John L. Dagg: An Interview: Final part

             This is the final installment of my "conversation" with Mr. Dagg.  My previous parts of this series are here and here. Though not an original thinker or possessing an especially broad engagement with other theologies, nevertheless Professor Dagg rightly stands as a model theologian for Southern Baptists doing theology today.  He unapologetically wed his belief system to Scripture,  insisting that the "unerring Word" finally tips the scales in what we believe.   

Most of all,  in contrast to those who believe the pursuit of theology is more or less a pursuit of knowledge, Mr. Dagg firmly held that doing theology constituted a sacred act, a heart devotion toward our Loving God. Theological study, for John L. Dagg, was nothing short of genuine worship.

I trust you have been entertained by the fictitious format of "conversation" between me and Mr. Dagg.  And now, our final chat...

Peter:  Gosh.  Time is getting away, Mr. Dagg. I did not realize we'd digressed so much.  I must be going soon.  I hope you are open to just a few questions more.

Mr. Dagg: Certainly.  But you must, please, stay on subject.  

Peter:  I promise.  Where were we?  Yes, we were speaking about the nature of the Church and you denied a distinction I so often hear and have even used myself--the common distinction between the "Visible Church" on the one hand, and the "Invisible Church" on the other.  And, the way I understand you, Mr. Dagg, you ground that denial in...Well, I'm not sure where you ground it.

Mr. Dagg:  I think I did say, but I'll be glad to repeat it here.  First, the term "ekklesia" meaning "assembly" is the term the NT employs for Church.  And, wherever one finds the "ekklesia," one will find that the "ekklesia" assembles.  The Church now assembles and the Church then, when our Lord returns for her,  will assemble.  Secondly, Christ never calls His people to an invisible existence.  To the contrary, the true Church of Jesus Christ always functions visibly.  This, in essence, is a moral point of view.  It's about professing Him before men.

Peter:  But how do we distinguish between say, different local Churches?  After all, we are surely not the same.

Mr. Dagg:  Simply put, while the NT allows no distinction for a supposed "invisible" Church, there is definitely a valid distinction between the "Local Church" on the one hand and the "Universal Church" on the other.  But both the "Local Church" and the "Universal Church" possess the very same quality--"Visibility"!

Peter:  I'm lost.  Are you saying the two are actually the same?

Mr. Dagg:  If they were the same, why should we distinguish them?  No, the two are not the same, though both possess visibility.  One may be a member of the Universal Church but not a member of the Local Church.  The thief on the Cross became a member of the Universal Church though he  was never a member of a Local Church.   Contrarily, one may be a member of the Local Church and not a member of the Universal Church.  I think of Simon the Magician who appeared to possess an unrepentant heart but who was a member of the Local Church at Samaria (Acts 8.9ff).  Despite Simon's association with the Local Church through his baptism, he did not seem to qualify as a member of the Universal Church. Others could be mentioned.  

Peter:  So Local Church membership is not coextensive with Universal Church membership?

Mr. Dagg:  Precisely.  Nor vice versa.  And the most obvious reason this is so is because there are different requisites for being a part of either the Local or Universal Church.  

Peter:  And...

Mr. Dagg:  And what?

Peter:  What are those requisites and how are they different?

Mr. Dagg:   In the New Testament only those who give a professed faith in Jesus Christ and are baptized by immersion are admitted as members of the Local Church (p.268).   Indeed, it's not too much to say that so uniformly was this rite administered at the beginning of the Christian profession, that no room is left to doubt its universal observance (p.95).  Note, though, that there is such a person the New Testament reveals as a "false professor".  Thus, one may become a full member of a Local Congregation but not at all be right with God.  We accept people based upon what we see with our naked eye and human experience reveals our naked eye many times is grossly incorrect.

However, God can never be incorrect.  Therefore, the Universal Church is the whole company of those who are saved by Christ (p.100).  Thus, the Universal Church is composed of those and those alone who are regenerated by God's Spirit.  And, while ideally only those who are regenerated are a part of the Local Church, we know from both Scripture and experience the actual case is to the contrary.

Peter:  I think I'm beginning to see, Mr. Dagg, what you are saying.  No one can be a part of the Universal Church without being regenerated...

Mr. Dagg:  Correct.

Peter:  And, no one can be a part of the Local Church without being baptized...

Mr. Dagg:  Yes.

Peter:  Can someone be a part of the Universal Church without being baptized?

Mr. Dagg:  (Sigh...)

