Featured Alien Baptism

If your motives are pure, your congregation is in agreement and the prospect understands completely that this is to signify that they desire to join the congregation, then what is the problem? I wouldn't be surprised to find that many would be excited about the idea of a new commitment. Think about it. Changing denominations is/should be a very big deal. It should be a matter of true conviction that one has decided that their former church/congregation did not teach truth(or the full truth). Also, many people have fallen away from God and might feel the need to publicly testify that they do belong to Him. Could be very definitive to many and should be, as it is an open display of what Christ has did for us on the inside! In fact, a Child of God can not be used to their fullest potential if they're unwilling to follow Christ in believer's baptism.

I may not agree with everything you've said on this thread, but you know your flock better than anyone and if you feel that God wants you to implement this guideline for the safety of your congregation, then I can't imagine it being something that would hurt. We don't know where your church is, we don't know what your church has experienced, etc. This might not be needful in another church, but if it is there, then I don't actually understand what the problem is. We're Baptists!!! Baptizing is what we do. We Rebaptize! A lot of our Baptist brethren lost their lives over this issue and now we have baptists who are afraid to re-baptize??? Some are even questioning whether we should accept the Catholic baptism of infants. NO! Grow some Baptesticals and do what we're called to do.

Each pastor is responsible for his own flock and must do what God bids him to do. He will be judged individually for how he leads his flock.

 

My husband who was a pastor would allow someone to join our church if they had been born again and had been baptized by immersion. If they were from a denomination other than Baptist or from another Baptist group, but believed the fundamentals of the faith and agreed with the doctrinal statement of the church he would not require them to be re-baptized.
Forcing someone who has been born again, baptized by immersion and who understands and agrees with the church doctrinal statement to be re-baptized is a control issue and I would run not walk away from that church.

 

I agree with your statement about groups that are cults or teach a works salvation.

 

I believe if I found my love and heart in another church then I'd have to conclude that my love and heart was no longer at the other church So if the church I was seeking membership in ask to baptize me in their congregation I would submit. Now if they ask me to walk through hot coals that would be quite different. If I were to remarry in the event of my wife's death I sure would want my bride to say her vows again and not expect that she could use the same vows from her previous marriage on the event her husband died I think we'd both want to restate our vows to EACH other and not use the vows we had before to others Church membership is like a marriage. Just saying

 

What if they were CoG? They do baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

But I agree with JW's, CoC, Mormons.

 

The first cut on that one is: Was your church started by a man or woman? If you cannot trace your faith and practice back to Jude 3, you have an authority problem. This is connected to Mt. 28:20 in context; also Mt. 16: 18.

Jesus gave His authority to His Church, not the Apostle Peter or the so called holy see. It follows that the daughters of the holy see do not have the authority either. In any case, Rome gave no authority anyway. In reality she had/has none.

Who has the authority to carry out Jesus' commission is an interesting study. Most Right Reverend Doctors of religion have not a clue.

Consider: Where is The Spirit, The Holy, which Jesus gave to His Bride on the Day of Pentecost? The Spirit still abides in New Testament churches, leading in all Truth--as promised.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

While in large part I agree with the general consensus that baptizing someone who has already been baptized is not necessary (though I don't fully agree with the rejection of sprinkling, as water Baptism does not contribute to Salvation and I think in large part an over zealous view can contribute to an erroneous view that expands it's importance), I will say that I agree fully with the desire to maintain unity in Doctrine and Practice and being an Independent Baptist Church you have the authority to decide who should and who does not need to be re-baptized.

Concerning point one, I think there is a degree of protection asserted when it is made clear that association with a group that is fundamentally contrary in Doctrine, such as the Church of Christ (and thanks to the member who was a member of that group for his post), that a clear message be sent that their Doctrine and Practice is rejected.

Point Two: I agree fully, both in regards to their own doctrinal position/s, but also in regards to their Practice, which as you have pointed out evidences the willingness of the one seeking to join to be in unity with your fellowship and your leadership.

Point Three: I agree. I have heard people who try to make a case that Baptism is not necessary at all, and this translates as disobedience to what has been commanded. An unwilling attitude towards your own decisions as the leadership indicates an unwilling attitude towards Christ's Headship. He is, after all, the One Who commanded that those saved be Baptized in identification with Himself. It is not really asking too much that we incorporate an understanding of identification with the local Body as well.

Great Thread. Perhaps one of the best I have seen concerning Baptism.

I don't think we can, in any way, shape or form, equate John's Baptism with the Baptism of Christ, or, Christian Baptism (two entirely different Baptisms, three, if you count John's).

First, Baptism identifies those baptized with the Baptizer.

Second, John himself distinguishes between his baptism and the Baptism which would be performed by Christ:


Matthew 3:11-12
King James Version (KJV)

11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.


Third, Christ's Baptism results in Eternal Salvation which is effected by God, whereas John's Baptism reflected the profession of the one baptized that they had repented (remember that he refused to baptize those whose works did not reflect that they had indeed repented. In other words, when men went to John to be baptized, they repented prior to the baptism, thus, the effort was on the part of man within the capacity for repentance available to men in that Age.

Lastly, the Baptism in view here...


Acts 1:21-22
King James Version (KJV)

21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.


...refers to the Lord's Baptism by John, rather than John's Baptism itself. Meaning, "Beginning from the time He was baptized of John until the time He was taken up."

I would just suggest that you stick to your guns in regards to maintaining unity and Doctrinal Purity, that is without question something that is not given much consideration these days (and that is just my opinion, lol). It is you who will be held accountable for that leadership, and I trust God will give you an understanding by which you can be convinced that you are doing what He would have you to do.

More could be said in regards to the disciple replacing Judas, but, I will just say that what is most interesting in this passage is that they are casting lots, lol. "Not many days hence" they will be Baptized with the Holy Ghost, and we will never see them cast lots again.

That is the Baptism that should be of primary importance when it comes to Doctrinal Purity.


God bless.

 

I would make a suggestion, Brother Joseph:


Matthew 28:19-20
King James Version (KJV)

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.


Those who are made disciples are commanded to baptize just as the disciples were commanded.

While I think this is a role for our leadership, I think we would be hard pressed to refute either the ability or the responsibility of even an average believer baptizing someone.

A scenario might be: a plane crashes, and on that plane is a Christian who is not a member of leadership in his fellowship. They are likely to die, because the crash sight is remote and their situation desperate. He leads people to Christ, and they say, "We have read the Bible, and understand we are supposed to be baptized in the Name of Jesus, what is to prevent that from being done?"

The answer is nothing prevents it, and in my view it should be done.


God bless.

 

Me neither. I was baptized in the SBC as a teen; my wife grew up Methodist but was immersed in the Christian Church on the insistence of her then-father in law (she divorced her first husband after he was arrested for molesting children that she was babysitting). Even with the differences in the doctrine of baptism between the Campbellites and the Baptists, I'd still have problems supporting any demand that she be baptized a third time (if you count the sprinkling from the Methodists as the first one...)