Sure because if you can then get others to capitulate in an extreme worst case scenario then the follow up question is why will you not allow it in other cases not so extreme. It is a debate tactic and it lack integrity.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
If a medical condition hinders baptism
- Thread starter rlvaughn
- Start date
Sure because if you can then get others to capitulate in an extreme worst case scenario then the follow up question is why will you not allow it in other cases not so extreme. It is a debate tactic and it lack integrity.
Speaking of debate tactics, ladies and gents, the slippery slope.
I have no idea what you mean bu this.
It floats around some ORB & UB members in my area. I have heard it straight from their lips.
This man was really sick, even sitting up in the bed almost took his breath. He wanted to answer a good conscience towards God, but no preachers would help him except him being immersed. This is to the best of my knowledge and rememberance. So, given limited options(this Brother was in ICU at that time), we 'immersed' him in a shower early one morning. I came back into work that same night and checked on him and I could see a visable change in his appearance.
Look, I am not trying to mitigate baptism nor what it symbolizes, but wanted to help him the best way I could given very limited options.
Let me jump in here for a minute... Its time I had my say... First of all I admire the pluck of SG and I will illustrate the reason a little later... Is it not the churches position among the members, the initiate and the pastor to the one that is critically ill to ask the afflicted if possible the mode they would like to be baptized by?... Immersion if possible is the preferred method... Btw I have seen wheelchairs wheeled into the Pacific Ocean and the person baptized in their wheelchair... Does not the Lord except the mode of baptism if the heart is right?... I specifically like what one brother said on here the only baptism that really matters is the Baptism of the Holy Spirit... I agree if one is not no mode of baptism will matter... I told you that I admired the pluck of SG and how the story he related where some of his friends took the one to be baptized on a gurney and baptized him in a creek... I see a similar story of the ones that took their friend and because they couldn't get him in the front door tore up the roof and lower the friend to be healed by Jesus... To often we Baptist hang to much on legality and legality has split church over less than the OP... But it is also true that we have the nature to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel... Those are my thoughts... Brother Glen
On the contrary, hypothetical tough situations are completely fair questions. But, it's not hypothetical. I believe it happens every day that someone wants to be baptizes but submersion isn't practical. Another poster told you of her experience with someone near death with advanced COPD who couldn't be put under water, so they baptized him the shower.
You're letting faithless legalism get in the way of righteousness.
Sprinkling people who can't be submersed is reasonable. But, someone objects because even though he might really believe that sprinkling in this case is reasonable, he's afraid that if he concedes to what he believes, he'll end up in another battle, sprinkling where submersion is just inconvenient. And, then from there, sprinkling any time.
Who lacks in integrity? The man who opposes what he be believes is acceptable, because he wants to avoid a debate over what he believes to be unacceptable. That is the slippery slope argument.
Another question of integrity is: If I can't get my way, then no one should get their way.
In my case, church membership was not obtainable. Now, if one who is terminally ill, would a baptist church grant membership to those who were not immersed? I would think 95+% would not.
Ahem....his...not her.
When I read of stories like this I think of the words of Jesus Thy faith hath made thee whole... But also their is a flip side not only was he addressing the one that was let down to be healed by also addressing those who let him down... As with your stories of baptism when one gave evidence of wanting to baptized and what was done to initiate that baptism by whatever mode to the desire of the baptized... The effect of the one being baptized affected those who initiated the baptism... The heart of those who take place in it were as moved as the one baptized... And I truly believe there wasn't a dry eye at the creek... Brother Glen
I disagree those Baptist in opinion who disagree with this mode to me see only one thing and equate to those who Christine babies... They just won't admit it... That to me is the slippery slope... Brother Glen
Yes, paedobaptism is a separate issue from mode of baptism. The topic really is whether or not to deny Believers Baptism to those who can't be submersed. I believe in baptizing anyone who comes to Christ and asks to be baptized, even if they can't be baptized in an ideal fashion.
I know it is but some can't step away from the history... We fought to get out of... I'm just saying... Brother Glen
Sorry showering is just showering. One cannot by the very nature of baptism be baptized in the shower. Sticking someone in the shower and calling it baptism is like a girl calling themselves a boy. A shower is just a shower
That's the definition of legalism, when what's done in faith doesn't count, but only conformity to unyielding rules count.
The pharisees who condemned Jesus' disciples for picking and eating food on the Sabbath were guilty of legalism. It was the law not work on the Sabbath. The disciples broke unyielding rules which were placed on top of the law. It didn't matter to the Pharisees the circumstances. Maybe the Pharisees argued with Jesus about a slippery slope, that picking food for immediate and personal consumption to treat hunger will lead to people working the Sabbath like any other day of the week. Ideally, the disciples would have preferred their food the evening before, but for whatever reason, they were out of food. Maybe the disciples had given all their food to others that Sabbath day.
The Bible says repent and be baptized, everyone of you. I don't see it written that if you can't do it "the right way" then don't do it all. And, isn't not doing baptism at all rejecting the instruction be baptized? You trade an inability to do the ideal thing for a willful failure to follow biblical instructions.
If baptism isn't done with submersion, with the right words spoken, and maybe the right water temperature, then it's just getting wet??? On the contrary, if it's done without faith, it's just getting wet. If it's done with faith, it's none of your business how it's done (Romans 14:4).
I tell you, on judgment day, I don't want to be standing with the Pharisees who condemned Jesus' disciples over legalism. On that day, I don't want to explain to Jesus that I didn't obey at all because I couldn't obey him to every detail. On that day, I don't want lean on my works saying I did it right so my faith shouldn't matter.
I never said I helped to baptize that Brother. I said we 'immersed', in that we drenched him in water and covered most of his body because it was a moveable showerhead.
Do you believe sprinkling would be acceptable in other cases, such as when immersion is not convenient, the administrator doesn't think immersion is necessary and such like?
The few Old Regulars and Uniteds I know personally don't believe in baptismal regeneration, and I assume the ones you are referring to don't claim to either. How do they arrive at this ideas that those dying without baptism are going to hell?
Thanks.
Oh . . . my word!
If David and his men could be given the shewbread, because they were hungry, even though the law expressly forbade anyone but the priests to partake, you think you should worry about the mode of baptism in such cases?
"I will have mercy and not sacrifice."
Learn what this means.
Feeding the hungry is a moral issue which finds its force in the very nature of things. Baptism is a positive command which finds its force in the command itself. If the positive command is immersion, the incentive to substitute something else falls away.
While those who insist baptism is immersion are here charged with Phariseeism and legalism, I am amazed with the legalism that insists a person is not acceptable who cannot do something they cannot do. So instead they have to do something else they can do. Why not just accept their faith?
While those who insist baptism is immersion are here charged with Phariseeism and legalism, I am amazed with the legalism that insists a person is not acceptable who cannot do something they cannot do. So instead they have to do something else they can do. Why not just accept their faith?