With C.H. Spurgeon and John MacArthur, I assert that the New Testament teaches that believers are to be baptised.  

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/1627.htm

http://www.ondoctrine.com/2mac0001.htm

Both men proclaim the necessity for Christians to be baptised in order to be obedient to the “The Great Commission” of Jesus Christ. 

Spurgeon writes:

“We finally maintain that our view of the commission is correct, because the apostles so understood it, as their subsequent conduct and writings abundantly evidence. Peter on the day of Pentecost first preached the gospel of Christ, and then taught the anxiously enquiring to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. They must change their minds, having been unbelieving in regard to Jesus as the Messiah and Saviour, and on this faith in Christ, to which God’s Spirit was drawing and helping them, be baptized, thus in obedience to Christ, avowing their belief in him as the Messiah and their Saviour. And after further exhortation and instruction from Peter, “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued steadfastly in the apostle’s doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.”

MacArthur adds:

“The church is commanded to baptize. The individual is commanded to be baptized. There is really no lack of clarity with regard to this. In fact, in each of the cases where the great commission is given, in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, there’s an emphasis on baptism. In spite of this, there is widespread noncompliance with what is a very simple command. In many ways, it’s sort of the easiest act of obedience as a Christian you can do because all the rest have to do with sorting out the stuff that’s in your mind and heart, for the most part. This simple act , when obediently done, demonstrates a heart that seeks to honor the Word of the Lord.”

I disagree with D. Broughton Knox that because there is diverse opinion on baptism we should keep our views on the subject “very firmly in a secondary place”. Since when has the importance of a doctrine depended upon common agreement? Surely, the importance of a doctrine is determined by the prominence it is given in Scripture. And the Bible has much to say on this subject.

Although baptism is in itself a metaphor, Broughton is incorrect when he states “that Jesus is giving a “fully metaphorical use of the concept of baptizing”. We do not interpret the disciple making or teaching portion of the great commission as metaphorical – why would we when it comes to baptism? 

Baptism is the metaphor the Scripture uses to teach  believers (and those who observe the act of baptism) concerning the deep mystery of salvation. Paul elaborates this in Romans 6:2-5. However, without the actual practice of baptism, there is no metaphor. The reality that the metaphor represents is not the metaphor. 

The Scriptural record of the early followers of Christ  is that they understood Jesus words to be carried out in real terms with concrete action. (Acts 2:38, 2:41, 8:12, 8:13, 8:36, 9:18, 10:48, 16:15, 16:33, 18:8, 19:5, 22:16).

Finally, an argument based on silence or even scant evidence is a weak argument. Paul did baptise. He names a few of those whom he baptised and admits he cannot be sure how many other people this involved other than those he names. He states that his primary ministry was to preach the gospel (1 Cor. 1:17). He was concerned that being a baptiser would contribute to the tendency of establishing a personality cult, so he concentrated on the mission to which God had called him.

Although a minor point, evangelicals tend to avoid formulaic terminology, i.e baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Spirit. When one baptises, this is what is happening whether these words are expressed or not. The Scripture records that believers were baptised in the “name of Jesus”. Since on cannot separate one member of the Trinity from the others as the the three coexist in one, then baptising in the name of Jesus is synonymous with baptising in the name of the Father, Son and Spirit.

You have in a sense made my point regarding the definition of marriage in saying, “there is a progression in what happens with it through the Bible”. That is, in essence, what I was arguing; that because there is a progression of the idea of marriage in the bible itself, it seems troublesome to argue that redefinition of marriage is unbiblical. I wasn’t suggesting that the writers of the NT condoned polygamy; Paul seems very much in favour of monogamy. To draw out a biblical moral code to live by today would, of course, entail a systematic theology.

My point really boils down to whether a redefinition of marriage is actually unbiblical when there is clearly a progression of the status of marriage in the bible itself, of which God on occasion appears rather indifferent to cases of polygamy, even after the Law.

