Does Your baptist Church "Honor" Baptisms Done By Non baptists As Valid?

This is a question about which I have been thinking much lately. If Baptism is only a local church ordinance, then why accept other churches' baptism of Christians? Maybe you also mean 'and other local churches of like faith'? I once thought of it strictly as a 'local church of like faith' issue but now my opinion of the restrictiveness of 'like faith' has broadened but my opinion of adherance to the method has not changed. How much of 'like faith' would be required to accept their baptism -and- wouldn't that be also the measure that would determine whether a church is a 'real' church or not? If they are a 'real' church, then why wouldn't we accept their baptism as long as the method is scriptural?

 

I was originally baptized at age 12 in the Church of Christ.

To become a member at our SBC church, I had to be re-baptized. It was explained to me that although it was trinitarian and by immersion, it was done by a church that believed in baptismal regeneration and that one receives the Holy Spirit in the water.

I struggled with it for a bit, but after prayer and much soul searching, I consented and my wife and I were baptized together.

 

I agree. Your statement is congruent to the meaning I was trying to convey.

 

As you described that particular Church of Christ, I wouldn't consider such a baptism legitimate. (I too came have a Church of Christ history!)

 

Might the 'essentials' be those things which we would be justified in "contend[ing] ernestly" for, to the point of separation if need be?

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

Would it be required that all existing members believe and maintain their belief in these 'essentials' or risk being 'churched'? IOW, would the requirements of accepting someone into your church be the same as keeping someone in your church?

 

What were the Biblical requirements for baptism? In a church? No. By a pastor? No. After agreeing to a list of church doctrines? No. Belief that Jesus of Nazareth is the prophesied Messiah? YES!

Here is the only Biblical requirement for baptism:
Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
(Act 8:35-38)

Anything more is man-made tradition.

 

One Lord, one faith, one baptism is NOT referring to water baptism. It is referring to the baptism by Jesus through the Spirit into the Body of Christ.

 

This seems pretty convincing to me... so what do we have here...
a converted person, submersion, Philip

Since we do not have Philip here with us, what are we to make of the one baptizing? Must it be one commissioned from a church for the purpose of baptizing? Must it be a preacher? Can it be a Deacon? Would there be any requirements that the baptizer must meet? Must the Baptizer be a male? Can a Christian baptize himself? Can a Christian baptize herself?

 

What are the facts behind your claim? I may agree with you, I'm just curious as to what would inform you thusly.

 

The entire passage is describing the one true Church/Body of Christ; not many local assemblies. The ONLY body which we are Scripturally baptized into is the Body of Christ. There is not a single example of anyone being baptized into a physical assembly. It is also unScriptural to quote Colossians 2:12 at the time of water baptism. Such use is in contradiction to its Biblical context. This unScriptural interpretation would tend toward baptismal regeneration. The "circumcision made without hands" sets the context for the baptism. There is no shortage of proof-texting in the pulpits to prove religious traditions.

In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
(Col 2:11-13)

For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
(1Cor 12:12-13)

And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
(Col 1:18)

Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:
(Col 1:24)

 

We did just recently. A Marine was saved in Iraq and baptized by a Baptist Chaplain in the bucket of a front-end loader. Not going to argue with that!

We have also required Biblical baptism for a couple joining from the Church of Christ , and the Methodist church, and many who were baptized as infants.

 

You wouldn't have to be re-dunked in our Baptist church. Our pastor is a dispy, but there are a variety of eschatalogical views in our congregation--none of which is a test of fellowship.

 

In the early days, it was a test of fundamentalism. By the way, was Anglican, and immersed by the PB's, ordained Anglican to serve in the Canadian Army as a chaplain. I became a baptist after my military service. My ordination and baptism were accepted in Canada.

Cheers,

Jim

 

You are asking the right questions.

And I did mean "other local churches of like faith and order." Here's an example. In Acts 9, Paul winds up in Jerusalem (v. 26) and wanted to join the church there. But they were afraid of him and refused to let him join. Then Barnabas vouched for him and they accepted Paul. Which means they also accepted his baptism by the congregation in Damascus.

And yes, it is a legitimate question whether churches which of not of like faith and order are true New Testament churches. It's not a question whether there are believers in those faith groups--there are.

Most of us have already decided not to accept the baptism of Roman Catholics or other sprinklers. We have also decided not to accept the baptism of churches which teach baptismal regeneration; And we also will not accept the baptism of churches which teach that one can lose his salvation. Can those churches be considered true churches if they teach such error?