Position Paper Concerning the IMB Guideline on Baptism

Note: This paper has not been adopted by the board of trustees and is primarily the work of several experienced trustees with the final edit being made by the chairman of the board. It contains many of the points considered by many trustees as they worked through this issue over the last several years.

Related Coverage

IMB trustee chairman Hatley sends ‘open letters’ to Southern Baptist pastors, laity explaining decisions Letters from the board of trustees chairman BAPTISM GUIDELINE Position Paper Concerning the IMB Guideline on Baptism TONGUES AND PRAYER LANGUAGE Position Paper Concerning the IMB Policy on Glossolalia Definition of a church

The International Mission Board [IMB] guideline on baptism (adopted November 2005) represents the historic Baptist understanding and, more importantly, the Scriptural teaching regarding this primary of the two church ordinances.

Four key parameters derived from Scripture and consistent with historic Baptist ecclesiology inform and shape the IMB policy. First, that the only biblical mode for baptism is immersion. Second, that the only proper candidate for immersion is a regenerate believer in Jesus Christ. Third, that the act is purely symbolic and distinct from salvation itself and has no saving merit. Fourth, that baptism is a church ordinance and therefore the only proper administrator of it is a local New Testament church that holds to a proper view of salvation.

Regarding the first point, Baptists have always insisted that baptism means “immersion.” Though the act is purely symbolic, the symbol itself is given by God Himself. Believers have no latitude to change the mode. Immersion clearly pictures burial and resurrection, unlike sprinkling or pouring (Romans 6:3-5; Colossians 2:12). The linguistic, historic, and even archaeological evidence for baptism by immersion is overwhelming. The Greek word baptizo unquestionably means to immerse. For instance, the Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich Greek Lexicon defines the word as “plunge, dip, wash.” To deny baptism by immersion is to cease being Baptist.

Regarding the second point, Baptists have agreed that the proper candidate for baptism is one who has believed in the Lord Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, repenting of sin and exercising faith in Him. On this basis Baptists have emphatically and categorically denied infant baptism and have insisted on baptizing anyone who truly comes to a saving faith in Christ at some point subsequent to a prior baptism. As a true follower of Christ, one must receive baptism in its proper order—after salvation (Acts 2:41-42, 8:35-39, 9:18, 16:30-33).

The third point on which the IMB policy is based relates to the intention and purpose of that baptism. Southern Baptists have always understood the Bible to teach that baptism is not a part of salvation, but subsequent to it (Luke 23:42-43; Acts 16:31; Romans 3:21-22, 10:9-10, 11:5-6; Ephesians 2:8-9; 1 John 5:12-13). Southern Baptist churches teach that baptism is purely emblematic in nature and not essential to salvation. Understanding it as a symbolic ordinance, however, does not suggest that baptism is optional. Jesus both modeled and commanded baptism for His followers and we dare not allow our symbolic understanding of baptism to translate into deemphasizing or denigrating its importance.

Doctrinal parameters exist for a reason, after all, and to teach baptismal regeneration would simply redefine or negate what it means to be Baptist. All three versions of the Baptist Faith and Message (1925, 1963, and 2000) [BF&M] hold this point in common, expressing it as a symbolic act for a believer. As a characteristic of a Baptist church, the denominational mission organization requires its missionaries not only to hold that position, but to have been baptized in precisely that manner. It would be confusing, contradictory, and wrong to send missionaries to baptize with the symbolic understanding of baptism if they were themselves baptized in a church that understands baptism as a part of salvation.

Closely connected with the third point is the fourth, that baptism is a church ordinance. The issue of authority prompts an important question: Did Christ authorize his followers individually, a denomination, or a church to baptize? Baptists have long understood baptism as a church ordinance. Consider the three doctrinal statements that Southern Baptists have written as a digest of their doctrinal understanding. The 1925 statement said, “(Baptism) is prerequisite to the privileges of a church relation and to the Lord's Supper, in which the members of the church, by the use of bread and wine, commemorate the dying love of Christ.” Note particularly the emphasis on the relation to the local church. The 1963 statement clarified Baptist beliefs about baptism further, stating “Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper.” The 2000 statement keeps that exact language, acknowledging that baptism is “a church ordinance.”

