Saturday, September 20, 2008

Maybe Landmarkism has some of it right?

Is there a difference between a church full of Christians and a Christian church?

A VERY interesting conversation between Dr. Tom Ascol of Founders Ministries and Dr. Tom Nettles of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Dr. Nettles has written a number of books on the history of Baptists and Baptist distinctives /identity and I don’t think it would be a stretch to say that he is one of the, if not the, preeminent Baptist scholars on being Baptist alive. In the second of three podcasts, Dr. Ascol asks some pretty pointed questions of Dr. Nettles that focused at first on Landmarkism in Southern Baptist churches. I generally dislike the hyper-separatism of Landmark Baptist churches but they do have some valid points regarding the validity of a church that is operating in opposition to the Biblical command to baptize only believers.

What constitutes a church? Is it the presence of Christians? What of properly administering the sacraments? Let me ask this question as delicately as I can: if the Biblical teaching on baptism, as Baptists would hold, is that only believers are to be baptized and indeed as Dr. Nettles states ceremonies involving infants should not even properly be called baptism, then does it follow that by definition churches that baptize infants are not rightly administering the sacraments and as such are not valid Christian churches? In other words, is the baptism of believers alone merely a Baptist distinctive or is it indicative of a right administration of the sacraments of the church

A follow-up question revolved around a dilemma many a Reformed Baptist such as myself faces. Which is preferable: a church who has given up on core confessional truths but has the correct ecclesiology or a church which holds to the traditional orthodox confessional standards but has a faulty ecclesiology? In more specific parlance, would you rather go to a Baptist church that has a watered down doctrinal stance but only baptizes believers or would you rather go to an Orthodox Presbyterian church that toes the line on the Three Forms of Unity and has a liturgical service, but willfully baptized infants who are unable to show any sign of repentance?

This is a real dilemma for a lot of Reformed Baptists because there frankly aren’t a ton of Baptist churches that are also Reformed, or even committed to Baptist confessional truths. Many a Baptist church has drifted so close to the emergent/seeker-sensitive model that they have become indistinguishable from those heresies. Some would point to that and use that as a reason why Presbyterian/Reformed churches are preferable. I would argue that by trading one erroneous system for another, you really aren’t gaining anything. Dr. Nettles made the salient point that the Baptist church in our example is better because at least with the Baptist church, they are historically orthodox in their confession so you have the opportunity to restore confessional faith. In the Presbyterian church, they are institutional and confessionally wedded to the error of infant baptism. The opportunity to reform, in other words, is more realistic in the Baptist church.

What this should really indicate for us is that Baptist churches need to really return to their confessional truths. No one should be welcomed into full membership in a Baptist church who is not at least somewhat familiar with Baptist distinctives. If their reason for joining in membership is that they like the music or it is convenient or the pastor is nice, they need to look a little deeper at their motivation. Baptists shouldn't hide from our heritage and our confessions.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

What about church discipline? How important is that? Do not most Baptist churches virtually ignore that?

I agree that Baptists should return to their confessional roots. But your premise really declares a mode of Baptism as equal with being a Christian. If my paedo baptized children are outside the Christian church, are they Christians at all?

Arthur Sido said...

Certainly church discipline is a part of a valid Christian church, and yes many Baptist churches fail in this respect (which is true of many Presbyterian churches as well.) I have called for a return to Christian discipline and integrity in our church membership.

You missed the very beginning of the post. The question at hand is not who is or is not a Christian, but what is or is not a Christian church. Mode is not a salvation issue, it is an obedience issue. If a gathering of Christians is not rightly handling the Scripture and indeed is administering a key ordinance of the church incorrectly, can they truly be considered to be a church? If a church invited unbelievers to partake of the Lord's Supper and distribued cheese and RC Cola, wouldn't you say they were failing to faithfully administer that sacrament and question that church's standing? Baptism is at least as important, and the mode and recipient is not something we should or can agree to disagree about.

Your infant baptized children may or may not be Christians, I have no way of knowing. But if they are Christians they need to submit to baptism after they have professed faith or I would say that they are in rebellion against scripture.

I would encourage you to listen to the podcast with Drs. Nettle and Ascol. Dr. Nettles actually comes down on the side of infant baptizing churches being valid churches.

Michael R. Jones said...

Arthur:

Having somewhat of a connection to Landmarkism (as you know), I have often focused on what Landmarkism gets wrong. I have recently, however, given some thought to what they have gotten right:

(1) They properly emphasize scriptural baptism (i.e., believers, by immersion only administered under the authority of a church) as the entrance into the visible church. I recently came across a statement in J. L. Dagg (SBC theologian from yesteryear, quoted frequently by Dever, et al) in which he states that no pedobaptist can ever administer baptism properly because even if they baptize a believer by immersion, any such baptism is merely a concession, it is not done out of conviction that such baptism is the Bible way. I was floored at how "Landmark" that sounded yet Dagg is not a Landmarker (and wouldn't be claimed by them).

