Featured Does Baptism have to be by immersion?

OT believers were NOT included in the Body/bride/Church of Christ, in so much as the Lord did remit their sins, but they were NOT spiritually united with yeshua, as THAT act by God was not in effect until the coming of the Holy Spirit in order to usher in the new Covenant Age!

And its NOT an eternal Covenant, but more sl like an Eternal Election in the Bible.....

 

So good old Slick makes the case for baptism by immersion only and then works against his own argument. Anyone else find that weird?

 

I believe immersion is the original and most appropriate form of baptism and should be done when possible. The EOC, which baptizes babies, nevertheless dunks them three times -- because they know that immersion was the original baptism!

However, if someone was not immersed, I would not disfellowship them or refuse to admit them to my church. I would leave it up to them as to whether they wanted to be baptized by immersion or not.

As a minister, I would not pour or sprinkle unless immersion was not possible.

 

Baptist churches, if they are a true Baptist church, will not admit those who have not been immersed. Baptism is a public confession of salvation and a public commitment of service to our Lord and Savior. There is no reason to admit someone who will not do that. and it doesn't matter how many times you dunk, sprinkle, ir splash a baby, it is a stupid act and serves no purpose.

 

So why could be part of the Church of christ due to being born again, yet not be a member of a local church at same time, correct?

 

Is English not your first language? Please revisit your sentence structure and appropriate capitalization and re-post this. I am not trying to be mean but this is just not coherent.

 

A person could be a member of the Church/body/bride of Christ, and yet NOT be accepted as a member of a local church due to differences in doing a mode of water baptism?

 

No sir, not due to differences in mode, but because of disobedience to scripture concerning Baptism.

 

So you would agree that we could have the situation where a church would not accept a Chrsitian as a member due to "improper baptism", while jesus has that same person saved, and in His church?

 

Please respect our Lord and Savior.

And yes but they are disobedient and living in sin.

 

Wouldn't a person though NOT be living in sin, as the blood of jesus cleanses them from all sin?

 

You need to capitalize Jesus. Get back to me when that becomes a habit for you.

 

why would that be so offensive though? the lord knows that i am not making fun or mocking Him?

 

Failure to give respect when it is due is just as bad as using His name in vain. Why would you do that anyway?

 

First, All the elect are not part of the church/body/bride of Christ as the church had no existence previous to the public ministry of Jesus Christ and yet multitudes of elect regenerated (spiritual union with God) saints lived between Genesis and Matthew.

Second, you are confusing the kingdom of God with the church of God. All the elect are born into the kingdom of God and have SPIRITUAL UNION by new birth BEFORE the cross and BEFORE Pentecost (John 3).

Third, the church of Christ has to do with SERVICE and PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION and nothing at all to do with regeneration/conversion/justification.

Fourth, your doctrine demands TWO different kinds of churches of Christ when there is but "one" kind - the local visible kind and your doctrine demands two different ongoing kinds of baptism when there is but "one baptism" and it is the baptism administered by men until the end of the age (Mt 28:19-20). Water baptism ONLY has reference to that kind and is the prerequisite for membership in the Church of Christ (Acts 2:40).

Fifth, the confusion of Christendom lies in the professing kingdom of God on earth (Mt. 13) which is not to be confused with the churches of Christ or "the church of Christ" as an institution built by Christ with ordinances and ordained leaders.

 

That is false and pure legalism. To contend that baptism is not necessary for salvation but that immersion is absolutely necessary for a valid baptism runs against the spirit of Jesus. If a person has had believer's baptism, by any mode, I would leave it to the conscience of that person as to whether to be immersed or not when joining my church.

Liberty of conscience is a Baptist principle; legalism is not.

 

That's one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever read.

 

No! That is obedience to scriptures!

You fail to understand both the concept and purpose of a symbol. The concept of a symbol is an established PATTERN/FORM/SHADOW whose sole purpose is to visibly convey a certain truth. If the administration veers from the established pattern the intended truth is PERVERTED and denied visible manifestation.

Water baptism is by design to publicly identify the believer with the truth of the gospel or the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We are explicitly said to be "buried" by baptism and any other mode PERVERTS that truth and thus perverts the gospel of Jesus Christ. In addition, any other mode (sprinkling, pouring) repudiates the Holy Spirits choice of "baptizo" and arbritrarily makes it synonymous with epicheo and rantizo which are NEVER used for the Christian ordinance.

 

You must be new to Baptist Circles. Let me help you out. Baptist is only by immersion is a baptist distinctive.

 

Biblicist. I didn't trash the scriptures, I simply provided historical documentation clearly indicating how early Christians worshiped. I understand your frustration with the fact that their worship is different than yours. But with that, you must deal.

WM