Peter:   Oops!  Sorry.  I recall we've answered that already.  But I do not think we've asked if someone can be a part of the Universal Church since he is regenerated but not a part of the Local Church even though he is baptized.

Mr. Dagg:  Interesting question.  I would have to say it's remotely possible I suppose.  After all, Phillip baptized the Ethiopian in the desert.  But that must be qualified immensely.  First, as we noted earlier, only those baptized may be members of the Local Church as universally this rite is portrayed in the New Testament.  Secondly, it is true that admission to membership belongs to Local Churches, but baptism itself belongs properly to the ministry.  A single minister possesses the right to receive to baptism, on his own individual responsibility; as is clear from Phillip baptizing the Black man, when alone (p.269).  So, I would offer a reserved--indeed, a very reserved--"yes", someone may be baptized but not a part of a Local Church. 

Peter:  That brings us, Mr. Dagg, to an interesting scenario.  If it is true, as you suggest, that, even though remote, it is possible for a minister, on his own authority, to baptize a convert, does that not, in itself,  displace the significance of baptism as a Local Church ordinance?

Mr. Dagg:  Peter, you must surely learn to listen carefully to what is said and what is not said.  I by no means suggested that a minister on his own authority may baptize converts. I said a single minister possesses the right to receive to baptism, on his own individual responsibility.  The two are quite different.  And, according to the New Testament, a Gospel minister is definitively not a lone, self-appointed servant who travels the country side preaching and baptizing. 

 

Rather, the New Testament minister, while not called by the Local Church to be a minister but is called by God, it is the Local Church that commissions the minister to do what God has called.  For example, the Church did not create the Canon of Scripture but they did compose it; or, if you will, they recognized the Canon.  Similarly, while the Local Church does not create ministers, the Local Church recognizes them and, consequently, sends them.  It's all about Church Order...Local Church structure, which, by the way, is perhaps the primary visible difference between the Local Church and the Universal Church. The Local Church possesses organization; the Universal Church lacks such.

Peter:  Mr. Dagg, there are just so many things we need to unpack in what you just said but time is slipping away.  You've been so patient with me and I thank you.  I don't frankly know where to begin.

Mr. Dagg:  (smiling, as he notices the night moving on).  

Peter:  O. K.  You mentioned that the Local Church possesses Church Order but the Universal Church does not.  Please elaborate on that a little.

Mr. Dagg:  One key distinction to keep in mind is that while both the Local Church and the Universal Church possess the trait of visibility, as we argued before, we must insist that a distinction does exist between visibility and organization (p.133).  The Local Church is visible and is externally organized.  The Universal Church, while visible, knows no such external organization (p.128).  The organic unity that binds together the Universal Church proves ever to be spiritual alone.  If indeed one would insist on external organization for the Universal Church, one would look toward Rome as they are united by external organization which possesses a head--the vicar of Christ Himself--the subordinate officers and members of the body.

Not so for the Local Church.  To this institution is given structure, organization such that ceremonies may be perpetuated.  As profession is necessary to church membership, so is baptism, which is the appointed ceremony of profession.  Profession is the substance and baptism is the form; Christ's command requires the form as well as the substance (p.95).  The institution of the Local Church has divine authority, and ought to be respected by every disciple of Christ.  It is the duty of every one to become a member of some local church, and walk with the other members in love and Christian obedience (p.250).

Peter:  Mr. Dagg, I take it that since the Universal Church possesses no organizational structure, may we assume that the ordinances given by Christ in the New Testament properly belong to the Local Church and not the Universal Church?

Mr. Dagg: I think one is safe to rightly assume such.  Yes. 

Peter:  We must, Mr. Dagg, before I be on my way, at least talk a little about who in the Local Church may actually perform the duties surrounding the ordinances, specifically Baptism and the Lord's Supper.

Mr. Dagg:  Certainly.  What is it you wish to discuss?

Peter: Well, sir, if for instance Baptism belongs to the Local Church and the Local Church is ideally made up of regenerate disciples of Jesus Christ, is it not perfectly acceptable for anyone in the Local Church provide that ordinance for other professing disciples?  In other words, who can administer the ordinances?

