eliminates their president from consideration for a missionary position. I'm sure that Dr. Rankin is insulted, and I'm disappointed in the trustees who were there that this "guideline" was adopted.

I'm still disturbed that barely half of the trustees actually voted in this election. It's telling that the vote numbers are no longer present in the IMB article about the vote. I think that we, as Southern Baptists, deserve some answers from the trustees concerning this vote.

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 09:48 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 587 words, total size 4 kb.

1 I really don't see the "usurping authority" angle. Denominational institutions have to set some guidelines. That's their role, that's their purpose. The group gets to decide who joins. My problems are that the guidelines are just way too strict and that the policy is contradictory if the President of the IMB can't meet them.

Posted by: Ryan DeBarr at December 03, 2005 01:53 PM (EZnB/)

2 The way I see it, the IMB has every right to say that they won't accept someone. It sounds to me as if they are telling the local churches that a baptism that the local church accepts as Biblical really isn't, and that if they say it's not then the candidate needs to go back to the local church and be rebaptised. They're saying that the local church can't make the correct decision regarding baptism. I wouldn't make the cut for missionary under these rules -- I wasn't baptized in an SBC church. I worry that this kind of rule will end up expanding to other areas of Baptist polity, including ordination. We'll sound like a bunch of Landmarkers.

Posted by: Warren at December 03, 2005 06:15 PM (DPRNU)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
16kb generated in CPU 0.0105, elapsed 0.0513 seconds.
60 queries taking 0.0441 seconds, 128 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.