In the last few months of 2007, Mars Hill Church in Seattle initiated the “Ask Anything” project, which was, “designed for all of you out there in cyberspace who have ever wondered about or demanded to know Pastor Mark’s thoughts on…anything.” People submitted questions that were voted upon, and the top nine questions would form a sermon series to be made into a book. SBF blogger Timmy Brister submitted what became the number 1 question:

Do you believe that the Scripture not only regulates our theology but also our methodology? In other words, do you believe in the regulative principle? If so, to what degree? If not, why not?

As I believed the question to be important, I did a bit of work in promoting this question and defending it on the meta of the “Ask Anything” website.

On March 2, Mark Driscoll preached his sermon on the regulative principle. His answer to the question, in a nutshell, was, ‘No, because I believe we live our whole life of worshiping God by the same principles, and as we do not live by the regulative principle in other areas of life, why would a different principle come into effect when we gather as a church?’ Fundamental to Driscoll’s rejection of the regulative principle is his rejection to any distinction between public and private worship. (more…)

I’ll end the current SBF emphasis on baptism with a link to a debate between Reformed Baptist apologist James White and Dr. Gregg Strawbridge, the editor of The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism. One of the more interesting features of this debate concerns the idea of Christ as the Mediator for the New Covenant community. Dr. Strawbridge agrees to White’s assertion that Christ is the Mediator for all persons within the New Covenant community, which community, in Dr. Strawbridge’s view, includes baptized infants- some of whom will never come to faith in Christ. When asked what Christ mediates to those persons (supposed to be) in the New Covenant community who never believe in Him, Dr. Strawbridge responds with, “Wrath.”

Listen to the debate HERE.

Having addressed the definition of baptism and the question of whether baptism is necessary for church membership and admittance to the Lord’s Supper, Dr. Wills next turns to a question concerning who performs the baptism. Dr Wills writes:

Let’s recognize that not every immersion done in the name of Christ, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is a true baptism. We must recognize that a Mormon immersion is not a baptism. Not a Christian baptism, anyway, for the Mormon church is not a Christian church. Eastern Orthodox immersions and Roman Catholic immersions are also not true baptisms because they are not Gospel churches. The Christian Church, Churches of Christ, and the Disciples of Christ traditionally have believed that baptism actually accomplishes the remission of sins. That is not Christian baptism. That is an overthrow of the Bible teaching of justification by faith. Baptists have traditionally not recognized their immersions as true baptisms.

What makes a baptism true or false? The form must be correct for it to be a true baptism. We’ve already dealt with that. But is that enough? What about the meaning? Clearly, the meaning is key. Roman Catholics teach baptismal regeneration. When the immersion of a professing believer in a Roman Catholic church takes place, that baptism is held to be a regenerating baptism. That is the proclamation and doctrine of that church. That is not a biblical baptism. So, the meaning of baptism must also be right for a baptism to be valid.

I would also argue that the commissioning agent of the administrator determines the meaning of a baptism. Baptism was established by Christ, in the commissioning of His apostles. That’s where baptism begins. It didn’t begin in the synagogue. It begins in Christ who established His church.

Acts 19:1-7 is a key passage in helping us better understand this. Here you have the 12 disciples from Ephesus who come to Paul and he sees that they have not been filled with the Holy Spirit, that they have not been united to Christ through the Spirit. He asks them about their baptism: “Into what were you baptized?” It is pretty interesting the way he phrases it: “Into what were you baptized?” This implies that baptism gets its meaning from somewhere. And they respond: “The baptism of John.” And Paul says, “The baptism of John was.” He knows what John’s baptism is. It has a definite content, a definite substance, a definite meaning. John was commissioned by God to baptize for a specific purpose. (more…)