Alien Baptism

[thjplgvp]

Hello to all,

Recently I had to defend my position concerning alien baptism. I hold to what I consider conservative stance namely that if the one who is applying for membership is not from an IFB church of the same doctrines they would be asked to be re-baptized and for the following reasons.

1. Protects the flock from false doctrine
2. Reveals the heart of the one applying for membership
3. Refusal gives an opportunity to instruct and see how they will respond to authority.

Your thoughts? Please don't beat me up to bad.

thjplgvp

 

[InTheLight]

If someone professes saving faith in Christ, has proof of believer's baptism by immersion, and passes the interview process at the IFB Baptist church they are attempting to join, I don't see how an IFB church can insist that they get re-baptized.

I was baptized when I was 13 years old, I still have the certificate, and I'm a professing believer. If I wanted to join your church and you wanted to re-baptize me, I would leave.

 

[Revmitchell]

So you would consider a Baptism done by the same biblical method "full immersion" in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, simply because it was not an IMB church?

 

[thjplgvp]

What does like faith mean? Each instance would require an individual decision and not a blanket decision. Doctrine would be the primary issue for me, asking the question what do they believe and could it be damaging to the flock. One of the main responsibilities of church leadership is to protect the flock as much as possible.

In the light, examine why you would leave? Would it be pride by any chance? Were the disciples of John the Baptist re-baptized? Acts 19:4-5

Acts 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

thjplgvp

 

[InTheLight]

What does like faith mean? Each instance would require an individual decision and not a blanket decision. Doctrine would be the primary issue for me, asking the question what do they believe and could it be damaging to the flock. One of the main responsibilities of church leadership is to protect the flock as much as possible.

How about some examples of doctrine that would disqualify someone's previous baptism from "counting"?

In the light, examine why you would leave? Would it be pride by any chance?

No, it would be because I was being treated like an unbeliever.

Were the disciples of John the Baptist re-baptized? Acts 19:4-5

Acts 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

thjplgvp

Sure, they were re-baptized because they hadn't had a Christian baptism. They had a Jewish baptism of repentance.

Again, a person makes a confession of faith in Jesus as savior, states he has repented and believed, can point to a date (or at least a time in their life) when this happened, have been baptized by immersion, well that's good enough for me. That person has been baptized and doesn't need to be re-dunked.

 

[annsni]

Hmm - I would not be able to join that church then since my Baptism was in an ABC when I was a teen. I would refuse to be rebaptized because I do not see anywhere in Scripture that I would need to redo a valid baptism. If the church had that requirement for me to join, I'd find another church that follows Scripture.

 

[Revmitchell]

How about some examples of doctrine that would disqualify someone's previous baptism from "counting"?

Yea, what he said. Biggrin

 

[Revmitchell]

If the church had that requirement for me to join, I'd find another church that follows Scripture.

Yea, what she said. Biggrin

 

[Squire Robertsson]

As Baptism is not a Fundamental, there is a little bit of wiggle room on the topic. So, if I was involved in vetting applicants for membership, I would have no problems accepting

• a person seeking to transfer their membership from your average run of the mill Southern Baptist Church.
• a person seeking to transfer their membership from a baptistic Bible church.
• a person seeking to transfer their membership from a Evangelical Christian-Baptist church.

I would have problems accepting

• a person seeking to transfer their membership from a church which recognizes multiple forms (sprinkling, anointing, poring, or immersion) as valid modes. A situation I understand with the Primitive Methodists.
• a person seeking to transfer their membership from a church which practices triple immersion.

Hello to all,

Recently I had to defend my position concerning alien baptism. I hold to what I consider conservative stance namely that if the one who is applying for membership is not from an IFB church of the same doctrines they would be asked to be re-baptized and for the following reasons.

1. Protects the flock from false doctrine
2. Reveals the heart of the one applying for membership
3. Refusal gives an opportunity to instruct and see how they will respond to authority.

Your thoughts? Please don't beat me up to bad.

thjplgvp

 

[JonC]

If it was a biblical baptism then I would have no problem with accepting it as legitimate regardless of denomination. The problem I would have with re-baptizing someone just because it was under a different denomination is that this diminishes the importance of baptism. It is not baptism into the local assembly, or even into a common theology. It is the capstone of our conversion.

In fact, I do not see how baptizing one who was already baptized (who was saved, baptized by full immersion, into the Body of Christ) could be anything but a false baptism (almost an addition to the gospel message itself as confirmed by the observance of baptism).

 

[annsni]

Yea, what he said. Biggrin

Yea, what she said. Biggrin

Copycat.....

 

[Revmitchell]

Copycat.....

The fewer the words, the less chance of someone starting a new thread complaining about my grammar, spelling, or punctuation. Cuz you know it really bothers me when that happens.Whistling

 

[Internet Theologian]

Hello to all,

Recently I had to defend my position concerning alien baptism. I hold to what I consider conservative stance namely that if the one who is applying for membership is not from an IFB church of the same doctrines they would be asked to be re-baptized and for the following reasons.

