Internet Baptism?

Would your church accept her by letter?
If so, Why?

The 9 Marks responses were interestingly rather devoid of any theological arguments.

The 9 Marks responses were interestingly rather devoid of any theological arguments.

Which responses were you talking about?

At a quick glance, the first one linked above talked about the nature of the church, the nature of ordinances as local church centered, the nature of baptism, and the issue of commitment to a local church vs consumerism. Those are all theological arguments, are they not?

The second response agrees with the first one, and enlarges on the issue of the nature of the church as a gathered, or face-to-face, situation.

While obviously certain familiar words are used, the arguments themselves are ontological and not theological as I read through. I do realize that the responses are not an fully developed treatises so one can pardon certain deficiencies but even the general platform on which they build their brief objections is a priori. I am not saying an argument cannot be theologically developed but in both cases I don’t see that being accomplished.

I would be interested in someone quoting what portion(s) of the responses they believe to be the most effective and then discussing and debating their theological weight.

While obviously certain familiar words are used, the arguments themselves are ontological and not theological as I read through.

I wonder what you mean by this distinction in this context. Before I respond, I would like to make sure I understand you.

I am not saying an argument cannot be theologically developed but in both cases I don’t see that being accomplished.

I am not sure they were trying to. To my reading, they were assuming a certain amount of agreement about the nature of the church, the nature of baptism, etc, and therefore not intending to argue for it. In other words, they assume that the reader already understands the biblical support behind the proposition.

[Larry] I wonder what you mean by this distinction in this context. Before I respond, I would like to make sure I understand you.

The distinction is in the use of the two words, ontological and theological, I really am at a loss as to what it is you aren’t sure of here. I am saying that is the nature of their responses, ontological.

But if it helps here might be concretely what I am talking about with respect to their ontological and not theological response:

That being said, my gut reaction is that baptisms on the web are a really bad idea for all the same reasons that internet “churches” are a bad idea. Baptism is something that churches do: pastors (normally) perform them, congregations observe them and celebrate them and welcome the baptized person into the life of the church. So if you can have an internet church, then internet baptisms would seem to follow from it naturally. But I don’t think that you can.

Fine, I hear his sentiment but his objection is ontologically based. He says, “I don’t think you can have a real church over the internet”…okay and your theological argument is? There is none. I might agree with what he is saying, I might not but his objection is followed up by nothing but his observation.

He has lead the reader no where in Scripture, either explicitly or implicitly, supporting this.

[Larry] I am not sure they were trying to. To my reading, they were assuming a certain amount of agreement about the nature of the church, the nature of baptism, etc, and therefore not intending to argue for it. In other words, they assume that the reader already understands the biblical support behind the proposition.

Then what is the purpose of the response and the platform for it? If they aren’t trying to develop anything theologically then what contribution are they really making in responding to a context that requires a theological basis and development for responding, even in a mild form?

As to their possible assumptions, if this is true, the problem is that such assumptions are based in orthodoxy which does not address this phenomenon, hence they would be obliged to reiterate the relevant orthodoxy and demonstrate effectively how it challenges this baptism.

However, again if someone thinks these are good arguments I invite them to quote the point(s) they believe are effective and be open to discussing and debating their theological weight and merit. As for me, if you or anyone does not agree the responses are weak or ontological, fine, I do. I invite the case to be made that they have presented a strong theological basis for their objection.

But even more so I would be interested in reading someone who can present a more thorough theological argument as to why this is objectionable. Again, I am not taking a position, my comments are strictly at the present, about the weakness of the 9 Marks responses.

The distinction is in the use of the two words, ontological and theological, I really am at a loss as to what it is you aren’t sure of here. I am saying that is the nature of their responses, ontological.

I think your response below help, and they are what I suspected, but I wanted to make sure.

Fine, I hear his sentiment but his objection is ontologically based. He says, “I don’t think you can have a real church over the internet”…okay and your theological argument is? There is none.

The objection, as I read it, is the biblical teaching about the nature of the church. That is a theological argument … what the Bible says the church is. It is a community that gathers. So while in one sense, it is ontological, is also theological.

He has lead the reader no where in Scripture, either explicitly or implicitly, supporting this.

