Now about your first question. Here is what I have heard as part of the reason for making the church’s belief in eternal security a requirement. This whole requirement that a person be baptized in a certain kind of church is connected to an ecclesiology that emphasizes baptism as a church ordinance (not just an individual act of obedience/faith). Therefore the beliefs and proclomation of the church about a baptism play into the baptism’s validity. So, if a church affirms baptismal regeneration the baptism is not biblical, since the church is not declaring what the Bible commands about the sign.

Now, eternal security. THe argument goes like this: the ordinance of baptism has been given to the church to declare a believer’s death to the old self, crucifixion with Christ, and the resurrection to new and eternal life. It is a declaration of a decisive act of God bringing the believer from death to life. If a church does not believe in eternal security, so the argument goes, they are believing and declaring an unbiblical truth about the ordinance of baptism. Rather than believing an declaring that a person has been decisively raised to new and eternal life by the regeneration of the HOly SPirit and union with Christ in His death and resurrection, the church is falsely saying the person has been raised for now but could soon fall away. They are declaring that this person may not be resurrected to life in the end, which goes against the truth that baptism is supposed to declare. There may be more to the reasoning, but I think this is at least part of it.

For the record, I agree that when a church thinks a believer can lose their salvation they are believing something that goes against what baptism is meant to declare. However, I do not think this deviation is sufficient to negate the validity of a baptism if the church affirms the other important truths about baptism. I appreciate the IMB’s desire to think through ecclesiology, but I think they have gone too far which may drive many away from taking ecclesiology seriously. And they have already driven worthy candidates out of the SBC.

Now about your first question. Here is what I have heard as part of the reason for making the church’s belief in eternal security a requirement. This whole requirement that a person be baptized in a certain kind of church is connected to an ecclesiology that emphasizes baptism as a church ordinance (not just an individual act of obedience/faith). Therefore the beliefs and proclomation of the church about a baptism play into the baptism’s validity. So, if a church affirms baptismal regeneration the baptism is not biblical, since the church is not declaring what the Bible commands about the sign.

Now, eternal security. THe argument goes like this: the ordinance of baptism has been given to the church to declare a believer’s death to the old self, crucifixion with Christ, and the resurrection to new and eternal life. It is a declaration of a decisive act of God bringing the believer from death to life. If a church does not believe in eternal security, so the argument goes, they are believing and declaring an unbiblical truth about the ordinance of baptism. Rather than believing an declaring that a person has been decisively raised to new and eternal life by the regeneration of the HOly SPirit and union with Christ in His death and resurrection, the church is falsely saying the person has been raised for now but could soon fall away. They are declaring that this person may not be resurrected to life in the end, which goes against the truth that baptism is supposed to declare. There may be more to the reasoning, but I think this is at least part of it.

For the record, I agree that when a church thinks a believer can lose their salvation they are believing something that goes against what baptism is meant to declare. However, I do not think this deviation is sufficient to negate the validity of a baptism if the church affirms the other important truths about baptism. I appreciate the IMB’s desire to think through ecclesiology, but I think they have gone too far which may drive many away from taking ecclesiology seriously. And they have already driven worthy candidates out of teh SBC.

Better to say once elect always elect and ground our salvation in the sovereign work of God. Perseverance of the Saints recognizes both the electing love of God and the reality of a lively faith bearing fruit, a faith which is itself a gift and work of God. True saints will finally persevere to the end but there is not merit or favor or acceptance earned with God by persevering.

sda

http://historyoflandmarkismandthesbc.blogspot.com/

As far as baptism being affiliated with a local church, I think it is normative in Scripture, but I can think of one or two exceptions (a friend leading a friend to Christ in a Muslim culture, for instance, where there is no local congregation, and then baptizing him – upon further examination I could see this as valid). If I were asked to baptize someone who did not wish to become a member of our local church, I would have to quiz him about why he did not desire church membership. I can’t imagine many answers that would lead me to feel comfortable baptizing him.

Regarding the IMB guidelines, as I understand them Paul (comment #11) would indeed have to be re-baptized either by his own SBC church or another willing SBC church (if his church refused) in order to serve with the IMB. I may be mistaken. I don’t think this requirement has any biblical validity.

Through the entire situation, the church ended up changing its practice on the matter and no longer requires a baptism in an SBC church but only a scriptural baptism by immersion.

I agree with you that for you to have to be rebaptized, it would be a shame and a disgrace as well as, more importantly, unbiblical.

“Assurance is the result of a competent spiritual knowledge of the person and work of Christ as revealed in the gospel, and a consciousness of dependence on Him and His work alone for salvation.”

Anytime we look for temporal proof of an eternal reality, we run the risk of taking our eyes off Christ (the author and finisher of our faith) and focusing instead on a man-centered quality control check list. I want no man or doctrine to stamp me on the head ‘SAVED” for any outward displays of righteousness or for any verbal profession of faith.

(That understanding, which I know may be mistaken, sure sounds like salvation by faith, maintained by works through the grace and Spirit of God — kinda Catholic.)

Eternal security is essentially magnifying God’s grace — the gift He has given will not be retracted. But it is always, from the pulpit at least, taught with the caveat that “the faith that saves will produce good works.” Do the folks in the pews misunderstand or forget that caveat? All too often. That doesn’t mean the doctrine is itself wrong.