1. Protects the flock from false doctrine

Although there is nothing in Scripture about re-baptizing for the above reason as a form of protection let me add that this didn't prevent any NT church from being infiltrated with false doctrine. From within. Note Acts 20.

2. Reveals the heart of the one applying for membership

I'd stick to the Word about a person's heart condition. Romans 7:18, etc. I've known plenty who have been re-baptized who were still human in nature, i.e. not 'alien' lolzzzz. This sounds more to me like looking for a person to be pliable. Baptism received from a cultic group aside, are people really this insecure?

3. Refusal gives an opportunity to instruct and see how they will respond to authority.

The above is not a reason why you'd re-baptize, it isyour protocol for those who would not accept your standards on re-baptizing and reject it. It is a follow-up procedure and is not a Scriptural reason to either baptize or re-baptize.

Your thoughts? Please don't beat me up to bad.

thjplgvp

Well, those are my thoughts, I hope we're still friends!

 

[Kevin]

What would your stance be for someone who was not transferring from another Church, and didn't have proof of baptism?

The reason I ask, is this recently came up at my Church. The person did state he was saved, and baptized, years ago.

 

[annsni]

What would your stance be for someone who was not transferring from another Church, and didn't have proof of baptism?

The reason I ask, is this recently came up at my Church. The person did state he was saved, and baptized, years ago.

My husband was baptized at a Creation festival in the late 70s. There certainly wasn't any record keeping so it was just his word. That's worked out fine all these years for the 2 churches he's joined and gone on staff.

 

[thjplgvp]

I appreciate the responses and while it is obvious that no one has held to my reasoning (which is fine) I have noticed that there are no outright attacks. Another issue with alien baptism has to do with mode and authority which I did not list but in reading the responses does not seem to be a major issue here on the board. Do you believe that anyone who is saved can baptize or does it need to be a agent given authority by the local new testament church? What of sprinkling or infant baptism? Also is not proper doctrine an issue with anyone other than myself after all Mormons are baptized as are Pentecostals and many other religious groups do you accept those as being scripturally baptized because they were dunked? And what of Anabaptists who re-baptized for some of the same reasons I mentioned in my original post. I appreciate the tone of the responses even in disagreement and my mind can be swayed with the proper evidence but I see the scriptures somewhat neutral on this topic.

thjplgvp

 

[annsni]

See, those are the kinds of things we find out as we meet and speak with people who are seeking membership. It's not a "show up once Sunday and BANG you're a member" kind of thing but it's a process at our church. The baptism issue is taught to the prospective new members (what baptism is, it's mode, it's purpose, etc.) and then we listen to what they say. I'd say maybe about 40% of our new members have either not been baptized as an adult or they feel that their baptism occurred before they were truly saved (maybe it was just something they were expected to do and they went along for the ride, so to speak) but now they really want to make a profession of faith publicly. Then they will be baptized in our church (or at the beach if it's the summer) and then they become a member after that.

 

[Kevin]

I was going to answer but Ann has said pretty much what I was going to say. Sprinkling, and infant baptism are not Biblical, and anyone who was baptized as a Mormon as you said, has a bigger issue of their salvation, and then a true believers baptism after that.

It is an issue that is important for the local Church, but it would also be a good time to help someone be sure of their salvation.

Looking at it from the other direction, the potential new member would be able to find out more about the Church, and what they believe. It might end up that it is the new member that says no.

 

[JonC]

I appreciate the responses and while it is obvious that no one has held to my reasoning (which is fine) I have noticed that there are no outright attacks. Another issue with alien baptism has to do with mode and authority which I did not list but in reading the responses does not seem to be a major issue here on the board. Do you believe that anyone who is saved can baptize or does it need to be a agent given authority by the local new testament church? What of sprinkling or infant baptism? Also is not proper doctrine an issue with anyone other than myself after all Mormons are baptized as are Pentecostals and many other religious groups do you accept those as being scripturally baptized because they were dunked? And what of Anabaptists who re-baptized for some of the same reasons I mentioned in my original post. I appreciate the tone of the responses even in disagreement and my mind can be swayed with the proper evidence but I see the scriptures somewhat neutral on this topic.

thjplgvp

I can’t answer for everyone as there are many views here. When we baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Spirit that is the authority under which one is baptized. We do not know the details of Philip and the Ethiopian, but we do know that Philip did not wait to find a congregation or ponder exactly under whose authority he should be baptizing. The man asked what prevented him from being baptized, and apparently there was nothing.

Likewise, many of our “hero’s” of the faith were baptized apart from the “authority of the church” but under the authority of God (for example, Conrad Grebel baptizing Blaurock). Baptism is an ordinance of the Church, but it is an ordinance of obedience for the one being baptized.

Here are some other interesting questions for those who feel otherwise:

What if the minister that baptized you repents and is saved years after your baptism? Was you baptism legitimate, even if you were baptized by someone “outside” of the Body of Christ? Why or why not?

 

[Salty]

Can I add fuel to the fire?
Would you accept the baptism of a Roman Catholic IF as an adult, he had been immersed?
How about Church of Christ?