Alien Baptism

[Ulsterman]

No! - not the baptism of little green men from Mars! Seriously, at what point should we draw a line in the sand when it comes to accepting the baptisms of those baptised outside Baptist churches? Obviously no Baptist accepts infant baptism as a credible exercise of the ordinance, but what if the person had been immersed elsewhere the officiating minister had been unsaved or a woman, or the church was Arminian, or Oneness? What about trine baptism, or baptism face forward? At what point would you say a person ought to be rebaptised (or Scripturally baptised) and request them to resubmit to the ordinance?

 

[Johnv]

I think that should be left to the one being baptized and their minister. If they feel their Baptism in a previous church was in accordance with Christian faith, then so be it. Baptists aren't the only ones who have the answers on the subject, ya know.

 

[romanbear]

Hi D Moore;

I agree with JohnV on this one
Romanbear
Peace

 

[Jim1999]

I am not interested in climbing into the tank any more that is needed. If a person has a letter that says they were immersed (front, back, knee bends or fell in the water in the process) as a witness of their testimony in Christ, that is good enough for me........besides, it is up to the local church to accept or reject members.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Aaron]

The only validating element of Baptism is the faith of the candidate. That is all. I don't care if he was immersed by Benny Hinn.

 

[Mrs KJV]

Baptism shows me that you beleive the doctrine of that church you were baptized in so say you are immersed in a church that teaches works salvation. Then I beleive your baptism is unscriptual, because you beleive you had a part in your salvation.

 

[J.R. Graves]

I would ask those who do believe in accepting non-Baptist baptism a question: Do you believe baptism is a church ordinance?

I for one strongly believe in rejecting any 'baptism' administered by non-Baptist churches.

 

[Jonathan]

Originally posted by J.R. Graves:
I would ask those who do believe in accepting non-Baptist baptism a question: Do you believe baptism is a church ordinance?

I for one strongly believe in rejecting any 'baptism' administered by non-Baptist churches.

Hello Brother Ben!

How do you make sure that the baptism that comes from a Baptist church has been proper?

 

[Ulsterman]

Two Questions:

1. For those of you who accept any baptism provided it was by immersion, what would you do if the person was baptized by the Jehovah's Witnesses, in the name of Father, Son & Holy Ghost?

2. For those who accept any baptism as long as it is conducted in a Baptist church, what would you do if the officiate was a woman, or a known modernist? By modernist I mean someone who denies the miraculous element of Scripture in favour of rationalism.

 

[Jeff Weaver]

We Primitive Baptists will not accept any baptism unless it was performed by a Primitive Baptist. Don't matter if they were Southern Baptist, IFB, Landmarker, Methodist, Holiness, Pentecostal, etc. Having this position really solves the problem of whose baptism is legitimate, in our view.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by D Moore:
2. For those who accept any baptism as long as it is conducted in a Baptist church, what would you do if the officiate was a woman, or a known modernist? By modernist I mean someone who denies the miraculous element of Scripture in favour of rationalism.

Baptism is an act of obedience by the baptismal candidate. The alleged orthodoxy or suitability of those facilitating the ceremony is irrelevant to the situation since the facilitator of the baptism confers no spiritual authority or gift upon the ceremony or the candidate.

[ January 01, 2003, 05:07 PM: Message edited by: Baptist Believer ]

 

[Bible-belted]

Originally posted by D Moore:
Two Questions:

1. For those of you who accept any baptism provided it was by immersion, what would you do if the person was baptized by the Jehovah's Witnesses, in the name of Father, Son & Holy Ghost?

2. For those who accept any baptism as long as it is conducted in a Baptist church, what would you do if the officiate was a woman, or a known modernist? By modernist I mean someone who denies the miraculous element of Scripture in favour of rationalism.

I insist on there being an actual examination of beliefs by the elders before a person is acepted into membership.

Part of what clouds this issue is the fact that we have made an error in too closely associating baptism with local church membership.

 

[Ulsterman]

"Baptism is an act of obedience by the baptismal candidate. The alleged orthodoxy or suitability of those facilitating the ceremony is irrelevant to the situation since the facilitator of the baptism confers no spiritual authority or gift upon the ceremony or the candidate."

Baptist believer, if this is so, would you be happy to accept the baptism of someone immersed by say, a Congregationalist church?

 

[Sherlock57]

First and most important would be the question if the person was saved when he was baptized in the other church.
Second would be why he was baptized i.e. was it for obedience or for salvation.
Third would be how he was baptized i.e. sprinkled or immersed.
Personally I have not accepted baptisms from any church but Baptists because baptism is the entrance into the membership of the church. I might accept baptisms from another church, only after researching the situation.

The book "The New Directory for Baptist Churches" by Edward T. Hiscox says that there are three modes of admission to the church.
1. By Baptism.
2. By Letter.
3. By Experience.