A clear example is documented in the story of David, the Lord’s anointed, who took for himself many wives and slept with others to produce offspring, to which there is no mention of any wrongdoing, except in the case where he was found guilty for plotting the death of Uriah. In this case, though, he is guilty of his plotting to kill Uriah so he could have his wife. It was wrong to steal another’s wife by killing the man, but not the polygamy itself. In fact God says, through his prophet Nathan in 2 Samuel 12:8, “I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your keeping, and gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if that had been too little, I also would have given you much more!”, implying that “I could have given you more wives!”. God rewarded his anointed with many wives. As a punishment for organising Uriah’s death, God arranges for the wives of David to be taken away and given to someone else to sleep with for all Israel to witness (2 Samuel 12:11-12). Women, far from being protected by a faithful husband in a monogamous marriage are given away as men’s possessions to be had.

I don’t wish to put words into God’s mouth. His words are already there, written down. The God of the Bible appears to have found polygamy, in these examples, as something perfectly acceptable. However, I do not propose that a systematic theology would necessarily come up with the conclusion, ‘polygamy is biblically acceptable’, except if it allowed for internal inconsistencies of which there are clear examples.

I trust that my response is not taken to be unnecessarily argumentative. To the extent that we aim to better understand how God feels about polygamy, and ultimately how we think about a biblical definition of marriage and whether it fitting to redefine it, I think it is worth going through some of the nitty gritty.

Cheers,
Adam

Fair call. Although, I think we are still on the topic of the biblical definition of marriage, despite the slight divergence into whether God condoned polygamous means in working towards his ends. I don’t mean to be argumentative for the sake of it, despite the internet making it quite easy to be. I am actually concerned about how we come to the conclusions we reach. Thanks for the discussion. Talk to you next time.
Cheers,
Adam

Your conception of God, and how this God might work in our world, is evidently different to mine. Suffice to say, I don’t agree with your conclusions in your most recent comment. With that in mind, it might be best to agree to respectfully disagree at this juncture. I’m very happy to have this discussion, but we should keep the comments on the topic of the blog post. Thanks for your thoughtful input, and hope to see you back here soon!

Now, to respectfully disagree with you.
By arguing that God uses ‘bad’ situations for his own ends, begs the question of what ends and in what ways do they justify their means.

In the story told here in Genesis 30, God directly intervenes in the lives of people in a way that creates a particular situation. In this example, God controls the fertility of both women that creates a situation that aggravates sibling/ intra-marital rivalry. In producing such a scenario, God then rewards his subjects through acts that are morally questionable – the giving of servants to produce offspring, which effectively amounts to sex slavery if we assume that those maids had no choice but to sleep with Jacob. If God does not approve the situation that he has had a large role in creating, or at least does not morally approve of the means involved, then it seems very strange that he created the situation to begin with. By arguing that God uses unacceptable means to achieve his more purposeful ends, seems to imply that God has no choice but use those means, despite it being the case in this story that he explicitly accepts those means in rewarding what would otherwise be immoral behaviour.

It seems to me redundant to say that there is no mention of the goodness of polygamy in the story. It remains the case that God rewarded both sisters in giving their servants to Jacob; a situation that could have been avoided had both sisters been fertile. Polygamy, as a means in itself, is rewarded. If God found polygamy to be unacceptable, he would not create the situation by which it was the only means towards his particular ends (whatever they may be in this case), let alone reward it.

I think to assert that the scriptural stance on polygamy, or marriage more generally, is consistent is highly contestable. At least it is widely contested today. To say that it is consistent depends on a interpretive scheme that renders it consistent, that produces a consistent narrative. By taking the text itself, however, there are plenty of examples in the Bible where the archetype of ‘one man and one woman marriage’ becomes unstuck in light of what seems to be God’s attitude of indifference to the matter.

For example, the story of the rivalry between Jacob’s wives, Leah and Rachel, not only involves polygamy between husband and wives but also the wives’ servants/ slaves (Genesis 30). There is no mention of a married status between Jabob and the servants of his wives, let alone their freedom of consent. Moreover, God plays an active role – one might say, is complicit – in the rivalry between Leah and Rachel in which God blocks or opens the wombs of one or the other (Gen 29:31-35, Gen 30:6, Gen 30:17-24). Interestingly, according to Leah’s interpretation of her good fortune, she says, “God has given me my wages, because I have given my maid to my husband” (Gen 30:18). That is, God rewarded her for giving her maidservant to her husband, Jacob. This seems to be an active condoning of polygamy on God’s part.