-
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!
Alien Baptism
- Thread starter Ulsterman
- Start date
It is not the pastor, but the church which has the authority to baptise, as received in the Great Commission. A pastor with secret sins does not invalidate a baptism authorised by a Bible believing New Testament church. A church does not have to have the word "Baptist" over the door to fit the bill. Our church has accepted into membership people from Bible church and Brethren background.
Daniel David
New Member
D Moore, please explain how the "church" baptizes people.
Kal-El, I believe this on a number of counts:
1. The Great Commission, which includes thecommand to baptize is given to the church. The authority to baptize comes from Christ, to the church which administers the ordinance to those who make an unambiguous profession of faith confirmed by a change of lifestyle.
2. Water baptism reflects baptism by the Spirit. By the Spirit we are baptized into the body of Christ, that is the universal body, by water we are baptised into the local body.
3. The pastor or other officiate acts on behalf of the church of God in administering the ordinance, he has no authority invested in himself, and is, as other subject to the discipline of the local church.
4. Some suggest Philip’s baptism of the eunuch negates the argument of local church authority for administering the ordinance and proves that any Christian mya baptize anyone at will. In my opinion this leads to disorder and confusion. Philip did not baptize by his own authority, but at the behest of the Spirit, and was in fact a deacon of the church at Jerusalem. (Acts 6:5).
Some Baptists, the Mormons and others hark back to the baptism of John and teach a form of succession, the Latter Day Saints teaching that John the Baptist gave the authority to baptize to Joseph Smith. The Church of Christ, strong on baptismal regeneration, consider that only baptism into their church by an appointed officiate will suffice. Almost without exception all denominations view the prerogative of administering baptism whatever the mode as lying with the church.
To quote John Halsey, former pastor of Great Hope Baptist Church, Chesapeake, Virginia writing in a booklet entitled "The Local Church:" "Baptists believe that scriptural baptism is administered only when administered to a scriptural subject, in a scriptural way, for a scriptural purpose and by scriptural authority of a local New Testament church. If baptism is a church ordinance, it is only valid when administered by the church."
If baptism is not an ordinance of the local church, then I don't know what it is.
Wisdom Seeker
New Member
The church I belong to did not accept my salvation and baptism when I was 13 years old to be adequate because of my being baptised in a different faith...and asked me to reaffirm my faith by praying again and being baptised again.
They wanted to make sure I was in like agreement with the Baptist church.
What I had a hard time with was that in the Bible it doesn't say that you must pray more than once to be saved, or that you must be baptised more than once. I reprayed, and rebaptised...to become a member of my church...but not to admit that my original salvation wasn't in fact the one that took place 27 years ago.
They wanted to make sure I was in like agreement with the Baptist church.
What I had a hard time with was that in the Bible it doesn't say that you must pray more than once to be saved, or that you must be baptised more than once. I reprayed, and rebaptised...to become a member of my church...but not to admit that my original salvation wasn't in fact the one that took place 27 years ago.
Wisdom Seeker
New Member
Baptism is only a public profession of faith in the death, burriel and resurection of Christ. It no more makes a person saved than a wedding ring makes a person married. A church ordinance? I don't know where in the Bible it says that it is Church ordained...but I have read where God ordained it.
Wow, Wisdom Seeker---and you have been able
to work through that and accept it. I fear I would
not have had your grace, to have someone indi-
cate that what our God had done in my life was
not legitimate unlesss they observed the initial
prayer. I would not have known what to pray,
and I would have felt like my prayer was to them,
not to our God.
to work through that and accept it. I fear I would
not have had your grace, to have someone indi-
cate that what our God had done in my life was
not legitimate unlesss they observed the initial
prayer. I would not have known what to pray,
and I would have felt like my prayer was to them,
not to our God.
Wisdom Seeker says "Baptism is only a public profession of faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. It no more makes a person saved than a wedding ring makes a person married. A church ordinance? I don't know where in the Bible it says that it is Church ordained...but I have read where God ordained it."