But as I said above (and you admitted I think), in a short article, he was assuming some background agreement rather than arguing for it. If anyone can argue for the nature of the church, I would think the 9 Marks men could.

Then what is the purpose of the response and the platform for it? If they aren’t trying to develop anything theologically then what contribution are they really making in responding to a context that requires a theological basis and development for responding, even in a mild form?

I think the point is to interact with the idea of baptisms that are not performed by a church as defined by the Bible … gathered for worship, etc. In other words, there is a theological point based on what the Bible says the church is. By definition, whatever an internet event might be, it cannot theologically be a church, and it cannot therefore ontologically be a church. The theology precedes and determines the ontology.

As to their possible assumptions, if this is true, the problem is that such assumptions are based in orthodoxy which does not address this phenomenon, hence they would be obliged to reiterate the relevant orthodoxy and demonstrate effectively how it challenges this baptism.

Obliged for whom? And by whom? I think they are challenging the baptism based on the relevant orthodoxy about what a church is (gathered, etc), what baptism is (public testimony, performed by the church, not just getting wet, etc.). They are assuming that the blog readers are familiar with 9 Marks, and therefore probably do not feel the need to write a treatise to defend what is likely common knowledge among the assumed readership. I suppose we could debate the wisdom of that, but I imagine that is their thinking.

However, again if someone thinks these are good arguments I invite them to quote the point(s) they believe are effective and be open to discussing and debating their theological weight and merit.

I think the burden would be on you to show why the idea of baptism being a public testimony carried out by authority of a gathered assembly before a gathered assembly is not an effective argument. In other words, it seems to me that they argue from and for a NT polity, and those who object have the burden to show that.

As for me, if you or anyone does not agree the responses are weak or ontological, fine, I do. I invite the case to be made that they have presented a strong theological basis for their objection.

Again, not to be obtuse, but how does their argument not have a “strong theological basis.” Are you suggesting that the idea of a gathered church is not strong theologically? Or that the idea that baptism should be carried out by a church is not strong theologically? or that baptism is more than just getting wet is not strong theologically?

I apologize, but I am still not sure what your objection is? The best I can tell is that you are objecting that they did not quote Scripture. Is that the sum of your complaint?

But even more so I would be interested in reading someone who can present a more thorough theological argument as to why this is objectionable. Again, I am not taking a position, my comments are strictly at the present, about the weakness of the 9 Marks responses.

If you don’t accept an argument from the nature of the church, the ordinances of the church, and the nature of baptism, then what are you prepared to accept as a “more thorough theological argument”? What would it take to satisfy you in that regard?

[Pastor Harold] Would your church accept her by letter?
If so, Why?

Only if it were sent by Email!!

I apologize, but I am still not sure what your objection is? The best I can tell is that you are objecting that they did not quote Scripture. Is that the sum of your complaint?

Unfortunately I cannot help you further on your being not sure what my objection is. I have expounded in detail far more than merely pointing to an objection that Scripture has not been quoted, so on this matter I cannot help you further other than to encourage you to read again or solicit the assistance of someone else that might be see the larger or more detailed objection I am making.

If you don’t accept an argument from the nature of the church, the ordinances of the church, and the nature of baptism, then what are you prepared to accept as a “more thorough theological argument”?

No one has presented such an argument, it is being made at best in silence. I will be glad to hear one but none has been presented, only assumed at best.

You are a Prophet!

[Pastor Harold] Would your church accept her by letter?
If so, Why?

My church is Presbyterian, so it will accept just about any baptism, but we will conduct a personal interview to make sure that there is a credible profession of faith.

I think your reading of the posts is right, but I think there’s an explanation. My guess (and I haven’t asked the guys at 9Marks about this) is that they’re assuming a certain familiarity with Dever’s and others’ more theologically substantive writings for 9Marks. I seldom see them engage at that level on the blog, but frequently find it in the books.

Unfortunately I cannot help you further on your being not sure what my objection is. I have expounded in detail far more than merely pointing to an objection that Scripture has not been quoted, so on this matter I cannot help you further other than to encourage you to read again or solicit the assistance of someone else that might be see the larger or more detailed objection I am making.

