The Narrow Path Ministries

I didn't really agree with Steve on the Thursday evening Q&A on baptism.

The caller questioned his church for taking baptismal candidates through a lengthy course rather than just baptizing them instantly upon confession. Steve and the caller agreed that this was not Scriptural and that churches should be ashamed of ignoring New Testament precedent.

While I agreed with some of their points (for example, that we are not baptized into a denomination... so doctrinal distinctives should not be part of the baptismal process AND that individual believers should have the right to baptize other believers; it's not just for clergy AND that the ideal is immediate baptism as a 1st response to commitment to Christ), I did not really like the tone of the conversation. Additionally, I think there are some good reasons why a church might require such a class.

1. As Steve pointed out, the phenomenon of nominal Christianity was incredibly rare in early Christianity. Who would want to subject themselves to persecution if they didn't really trust in Jesus? In our culture, however, there are less negative immediate ramifications for choosing to follow Christ. Since, in our situation, there are actually some benefits to being labeled a Christian (see political candidates), the phenomenon of nominal Christianity is quite common. Church leaders, I feel, have a responsibility to examine baptismal candidates to see if they really understand what Christianity is all about or if they are just doing it for the perceived benefits.

2. Steve made it sound like the only reason some people might want to get baptized w/o truly being committed to Christ is because that church has failed to preach the Gospel properly. No doubt that is sometimes true. But even churches that preach the Gospel faithfully have to deal with people that request baptism w/o really understanding what they've heard. As I said, it's easy to hear about baptism and desire to do it w/o really grasping what it's all about (I have new church attendees ask me to baptize their babies quite frequently). My point is, churches have to meet people where they are.

Personally, I would feel very uncomfortable baptizing someone just because they raised their hand and said they wanted it done. The interview process might only take a few moments, but in some cases more time might be necessary (to deconstruct misconceptions they have about the Gospel and teach them its true nature).

At our church, each attendee fills out a connection card each week. There's a spot on the back where people can check that they are interested in baptism. On some occasions, I haven't even met the person that checks that box. So I contact them and schedule a class with others who have expressed such interest. The class is about 2 hours long and explains the Gospel of the Kingdom. I then set up a 1 on 1 appointment so I can ascertain their personal understanding and commitment to Christ. Then we schedule the baptism for the next Sunday where all the approved candidates will be available.

3. I guess another point would be that there are practical limitations. I live in Western NY. It's snowy all winter. We can't use an ocean or the lake or outdoor swimming pools. We have to set up a portable baptismal at our church whenever we have baptisms. It makes more practical sense to do a few people at a time (and dedicate the whole worship service to baptism that week). Frankly, it wouldn't even be possible to do it on the spot because it takes quite a bit of time to fill the tank! By the time the tank was full, most of the congregation would no longer be there to witness the supposedly public confession!

4. The early church, very early on (as I understand it) introduced catechisms for some of these very reasons. They wanted to make sure that baptismal candidates truly were responding to the Gospel and committing boldly to Christ. I think we need to be careful to remember that the New Testament accounts and often abbreviated. There may have been more instruction given to baptismal candidates than initially meets the eye. Even as far back as the Didache they required a holding pattern: "But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before."

I actually think it's wiser to require some (short) interval between request and baptism.

Hi Matt,
I apologize for the tone of the conversation. Sometimes I get emotional when thinking about the slackness of some churches to consult scripture for their policies. I realize you are not slack and I do mention in my conversations that my criticisms do not apply to all churches—but the majority of my commentary was (and often is) negative, so I apologize to any pastors who may have felt broad-brushed.

Your point about the logistical problems of finding water immediately to baptize is a strong one, I think. To me, that falls into the same category as the thief on the cross, for whom baptism was not immediately possible. God doesn't judge on technicalities, and I think it is the willingness, more than the opportunity, to be baptized that counts most. I have to say that, being California born 'n raised, the unavailability of unfrozen water had not crossed my mind.

With reference to pre-baptismal classes and such, I agree that many who wish to be baptized may not actually be saved, and the church does well to inquire into the sincerity of the candidate, if it is in question. John the Baptist had a reluctance to baptize certain people (not all) until he had seen a demonstration of fruit worthy of repentance. He had reason to doubt the motives of the people in question. We should also be reluctant, where there is similar doubt.

However, those who are prevented from baptism by further inquiry should not be regarded as Christians. In the Didache, one was not immediately baptized, but there is no reason to believe that those who were not yet baptized were actually a part of the Christian body, or eligible for communion. That is, the cases who were not yet baptized, were not yet accepted as believers. They had taken the initial step, but not yet all the steps. I believe classes may sometimes (often?) be required to establish whether true conversion has occurred, and that we should not baptize those concerning whom we have valid doubts.