There is no question that baptism is a public testimony of one's profession, but it is related to the church. I didn't say the church ordained it, I said it was a church ordinance, meaning it was a command given to the church to observe and enact. It is no more right to be baptised without the church than it is to comemorate the Lord's Supper without the church. To use your marriage analogy, a person may say the vows and exchange rings, but they are still unmarried if there is no ratification of their actions by a civil authority. That doesn't mean that marriage is not God ordained.
I don't know all the facts in your case, but initially I would say there was no need for you to have been rebaptised assuming you were immersed by a Bible believing church in the first place.
There is no question that baptism is a public testimony of one's profession, but it is related to the church. I didn't say the church ordained it, I said it was a church ordinance, meaning it was a command given to the church to observe and enact. It is no more right to be baptised without the church than it is to comemorate the Lord's Supper without the church. To use your marriage analogy, a person may say the vows and exchange rings, but they are still unmarried if there is no ratification of their actions by a civil authority. That doesn't mean that marriage is not God ordained.
I don't know all the facts in your case, but initially I would say there was no need for you to have been rebaptised assuming you were immersed by a Bible believing church in the first place.
I Am Blessed 24
Active Member
Good Morning Abiyah!
IMO, a person who is truly saved by the Lord Jesus Christ and follows the Lord's command to be baptized; it doesn't matter how many secret sins the baptizer has........God looks at OUR hearts and our motives. We are no more accountable for someone else's sins (secret or not) than we are for someone's future sins. He may hold the baptizer accountable for his sins; but we would have committed none in the instance you cited. I believe the baptism would be valid.
Just look at all the preachers who have gone astray. Did everyone who was baptized by them have to be rebaptized?
I Am Blessed 24
Active Member
Baptism is only a public profession of faith in the death, burriel and resurection of Christ. It no more makes a person saved than a wedding ring makes a person married. A church ordinance? I don't know where in the Bible it says that it is Church ordained...but I have read where God ordained it.</font>[/QUOTE]Hi WisdomSeeker
ITA with you. Baptism is a picture of what has already taken place in our hearts. If you go in as a wet sinner, you will come out as a wet sinner. I know of no set prayer that has to be said in order to satisfy Biblical requirements other than, "Lord, save me". I do believe in following through with Baptism in a Bible believing church as commanded by God if we have the opportunity. If we do not, it will not keep us from Heaven. Let's not forget the thief on the cross. He did not get baptized but he certainly went to Heaven! If your heart is right, you will be all right. If not, well....going into a donut shop will not make you a Krispy Kreme.
It is a theological error to say baptism pictures something that has taken place in the heart. Both Gospel ordinances, the Lord's Supper and baptism, are symbolic, and do not picture something subjective having taken place in the heart. Such a perverted understanding of the ordinance of baptism often speaks of a perverted understanding of salvation. Chiefly baptism by immersion pictures the ground of a genuinely converted person's salvation. Only secondarily it may be proper to say baptism pictures some subjective thing having occured in the heart.
The ground of salvation of God's elect people, as the Bible teaches it, is not something subjective. That would be popery or something in that direction. The true and biblical Gospel shuts out all boasting (Rom. 3:27) in the ones converted by it in the Spirit's irresistible power (1Thess. 1:5-6, 9, John 6:44-45), so that such persons when in their right minds never boast of the flesh when it comes to salvation, meaning they never boast of themselves, what they are, have been, will be, what they have done, will do etc., but testify that their character and conduct form no part of the ground of their salvation. Like as Paul their only glorying is Christ and Him having been crucified. The ground of such persons' salvation is the baptism of the cross, Christ's baptism of suffering in the stead of a particular people, which led to His burial and ultimately culminating in His glorious resurrection from among dead ones. That was the Evangel Paul had declared to the Corinthians, and to other apostolic congregations, cp. 1Cor. 15:3-4.
