What Constitutes a True Baptism? - by Sam Emadi

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------------

For some unknown reason, the author wrote this article on "true baptism" but doesn't want to explain it. He simply refers his readers to other authors. Really, he's simply making assertions about his church tradition, tacitly relegating baptism to an official act only done by church officials in a church building on a Sunday morning.

It seems he has an axe to grind with those who happen to operate outside the traditional church structure, having written a previous article along the same lines, which we critiqued here.

None of this is in the Bible, which is probably why the author doesn't quote a single word of  it. Not one. We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

-------------------------

(...)

4. Was the Baptism Administered by a Representative of the Church or a Gospel-Affirming Community?

Baptism isn’t just something we do, but something done to us. Despite the way evangelicals often individualize baptism as though it’s a public expression of an otherwise private faith, we don’t baptize ourselves. Someone, or a group of someones, has to actually hear a person’s profession of faith, understand it to be in accord with the gospel, and then dunk them in water.

That verdict about whether someone should receive baptism should happen in a church. (Sentence fragment. 

We examined the linked article here, and found it to be wholly inadequate.)

I won’t rehearse all the arguments from Matthew 16, 18, and 28 to make that case. Pick up any 9Marks book at random and you’ll find someone putting those puzzle pieces together.(??? The author can't just punt on explaining what the Bible teaches regarding baptism. This is what his article is about!)

Ultimately, Christ authorized local churches, two or three or three hundred, who agree on the gospel (Matt. 18:19) to mark out kingdom citizens by baptism. (An unquoted Bible reference. Let's assist the author: 

Mt. 18:19 Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven.

Now certainly this is about the granted authority of the church. But the author needs to explain how baptism connects to this.

Also, note that he allows for a church of two as being a local church. So how does that differ from two Christians taking their newly-saved brother to the lake and baptizing him?)

So, as Bobby Jamieson argues in Understanding Baptism, baptism isn’t just a believer’s act, it’s also a “church’s act.”1 (Perhaps we could trouble the author to summarize one or two of this man's arguments? Or is it a secret?)

Ordinarily, then, the local church administers baptism. (The author's conclusion is based on information he does not tell us, and seems to contradict the idea that a local church can be two people.)

I say ordinarily because there are exceptions. Sometimes the gospel outpaces the church such as in frontier missions. We see one example of this type of “frontier missions” baptism in Acts 8:26–40 and the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch. In that instance, Philip, a representative of the church performed the act. (The author characterizes this as an outlier, but that is only necessary in order to fit it into his template.

What is a "representative?" Philip was special somehow? Was he authorized to do baptisms? In fact, every Christian is a representative of the church.)

So, the New Testament gives us examples of local church baptisms and frontier missions baptisms by a recognized Christian. (Why is the author so adverse to quoting the Bible? One or two biblical examples of this theory would nice, since the author is supposed to be a Bible teacher.)

But what about something in between, like a baptism at a Christian camp? On the one hand, I’d urge camps not to baptize professing Christians. Let the local church do the work Jesus gave it to do. (Sigh. Christians ARE the local church. 

Where in the Bible does Jesus give the local church this duty? Sir, are you going to explain anything?)

At the same time, I’m convinced Acts 8 opens the door to recognizing such baptisms as true so long as those administering the baptism at that time affirmed the true gospel. (Ok, so the necessary requirements appear to be that a baptism be done by Christians to Christians. Is this the same thing as a local church baptizing in their church building?)

These diagnostic questions don’t deal with every conceivable issue, but they’re a useful place to start. Assessing true but irregular baptisms (What in the world is a "true but irregular" baptism?

It appears that the author thinks there is some sort of grave danger to not doing a "true" baptism. Maybe God will reject it? Maybe the baptism won't stick and the person will become a Buddhist? What exactly is the concern here?)

is a complicated business and I certainly don’t claim to corner the market on how to think through this issue. (But, but... This is the purpose of your article!)

I’d gladly welcome a better set of diagnostic questions. But I offer the above as a grid I’ve found helpful in hopes that it serves fellow pastors as we shepherd sheep to obey everything Jesus commanded. (Ah, so this is an article for pastors? Hopefully pastors do not rely on superficial explanations like this to determine their practices.)

1 . Bobby Jamieson, Understanding Baptism (Nashville, TN: B&H, 2016), 6.