Modern evangelical policy is usually to call someone a Christian at the moment of saying a sinner's prayer. However, if we really know them to be saved, there should be no delay in baptizing them. If we need to put them through classes before baptizing them, it should be because we think such orientation to be necessary in order to determine the genuineness of their conversion. We probably are guilty of baptizing some people who were not really converted. This would not be a defect in our doctrine of instantly baptizing converts, but a defect in our discernment of who is or is not really converted. Where there are doubts, let us refrain—both from baptizing and from calling them Christians.

As I recall (anyone is invited to correct me on this), people like Finney had something called "the anxious bench" where those who felt conviction should come and sit and "deal with it"—sometimes for a long time. That is, they were clearly under conviction, but not assumed to be saved. I think I remember a case where a man in a certain town came to Finney's meetings and was under conviction, even asking Finney to come and pray with him, for a week before Finney was willing to lead him to Christ. It was not assumed that an immediate, emotional response to the Gospel preached was the same thing as a conversion. Such a skepticism would seem to be justified in many cases.

This is a foreign concept to any evangelistic policies I have known in modern evangelicalism. We want to rush them to the altar before their emotions subside, get them to say a sinner's prayer, and then get them to sign up for baptismal classes. I suspect that the older policy might have embodied a certain wisdom. When someone responds to preaching, a conversation with them should leave us either with a high degree of certainty that the person is making a full and responsible surrender, or with doubts about this. In the former case, I believe, baptism should occur as soon as possible. In the latter case, baptism should be delayed as long as there is doubt about the genuineness of the conversion.

I believe that Saul had genuine faith on the road to Damascus, and was, no doubt, in possession of full justification before God, but he was not regarded as belonging to the church in Damascus until he was baptized. I think he spent three days on "the anxious bench." If the church had reason to question the genuineness of anyone's conversion, it was that of their former persecutor. In fact, the disciples in Jerusalem still had questions about it, even after he was baptized (Acts 9:18, 26). Even so, baptism was administered at the time of his first interview with a Damascus Christian.

mattrose wrote:3. I guess another point would be that there are practical limitations. I live in Western NY. It's snowy all winter.

That's a convenience, not a limitation. Makes it easy to brush the water off before it melts.

Steve, you wrote:I believe that Saul had genuine faith on the road to Damascus, and was, no doubt, in possession of full justification before God, but he was not regarded as belonging to the church in Damascus until he was baptized.

As soon as Jesus spoke to Paul, he responded immediately, and was willing to obey Him. He was blinded by the light he saw, and Ananias prayed for him and he was able to see. Then Ananias said, "And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name." (Acts 22:16).

The implication is that although Paul responded positively to Jesus and was prepared to follow Him and obey Him, it wasn't until Paul was baptized that he had his sins washed away.

steve wrote:We probably are guilty of baptizing some people who were not really converted. This would not be a defect in our doctrine of instantly baptizing converts, but a defect in our discernment of who is or is not really converted. Where there are doubts, let us refrain—both from baptizing and from calling them Christians.

Thanks for your reply Steve!

I think you make a good point. Here's how I handle this in my role as discipleship pastor at my home church.

1. I made a list of all the people at the church who probably think of themselves as Christians. Most every regular attendee fits this category in our culture, but they automatically go on the list if they claim to have been baptized, are members, or have made some statement of faith. My list is about 220 people.

2. I create 3 categories on a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet: Baptism, Discipleship, Service. I fill in the boxes green if the person is baptized, is involved in a discipleship class/group, and is serving in some ministry inside or outside the church. I fill in the boxes gray if I simply don't know whether they've been baptized, are in a group, or are serving in ministry. I make them red if I know they aren't.

3. I then make it my role to encourage people to change gray and red boxes to green by inviting them to a baptism class, a sunday school class, a small group, a serving ministry, etc.

It's been my experience that, despite my ideals, it is important for me to work with what exists and to help people move in the right direction. This may involve causing people to think about being baptized again (in addition to infant baptisms). And it often involves helping people to realize they're not ready to be baptized yet (since they aren't fully understanding the Gospel).

Then Ananias said, "And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name." (Acts 22:16).

The implication is that although Paul responded positively to Jesus as was prepared to follow Him and obey Him, it wasn't until Paul was baptized that he had his sins washed away.

Good point, Paidion. I stand corrected. That is, I stand corrected as to when Paul experienced justification. I am not of the opinion that Ananias' word associate the washing away of sins so much with baptism as with calling on the name of the Lord. However, the early church saw these two as inseparably connected with the conversion experience.

It is clear from the passage cited, though, that Paul's sins were not washed away prior to Ananias' meeting him.

Matt,

I realize that a broadcast teacher, like me, has the liberty to be an idealist and a purist, whereas a pastor with boots on the ground in the modern church has to work with what is the reality in the churches. This is probably why I would probably not make a good pastor. I believe you are one.