The ordinance of Gospel baptism pictures those crucial events 2000 years ago, which the Gospel speaks about, likewise the Lord's Supper pictures the ground of the salvation of God's chosen people, the broken body and spilled blood of Christ Jesus in behalf of ungodly ones, sinners. Only God the Lord knows how many who call themselves Baptist are unaware of the real meaning of the ordinances, especially baptism. And only God knows how many or few of the same have a real share or part in Christ the Redeemer. Not all who are saying "Lord, Lord" will be found in the eternal haven. These are most solemn things to think upon.
Harald
The ground of salvation of God's elect people, as the Bible teaches it, is not something subjective. That would be popery or something in that direction. The true and biblical Gospel shuts out all boasting (Rom. 3:27) in the ones converted by it in the Spirit's irresistible power (1Thess. 1:5-6, 9, John 6:44-45), so that such persons when in their right minds never boast of the flesh when it comes to salvation, meaning they never boast of themselves, what they are, have been, will be, what they have done, will do etc., but testify that their character and conduct form no part of the ground of their salvation. Like as Paul their only glorying is Christ and Him having been crucified. The ground of such persons' salvation is the baptism of the cross, Christ's baptism of suffering in the stead of a particular people, which led to His burial and ultimately culminating in His glorious resurrection from among dead ones. That was the Evangel Paul had declared to the Corinthians, and to other apostolic congregations, cp. 1Cor. 15:3-4.
The ordinance of Gospel baptism pictures those crucial events 2000 years ago, which the Gospel speaks about, likewise the Lord's Supper pictures the ground of the salvation of God's chosen people, the broken body and spilled blood of Christ Jesus in behalf of ungodly ones, sinners. Only God the Lord knows how many who call themselves Baptist are unaware of the real meaning of the ordinances, especially baptism. And only God knows how many or few of the same have a real share or part in Christ the Redeemer. Not all who are saying "Lord, Lord" will be found in the eternal haven. These are most solemn things to think upon.
Harald
Harald,
It seems that you contradict yourself in your opening statement. You say "It is a theological error to say baptism pictures something that has taken place in the heart," and close out the same paragraph stating " . . . it may be proper to say baptism pictures some subjective thing having occured in the heart." Make up your mind, brother. No one is saying baptism and the Lord's Supper are not primarily reflecting the core of the Gospel. Certainly I am not saying that. Furthermore the baptism by the Spirit is not merely a "subjective" experience, but a Scriptural fact, declared by God's Word. Baptism, in my view, does not have to be admininistered by a "Baptist" church to be valid. But it does have to have the right mode, subject and message - do you not agree?
It seems that you contradict yourself in your opening statement. You say "It is a theological error to say baptism pictures something that has taken place in the heart," and close out the same paragraph stating " . . . it may be proper to say baptism pictures some subjective thing having occured in the heart." Make up your mind, brother. No one is saying baptism and the Lord's Supper are not primarily reflecting the core of the Gospel. Certainly I am not saying that. Furthermore the baptism by the Spirit is not merely a "subjective" experience, but a Scriptural fact, declared by God's Word. Baptism, in my view, does not have to be admininistered by a "Baptist" church to be valid. But it does have to have the right mode, subject and message - do you not agree?
Really, Harald. Are you callling to question the sal-
vations and baptisms all those who have written
what you attempt to correct here? "Perverted"?
What are you saying?
Please give chapter and verse for this premise.
So, are you saying that those who view their bap-
tisms as outward demonstrations of what our GOD
has done in thier lives (none of them said that they
were demonstrating a "picture" of what THEY had
done) have a wrong idea of baptism and must
adopt yours?
This is quite a criticism. Haralld. Amazing.
[ January 05, 2003, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]
Hi Jeff Weaver;
Does this statement of yours mean that primitive Baptist believe that they are the only true church.
Quote from Jeff
________________________________________________________________
We Primitive Baptists will not accept any baptism unless it was performed by a Primitive Baptist.
________________________________________________________________
My comment;
You see I don't think that I would waste my time in a church that would be so bold as to think they are the only Christians in the world.
Romanbear
Peace
Does this statement of yours mean that primitive Baptist believe that they are the only true church.
Quote from Jeff
________________________________________________________________
We Primitive Baptists will not accept any baptism unless it was performed by a Primitive Baptist.