(2) They give the local church the priority in God's program. I can almost understand why they dislike the idea of the universal church: almost every time I hear someone invoke the universal church, it is to detract from it in some way or to avoid their responsibility to it in some way. This doesn't justify their denial of what the Scriptures teach, but they are right in pointing out that the overwhelming majority of times the church is mentioned in Scripture it is with regard to its local and visible manifestation. And the Scripture's teaching regarding "the church" and the Christian's relationship to it is also focused on the local church.

(3) They take seriously that there are differences between the way Baptists do things and the way other Christian denominations do things. While issues such as baptism don't make us Christian, as you rightly noted, they do matter. And we must not only consider what the Scriptures teach about these and other things, we must also defend the proper understanding and practice of those things. That doesn't happen when we allow people into the church without proper baptism.

We Baptists need to reconnect with our Baptist heritage. This means being willing to acknowledge where we are wrong (e.g., church successionism, absolute denial of the universal church) but also being willing to defend where we are right (baptism, church membership, proper focus on the local church) and defend the truth by practicing the truth. And I believe we can do this and still be gracious and kind.

Thanks for the link and the thoughts.

Anonymous said...

Arthur, thanks for your response. I am familiar with Tom Nettles. I had him as my history prof in seminary. Great guy and great teacher!

I didn't miss the first part of the post. But to further gain an understanding of what you are asking,

"then does it follow that by definition churches that baptize infants are not rightly administering the sacraments and as such are not valid Christian churches?"

do you believe that paedo churches (or whatever we are) are valid Christian churches? If you believe we are not, then are we in ongoing disobedience? If so, then can we possibly be Christian at all?

Arthur Sido said...

" am familiar with Tom Nettles. I had him as my history prof in seminary. Great guy and great teacher!"

If you are baptizing infants you should have paid better attention in class! :-)

There are plenty of ways in which virtually every church is disobedient. Do we all love one another? Come to a business meeting and tell me! Do we care for the widows? Do we allow women to speak and often to teach in church? Churches are just chock full of sinners and based on that you will search in vain for the perfect church.

Having said that, rightly administering the sacraments is a sign of a NT church. The mere presence of Christians in the pews cannot be. I am sure that faithful Episcopalians are worshipping in dead buildings where the Word is not taught, and those certainly are not churches. If the Word is faithfully declared to sinners by a man called to be a pastor/elder/overseer, does that make a church a "real" church? It brings to mind the whole issue of what the church should look like. I know Baptists who think you are a heretic if you don't give an altar call. I know Presbyterians who think you are a heretic if you don't subscribe to every jot and tittle of the Three Forms of Unity.

What constitutes a church? What makes a gathering of people go from a social club or a Bible study to a church? That is a question that needs to be asked and answered. Dever's The Nine Marks oddly doesn't address the sacrament issue directly, which I think should be the Tenth Mark.

I guess we could flip the question around: If paedo churches believe that infants of believing parents should be baptized, are credobaptist churches in disobedience and can those be true churches?

Baptism, as you and I have spoken about at length, is an important issue. It seems to me that on such an important issue, one that appears prominently in Scriptural command and example, we need to go beyond just shrugging our shoulders. Dr. Nettles made a very strong statement about infant baptism, that it shouldn't carry the name "baptism" at all because it is not Biblical baptism. That would mean, and I would agree, that there are whole churches full of people who are either willfully or out of ignorance disboeying the command to repent and be baptized. Those folks may be Christians, but at least in that respect they are disobedient ones. Luckily it is grace by which we are saved, not obedience.

Anonymous said...

"If you are baptizing infants you should have paid better attention in class! :-)

Oh I did. It was church history. Never a mention on the mode of baptism.

But as one of my Covenant Seminary profs (a former Baptist) once said when asked how could he, a Baptist, come to believe in infant Baptism,

" I read my Bible."

"I guess we could flip the question around: If paedo churches believe that infants of believing parents should be baptized, are credobaptist churches in disobedience and can those be true churches?"

Paedos I know would say NO, those churches are not in disobedience and indeed are true churches.

But back to your question I copied in my last comment. I don't think I saw your answer to my question.

"do you believe that paedo churches (or whatever we are) are valid Christian churches?"

Do you believe that paedo churches are "true" churches?

Arthur Sido said...

I haven't answered because I am still thinking it through. I WANT to say yes, of course. Many of my close friends are in padeo churches, and many men I respect as theologians and preachers also are. But the issue of the proper administration of the ordinances of the church is a vital one. So I am still working through it....

Anonymous said...

Thanks Arthur for the good interaction. Blessings to you and your family.

Les

Anonymous said...

Calvin, Luther, et. al. defined churches as places that teach/preach (and hear) the Word of God, Practice the ordinances correctly and practice church discipline. I agree.

Either paedo churches are not or immersionists are not.

Encouraging unregenerate children to participate in communion because they have been baptized?

Great commission- '... teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you."

Like the 2 ordinances...