Note 4 page 76 says, "Persons cannot be received to membership on the credit of letters from other denominations. Such letters are accepted as testimonials of previous Church standing and Christian character; but the applicants are to be received by baptism-if not already baptized-or otherwise on their Christian experience, related in person before the Church."

But then we have to ask another question. If we believe in total immersion (and I do) what if I baptize a person and accidentally don't get his hand under the water.

If I realize it do I rebaptize the person? and if I don't realized it was the person really baptized?

[ January 01, 2003, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: Sherlock57 ]

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by D Moore:
Two Questions:

1. For those of you who accept any baptism provided it was by immersion, what would you do if the person was baptized by the Jehovah's Witnesses, in the name of Father, Son & Holy Ghost?

That wouldn't be Christian Baptism, would it?

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by D Moore:
"Baptism is an act of obedience by the baptismal candidate. The alleged orthodoxy or suitability of those facilitating the ceremony is irrelevant to the situation since the facilitator of the baptism confers no spiritual authority or gift upon the ceremony or the candidate."

Baptist believer, if this is so, would you be happy to accept the baptism of someone immersed by say, a Congregationalist church?

If they have a like faith (a born-again faith in Christ), a similar practice of faith (live by faith, doing good works as a by-product of their faith), and the candidate was previously baptized as a believer, I would be inclined to accept their baptism upon their statement. I would have a careful discussion with them about their religious experience however and would extend to them the opportunity to symbolize their faith through baptism in a Baptist church.

It would always be on a case-by-case basis.

For the record, the pastor (a Baptist) who baptized me had been formerly caught in adultery at the previous church (this was unknown at the time to our congregation) and would soon be involved in another adulterous affair as the pastor of our congregation. (I was one of the two baptismal candidates in his first baptism ceremony in our church.) My baptism is no less valid because he performed it than it would be if the Apostles Peter and Paul baptized me together.

[ January 01, 2003, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: Baptist Believer ]

 

[Abiyah]

Baptist Believer --

Thank you for bringing this up. This whole subject
is one I do not understand, in the ways it is treated
here. I would find your experience regrettable,
but I would think the most important element not to
be the baptizer. I hope I am not offensive to say
that it seems prideful to think that only one person
or one church has the correct formula for baptism.

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by Aaron:
That wouldn't be Christian Baptism, would it?

I'm not sure that I understand you, Aaron. In reference to Jehovah's Witness baptism, are you backing up on your original assertion that "The only validating element of Baptism is the faith of the candidate. That is all."

 

[Ulsterman]

Originally posted by Aaron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by D Moore:
Two Questions:

1. For those of you who accept any baptism provided it was by immersion, what would you do if the person was baptized by the Jehovah's Witnesses, in the name of Father, Son & Holy Ghost?

That wouldn't be Christian Baptism, would it?</font>[/QUOTE]No, IMO it wouldn't, but this is my point - suppose this person is saved, and in the early days of his Christian life comes into contact with the J.W's and is baptized by them - is the baptism valid? Does he need rebaptism. After all, his faith is OK, it is the authorising body that is baptising which is in doubt. Previously you said you wouldn't care if he was baptised by Benny Hinn, I assumed, rightly or wrongly, you didn't mind what false teacher baptised him as long as he was baptised. If this is so what about the J.W. baptism in question, if it is not so, then I am back to my original post asking where are you drawing your line in order to justify rebaptism?

 

[Harald]

Baptism as myself understands is a NT ordinance, and at the same time an act of worship. Christ Jesus the Lord has said worship must be in Spirit and in Truth. Coupling this to the ordinance of baptism means that the administration of the ordinance, on part of the administrator, must be in Spirit and in Truth. And on part of the candidate or receiver of baptism applies the same, it must be received or submitted to in Spirit and in Truth. All else is sin, because not out of faith. Thus the candidate must be a genuinely converted person, and he must seek baptism from the right motive(s).

The administrator must have proper authority to administer baptism, and he must administer it only to a genuine convert according to the NT model, which is by immersion in water. For the administrator to be fit to administer true Gospel baptism he must be a male member of a true NT assembly of Christ, and must be authorized by the assembly he belongs to to administer baptism. I think most Baptists have held that the administrator must be an ordained minister of the Gospel.

Immersion at the hand of an apostate religious body is alien baptism, null and void, because of the lack of proper authority. Such an immersion myself had many years ago at the hands of an arminian Baptist assembly that was moderately charismatic. It was null and void, but I learnt it a bit too late, nevertheless I count it dung today. It was not worship, although I trust myself to have been a genuine convert back then, but participating in an act of idolatry with a flock of Christ-deniers.

True Gospel baptism is a holy ordinance, and it must take place in Spirit and in truth, with a God-given right motive and according to Scripture guidelines, for it to be worship as the word of God defines worship. Whatever is not out of a law of faith is sin and transgression of the law. Not all "Baptist baptism" is true baptism, most is alien immersion.

Harald