________________________________________________________________
My comment;
You see I don't think that I would waste my time in a church that would be so bold as to think they are the only Christians in the world.
Romanbear
Peace
romanbear, I will leave it to Bro. Weaver speak directly to your question to him, but I would like to speak generally to the topic you have raised. There is a misconception among many people that someone who believes their church is "the true church" also believes that they are the only ones who are Christians. Usually this is a question of church order, practice, and polity and has nothing to do with salvation. I would also add that your use of "the true church" is your interpretation of what was said, and not Jeff Weaver's words. I hope to help us to understand this, so we don't jump to conclusions everytime something like this is mentioned.
Jeff Weaver
New Member
No, we are far from thinking we are the only Christians in the world, in fact we are more often accused of accepting people as Christians who most Baptists have a hard time accepting (e.g. Catholics, who we believe have serious error, but nonetheless are a Christian denomination). We do it that way to avoid the confusion of the issue over whose baptism might be flawed in someway. It is a polity issue.
Jeff.
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.
Remind me to stay away from Primitive Baptist Churches.
Remind me to stay away from Primitive Baptist Churches.
Grasshopper, there are some Southern Baptists that have a similar position on alien baptism as Primitive Baptists and others. Of course, instead they only accept their kind. Maybe you should also stay away from Southern Baptists!
[ January 06, 2003, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]
[ January 06, 2003, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]
D Moore. Why did you leave out my words "only secondarily" when you quoted me? I do not think I spoke contradictingly when considering the whole context of my saying.
I agree with you that water baptism does not have to be administered by a church by the name "Baptist". Today there are many kinds of "Baptist" churches, and I dare claim most called thus are not true churches in the NT meaning of the word. The name does not in and of itself specify whether a church has the lampstand in place. But what I believe can be said is that in general only immersionist or baptistic churces are able to administer biblical water baptism. Yet the fact that a church is in the bussiness of baptising by immersion does not per se tell if it is a true church of Christ. The doctrine and practice and order of a church must be tested against the whole counsel of God's word, and chiefly the New Testament, before one can pass judgment as to its being a true church or not.
It would be gullible to consider all churches with the name "Baptist" to be true churches "in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ", cp. 1Thess.1:1.
Yet I venture to say that the water baptism of a non-immersionist church is not valid, because Christ does not own non-immersionist churches as His churches. This would invalidate e.g. presbyterian churches and lutheran churches from being true churches of Christ. And as this is a Baptist forum I point out that this has also been the conviction of many past day Baptists. But today as apostasy reigns quite paramount among most kinds of Baptist groups this conviction is seldom heard, and if one utters it one is considered "bigoted" or "politically incorrect" etc.
Harald
I agree with you that water baptism does not have to be administered by a church by the name "Baptist". Today there are many kinds of "Baptist" churches, and I dare claim most called thus are not true churches in the NT meaning of the word. The name does not in and of itself specify whether a church has the lampstand in place. But what I believe can be said is that in general only immersionist or baptistic churces are able to administer biblical water baptism. Yet the fact that a church is in the bussiness of baptising by immersion does not per se tell if it is a true church of Christ. The doctrine and practice and order of a church must be tested against the whole counsel of God's word, and chiefly the New Testament, before one can pass judgment as to its being a true church or not.
It would be gullible to consider all churches with the name "Baptist" to be true churches "in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ", cp. 1Thess.1:1.
Yet I venture to say that the water baptism of a non-immersionist church is not valid, because Christ does not own non-immersionist churches as His churches. This would invalidate e.g. presbyterian churches and lutheran churches from being true churches of Christ. And as this is a Baptist forum I point out that this has also been the conviction of many past day Baptists. But today as apostasy reigns quite paramount among most kinds of Baptist groups this conviction is seldom heard, and if one utters it one is considered "bigoted" or "politically incorrect" etc.
Harald
Abiyiah. If you would read my words again you see I nowhere say "all those etc.". I said "often speaks of etc.".