Mr. Dagg:  There appears to be a sizable and growing confusion about that very question today, coupled with some other concerns about Church successionism and the treatment of "unbaptized ministers."  Some very able men have entered this discussion.  For example, Elder J.M. Pendleton has written a tract "An Old Landmark Reset" in which he argues that Baptists ought not recognize Pedobaptist preachers as gospel ministers.  Its doctrine is embraced by many (p.286).   These discussions are good for us, and if they do not bring us to the conclusions of the Landmark, may enable us to correct the premises from which those conclusions are drawn (p.287)

Peter: Mr. Dagg, do you believe that there exists an unbroken succession of New Testament Churches who faithfully carried out baptism by immersion and observed the Lord's Supper as our Landmark brothers seem to suggest?

Mr. Dagg:  Whether there exists in history an empirical trail of both properly ordained ministers of the Word and New Testament Churches practicing the New Testament ordinances is a question others are welcome to pursue (p.262).  The greater concern for me is whether God-called men, whose call of the Spirit is complete in itself, possess an innate obligation to respect New Testament order, when it exists, and to restore it when it does not (p.260).

Thus, in the normality of order, only those who are rightly recognized and duly set apart for the work of the ministry are the ones who should administrate the ordinances.  Indeed we have maintained that proper administrators are persons called of God to the ministerial office (p.285).  We note in passing that it is held by some that, in the case of necessity, Baptism may be administered by laymen and even by women.  Some persons who are free from such superstitious reliance on outward ceremony, have held that anyone who makes a disciple, may baptize him.  According to this interpretation, it would be proper for a mother, whose instructions have been blessed to the conversion of her son, to be the administrator of his baptism. But this interpretation is inadmissible (p.255). 

We establish this point:  the authority to administer baptism is conferred in the ordinary course of the ministerial succession, when an individual, called by the Holy Spirit to the ministry of the Word, is publicly set apart to this service. Baptism ought to be administered by an ordained minister of the Word (p.257).

Peter: Thank you, Mr. Dagg.  You have been clear.  I must leave you now and find my way back home; the night awaits me.   

Mr. Dagg:  The moon is full.  Its light should be sufficient.  Be careful of the ditch beside Old Man Wooten's corn field.  Many a buggy I have pulled from it.  Godspeed and good evening. 

Peter: Good night.   

 

With that, I am...

Peter

Comments

[Malcolm Yarnell]

The format of a dialogue with a leading (but departed to glory) Southern Baptist theologian is highly innovative. In this, Peter, you show yourself a creative thinker.

The substance of the dialogue shows, on the other hand, that you (and Mr. Dagg) are anything but original. Rather, you (and Mr. Dagg) are not creative whatsoever, but simply faithful to Scripture. Thank you for this biblical (i.e. Baptist) witness in a day when so many are too willing to ignore the teachings of Scripture in favor of a sentimental and spiritually-deficient "bridge-building" ecumenism that owes more to the traditions of fallen men than to the witness of Scripture.

[Byroniac]

Peter:

I certainly share in Malcolm Yarnell's statement that you "show yourself a creative thinker."

I'm curious about this whole Universal, not Invisible, Church thing. If the Universal Church is visible as is the local church, and the Universal Church "is the whole company of those who are saved by Christ (p.100)," then I have a question for Mr. John L. Dagg.

Are departed saints (i.e. true believers) still considered part of the Universal Church, and if so, how does the Universal Church retain its quality of visibility? And a second related question needs to be asked: what exactly is this quality of visibility?

[Scott S.]

Peter,

I find your new layout much easier to read.

Scott

P.S.

[Byroniac]

Peter:

I need to clarify something. I meant that your interview style is very creative. I've never seen it used anywhere else, so far. It seems like a real interview.

As for the blog template design, the current one is very easy to read. At least for me. The old one had fonts at too large of a size (even for me), but again, I'm on Linux, so everything will look different for me compared to others no matter what you do. So, I will just accept whatever you do and try to adjust.

For the interview question, to me, I don't see how one can distinguish between a Universal and an Invisible Church. The Universal Church cannot consist of false professors, but as far as the local church goes, looks can be deceiving, so therefore I refer to the concept of the "invisible" church of all who are truly regenerate in Christ (for me, this is all the elect throughout time).

As for visibility, would it be defined as the activity of holy living in a saint's life? So that the Universal Church consists of all believers having ever lived, and is visible in the sense that they all lived holy lives when they sojourned here on Earth? What classification do departed believers fall into? And if you are Calvinist, in what classification are the pre-incarnate elect (note: I am not saying that they exist prior to being born on Earth, only that God has preordained their existence and salvation).

I would be interested in Mr. John L. Dagg's position on it, and yours too. Thanks!

