Question

The only baptism that matters is the one done AFTER we have been born again. Baptism does NOT save anyone. It is an act of obedience we do AFTER we are saved. I had to be re-baptized after I was saved because I wasn't saved the first time. However, I would still be in heaven even if I had never been baptized. The thief on the cross had no opportunity to be baptized after repenting, and yet Jesus said to him, "Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise."

 

The historical Church has always believed that the efficacy of the sacraments does not depend upon the morality of the person saying the words.

If you do not "believe in" sacraments then why do think that God should care? After all, most the person who leads the "pledge of allegiance" be a card carrying Republican for the words to have meaning?

 

Baptism is the individuals witness and not the person doing the baptism. I would never consider rebaptizing anyone who had been immersed as a witness and in obedience to the word. It has no other value than a step of obedience, and a witness.

Cheers,

Jim

 

That is why the Anabaptists were not classified as Christians.


"What are the marks of the true Church? True interpretation of Scripture, true application of the Sacraments, and true application of discipline."

 

Baptists traditionally do not have sacraments! We have the Lord's Supper and baptism. Sacrament is a carry over from Romanism.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Bill, who are you saying did/does not classify Anabaptists as Christians? If it's the same people who say that one of the marks of a true church is "true application of the Sacraments", then presumably they would not classify baptists (and others with similar non-sacramental beliefs - the Plymouth Brethren, for example) as Christians.

 

I like to argue about words and legalities, a legalist. No offense intended. I'm sure Baptists are acceptable to God as believers and you want sacraments so badly that you invented child dedication . . . unless you want to argue the Baptist Church goes back to 1 Samuel. <G>

For the first thousand years or so after Constantine church membership "Christian" was defined by the ecumenical creeds and/or the sacraments. Catholics, Lutherans, and Calvinists agreed it was OK to kill anabaptists and some were not Christians for other reasons. see

http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=anabaptist_commune_munster


The Anglicans have a historical argument that they had their own bishop before they split from the Catholics and thus can trace their line back before Catholic/Orthodox split. There is no historical evidence of a baptist or anabaptist church much before the Reformation. Anyway, wasn't "reformation" a reference to reforming the Catholic Church?

 

Thanks for the reply, Bill. However, it seemes to be so wide-ranging that I wouldn't know where to start on a come-back ! Your few lines include:

1. Baptists' acceptability with God

2. Their (supposed) desire for sacraments

3. Your definition of "Christian" for the first thousand years or so after Constantine

4. The persecution of anabaptists by those of other denomionations

5. The supposed "Apostolic Succession" in the Anglican Church

6. The matter of whether or not there were baptists before the Reformation

7. A question about what the Reformation was.
​

I could write about most of those, but it would be derailing the thread if I did, and anyway, it would take too long!

Thanks anyway.

 

Lets get something started on the "other Christian . . ." sub list.