An example of a "perverted" understanding of salvation would be the notion that the Gospel is "an offer of salvation". And such believing thusly there be many in Christendom today, and a few on this board as well. Such ones view "the Gospel" as mere good advice, as an offer of salvation conditioned upon man's faith or repentance or both. But the word "Gospel" means Good Message or Glad Tidings etc., not some kind of offer. Consequently such that have believed such a false offerism-gospel are prone to go about boasting of the flesh, of their decision or some "sinner's prayer" schemery etc. And often when such receive baptism they view and understand it accordingly, as picturing or symbolizing something having occured in the subjective realm, in their heart. Because the offerism-gospel they heard and submitted to demanded of them some subjective response as that which decides between their going to heaven or to perdition.
I said that chiefly baptism pictures the ground of a truly saved person's salvation.
This should be obvious, I would not call it premise, but a fact. If the sum and substance of the biblical Gospel is Christ the incarnate Son of God and His work of redemption nearly 2000 years ago, and if Gospel baptism, just as the other Gospel ordinance (communion)pictures the glorious substance of it, His work of redemption, how come some people go about believing and saying baptism pictures the Holy Spirit's work of sanctification, the subjective thing I have referred to? Where is the preeminence of Christ in such a notion? Where the preeminence of His cross-work in such a notion.
Well did John the baptizer say to some disciples, "Behold the Lamb of God etc.", not, "behold the sanctifying work of the Spirit of God, that cleanses your heart and works faith and repentance".
Furthermore, I do not say anyone should adopt "Harald's view" of baptism. Those that claim to know Christ ought to take care their understanding of Biblical things is in line with what the Bible teaches, and not in line what all kinds of deceivers have been teaching for years and years. Go and look in today's Baptist churches so called and you will find all kinds of contradicting views and beliefs, contradicting both revealed Scripture and each others' views and beliefs. I know I am a "bigot" and "politically incorrect" in questioning certain things. I guess I should just go about like the false prophets in Israel of old, who cried "peace, peace" when there was no peace. You may call my attitude "amazing", I hope it is yet biblical.
Harald
An example of a "perverted" understanding of salvation would be the notion that the Gospel is "an offer of salvation". And such believing thusly there be many in Christendom today, and a few on this board as well. Such ones view "the Gospel" as mere good advice, as an offer of salvation conditioned upon man's faith or repentance or both. But the word "Gospel" means Good Message or Glad Tidings etc., not some kind of offer. Consequently such that have believed such a false offerism-gospel are prone to go about boasting of the flesh, of their decision or some "sinner's prayer" schemery etc. And often when such receive baptism they view and understand it accordingly, as picturing or symbolizing something having occured in the subjective realm, in their heart. Because the offerism-gospel they heard and submitted to demanded of them some subjective response as that which decides between their going to heaven or to perdition.
I said that chiefly baptism pictures the ground of a truly saved person's salvation.
This should be obvious, I would not call it premise, but a fact. If the sum and substance of the biblical Gospel is Christ the incarnate Son of God and His work of redemption nearly 2000 years ago, and if Gospel baptism, just as the other Gospel ordinance (communion)pictures the glorious substance of it, His work of redemption, how come some people go about believing and saying baptism pictures the Holy Spirit's work of sanctification, the subjective thing I have referred to? Where is the preeminence of Christ in such a notion? Where the preeminence of His cross-work in such a notion.
Well did John the baptizer say to some disciples, "Behold the Lamb of God etc.", not, "behold the sanctifying work of the Spirit of God, that cleanses your heart and works faith and repentance".
Furthermore, I do not say anyone should adopt "Harald's view" of baptism. Those that claim to know Christ ought to take care their understanding of Biblical things is in line with what the Bible teaches, and not in line what all kinds of deceivers have been teaching for years and years. Go and look in today's Baptist churches so called and you will find all kinds of contradicting views and beliefs, contradicting both revealed Scripture and each others' views and beliefs. I know I am a "bigot" and "politically incorrect" in questioning certain things. I guess I should just go about like the false prophets in Israel of old, who cried "peace, peace" when there was no peace. You may call my attitude "amazing", I hope it is yet biblical.
Harald