[Steve]

Very good material Pete.
Well argued,
Steve

[peter lumpkins]

Dr. Yarnell,

You are much too kind. Thank you.

Byroniac,

Thanks. I think a key part in understanding Dagg's "Universal/Local, Visible Church is his insistance that all Christ's people are called to open discipleship. For him it was a Lordship issue and a moral one.

Also, the image I think is a direct "hit" on Roman Catholicism's Universal Visible *organized* Church. In addition, a visible church seemed to fit well public baptism by immersion of believer's only who gave a credible witness of Jesus Christ. Other things could be noted I'm quite sure.

As for your concern about departed saints being a part of the Universal Church yet not be "visible," I think is a great observation, though I haven't a clue how Dagg would respond. He may suggest that were we where the departed saints were, visibility would not be a problem any more than visibility of seeing Jesus. That is, just because we can't see them does not mean they do not possess the quality of visibility.

As for the other concerns, Byronaic, I will have to chew on them awhile. You surely possess some intriging questions...

Scott,

Always, a pleasure to have you stop in. And I'm glad the new look is working. It's surely an easy design--just point and click :^)

Steve,

Thanks brother. And, I am glad you guys solved our wine issue. Too bad you were not here las year when I posted on this issue. We had some lively discussion.

Grace to all. With that, I am...

Peter

[Byroniac]

Peter,

Thanks! I am thankful that Mr. Dagg rejected the Roman Catholic theology you mentioned also. And I agree with you wholeheartedly about open discipleship. True Christians should not be "invisible" except perhaps to other believers, and only then in terms of physical distance and/or place in history. I also admit that the Scriptures focus on the local, visible church as far as I am aware.

[Byroniac]

I want to post one more thing concerning the alcohol issue. I have just been counseled tonight by a spiritual mentor on the subject, and he very soberly (no pun intended!) cautioned me to the potential dangers of that path. It seems to me that I have been overzealous on this issue. I am thinking that it probably would be better for my personal practice to be that of abstinence.

Blessings to all.

[selahV]

Byroniac: I couldn't be happier for your decision. May your voice continue to be one of solid reasoning and spirited debate. selahV

[Strider]

I was intrigued by Dagg's understanding of invisible vs Universal Church. I don't think I disagree with him there- to his great relief no doubt. But I really do not understand his stance on the minister/laity distinction. I think that this understanding has crippled the Church- local and universal- for many centuries and we should reaffirm our own baptist teaching of the priesthood of the believer. Christ is the head of the Church and all who seek authority over His Church to command and control others do so at their own great peril. He gives gifts to his people and all those who have such gifts should serve the body with them. But it is by His authority that anyone is baptized and it is by His authority that the Lord's Supper has any meaning beyond calorie count. All God's children can rest in His authority but none can wrest it from Him.

[Joe Stewart]

Peter:
How about an interview with Spurgeon next?

[Robin Foster]

Peter

You have done an outstanding job with your interview. You are a man, not my equal, but my superior when it comes to creativity and theological insight.

God Bless

[peter lumpkins]

Joe,

Spurgeon, hmm? Sounds like a great thought. I shall consider it!

Robin,

I am humbled by your words.

Grace to you both, my brothers. With that, I am...

Peter

[peter]

Strider,

Greetings my brother. And thanks for stopping by. Actually, I missed your very good contribution and regret I did not post sooner.

You would be also pleased to know that Dagg would not disagree with your position when you state "Christ is the head of the Church and all who seek authority over His Church to command and control others do so at their own great peril." Dagg affirmed pastoral authority, but he noted:

"The ruling authority of a pastor is peculiar in its kind. Though bearing some analogy to that of a father in his family, or of a governor in civil society, it differes from these..the spiritual rulers under Christ have no coercive power over the persons or property of those under their authority...Another peculiarity of their rule is that they cannot govern at their own will...The only rule which they have a right to apply is that of God's Word; and the only obedience which they have a right to exact, is voluntary." (p.264).

I do not, Strider, know that differs from the first concern you express.

On the other hand, to place the ordinances into the hands of disciples at large, when the NT offers precisely an opposite pattern and, outside the cryptic phrase of the 1644 Confession about "disciples" being able to perform ordinances, Baptists historically have observed the ordinances within the confines of the Local Assembly. It seems both risky and wrong-headed to overturn such established orthopraxy, not to mention it seriously weakens a vibrant ecclesiology.

Grace, Strider. With that, I am...

Peter