Baptists have carefully defined the church, the ordinances, and salvation according to the New Testament. We do not insist on the name “Baptist” on the sign in the front yard, but we insist that the church be marked by New Testament doctrine, especially with regard to salvation, which includes the eternal security of the blood-bought believer. The doctrine of security is explicitly addressed in the Baptist Faith and Message article on “God’s Purpose of Grace,” where we read that “All true believers endure to the end . . . will never fall away from the state of grace . . . yet shall be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation” (Matthew 24:22,31, 25:34; Luke 2:29-32, John 3:16, 5:24, 6:44-45,65, 10:27-29, 15:16, 17:12; Romans 8:28-39, 11:5-7,26-36; Ephesians 1:4-23; 2:1-10; Colossians 1:12-14; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-15; 2 Timothy 1:12; 2:10,19; Hebrews 11:39-12:2; James 1:12; 1 Peter 1:2-5,13, 2:4-10; 1 John 2:19, 3:2).

A church’s authority, of course, is derived from Jesus Christ, who perfectly revealed His will in the Bible. The IMB recognizes Baptist fidelity to Scripture by defining its doctrinal parameters in a way completely consistent with the Baptist Faith and Message. In the guidelines for missionary candidates, the IMB states:

Baptism is a church ordinance.

Baptism must take place in a church that practices believer’s baptism by immersion alone, does not view baptism as sacramental or regenerative, and a church that embraces the doctrine of the security of the believer.

b. A candidate who has not been baptized in a Southern Baptist church or in a church which meets the standards listed above is expected to request baptism in his/her Southern Baptist church as a testimony of identification with the system of belief held by Southern Baptist churches.

Any denomination sending missionaries is responsible to make certain that every candidate representing its churches has been baptized in a way consistent with those churches’ common view on baptism. Thus, any candidate for appointment with the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention who does not meet our denomination’s view of baptism is simply being asked to be baptized under the authority of a church that is in agreement with the confession of our convention of churches in order to faithfully represent our denomination on the mission field. Of course, far more important than representing our churches is the candidate’s willingness to represent the teachings of the New Testament both by belief and personal example.

All three versions of the BF&M demonstrate undeniably that Southern Baptists have long interpreted Scripture to teach that baptism is neither a Christian nor a denominational ordinance, but an ordinance administered by a local church. A church’s beliefs, therefore, matter.

Some may object that an individual person’s understanding of baptism, not a church’s understanding, is what really matters. In other words, some say that even if a person was baptized by immersion in a congregation that taught baptismal regeneration, so long as the candidate himself did not believe that his baptism was part of his salvation, we should consider it valid. This argument has neither scriptural merit nor historical precedent nor logical basis. It merely extricates church leaders, pastors, and denominational boards from uncomfortable responsibilities; some, therefore, find it extremely convenient. In fact, we do not apply this logic to other arenas of life. A good policeman will not let a violator of the law go free because that person believed he was doing the right thing. A patient does not get better if the doctor administers the wrong medicine merely because the patient believes that their medicine is helpful.

If the IMB does not utilize scriptural parameters, then who should define those parameters? Must the IMB accept the immersion of a person who was immersed by a false Mormon “church,” even if that person claims to be a true Christian? And if the proper authority is not essential, then what makes immersion indispensable? After all, once we dismiss the scriptural parameter and make a candidate’s individual understanding of what baptism meant the most important element, can we insist on any parameters? What makes the mode more essential than the purpose behind the mode? What makes the candidate’s understanding more significant than the beliefs of the church that is administering baptism? Why would a believer who discovers his or her baptismal experience was not performed by a church that trusted in the sufficiency of Christ not be more than happy to identify, by baptism, with a church that holds to Christ alone as the means for salvation?

In conclusion, consider the following examples:

Our Lord’s baptism serves as a poignant example (Matthew 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22). Jesus was obviously a proper candidate for baptism. He was also baptized by the proper mode. Yet, would being baptized by just anyone have made His baptism legitimate? Of course not. Jesus was baptized by the last Old Testament Prophet. Having the right authority was so important that John was the product of a miraculous birth, a special calling, and a proven ministry. Authority in baptism mattered to Jesus and should, therefore, matter to us. After our Lord took such great care to submit to proper baptismal authority are we to now have no need for the same?

Acts 19 describes Paul’s arrival in Ephesus and discovery of certain disciples who were committed to what little truth they knew. However, Paul knew that their personal convictions were inadequate. He asked them a simple question that went right to the heart of the matter: “Unto what were you baptized?” The IMB is asking that question of its candidates. Were you baptized unto faith in Christ? Were you baptized with a view toward eternal life that cannot be lost once graciously given by God? Were you symbolically baptized unto the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ? Were you baptized unto a new way of life in Christ? After relevant questioning, Paul discovered that these Ephesian “disciples” were not even born again Christians. The Ephesians then trusted Christ and were baptized properly. Paul’s question was not, “Are you saved?” His question concerned their baptism. Their view of baptism revealed their true spiritual commitment, and so will ours.