You can help further by actually explaining what your objections are. To say it is “ontological not theological” is not an explanation. It is an assertion. You need to explain how it is ontological and how it omits theology. You need to explain why arguments from the nature of the church, the nature of baptism, and baptism as an ordinance of the church are anything but theological.

I have read numerous times, searching for more clarity, to see what I might have missed. I am trying to solicit the assistance of someone else … namely, you the author who would know far better than anyone else what it is you are trying to say.

Perhaps I am obtuse, but I am rather inclined to think that you have not offered an argument.

No one has presented such an argument, it is being made at best in silence.

That seems to me to be exactly the argument that has been made. Consider:

Argument from the nature of the church:

It seems like the crux of the matter is what it means to be a church. You can certainly convey content over the web (like a sermon) and you can give instructions to a proxy baptizer. But I don’t think you can have a real church over the internet. I won’t belabor the point ad nauseam (I leave that to Greg, ha!)… but it really does matter that we really, physically get together with other Christians.

But being part of a church means loving and serving other Christians.

Hebrews 10:25 seems to think that gathering with other Christians to spur them on to love and good works in light of the coming Day is a good thing.
There’s something about being there that is incredibly important, even if I can’t articulate it.

It was the congregation as a whole reacting together, reacting to one another, sensing one another’s joy and responding to it as a gathered body.

In these quotes, the author is making the theological argument that a church is a gathered body that physically gets together and reacts together, and an internet congregation cannot fulfill the biblical teaching on the nature of the church.

Argument from baptism as an ordinance of the church.

Baptism is something that churches do: pastors (normally) perform them, congregations observe them and celebrate them and welcome the baptized person into the life of the church. So if you can have an internet church, then internet baptisms would seem to follow from it naturally. But I don’t think that you can.

Here, the argument flows out of the argument about the nature of the church to the idea that baptism is an ordinance of the church. A non church cannot baptize somebody because baptism properly belongs to the church.

Argument from the nature of baptism:

Well, obviously you can instruct someone to get someone else wet. And to the extent that the subject has been properly examined and instructed, OK. But it seems to take the church largely out of the picture. Was the internet congregation “gathered” for this event? Or are we all just watching it on YouTube? Am I a member of this congregation now that I’ve watched the video?

Here, the argument includes the nature of the church as gathered witnesses, but appeals directly to the distinction between getting someone wet and baptizing them. It alludes to the role of baptism as a profession by speaking of proper examination and instruction, and the public nature of baptism as a profession to a gathered congregation.

So I cautiously say that I think you are the one not reading carefully. There seems no legitimate basis for saying there is no strong theological argument. There clearly are. The only thing lacking is scriptural references to support the arguments that were made.

Perhaps you are not familiar with Baptist polity and theology. I suppose that would make it more understandable why there might be confusion about the type of arguments that were made here. So perhaps they and I are wrong to assume familiarity with the theological principles appealed to in the articles.

I will be glad to hear one but none has been presented, only assumed at best.

Again, I simply appeal to you to read what was actually said.

Thanks, Alex.

[Jack] I think your reading of the posts is right, but I think there’s an explanation. My guess (and I haven’t asked the guys at 9Marks about this) is that they’re assuming a certain familiarity with Dever’s and others’ more theologically substantive writings for 9Marks. I seldom see them engage at that level on the blog, but frequently find it in the books.

Thanks. Maybe they will consider a more thorough treatment in the future considering the internet church phenomenon is not one, though not necessarily a threat to out grow traditionally assemblies, that is likely to go away.

I knew the Presbyterians wouldn’t care. They can baptize 20-30 for a quarter at the car wash. (Only Kidding)

I went to Flamingo Road’s web site and saw that they offer beach baptisms & B-B-Q at Ft. Lauderdale and Hollywood Beach 3-4 times a year. Sounded so good I almost wanted to be baptized again. That site is a real eye opener! They have been doing these since Feb 2008. I heard the Sr Pastor preach…speak…uh…no…I don’t know what you would call it… at the Pastors Conference of the AR Baptist State Convention in 2006. That says a lot about where the Southern Baptist are headed in my state.