Salty if you are asking me if I would accept those baptisms as legit I would not.
It just seems to me that things that have been practiced by our forefathers for years in recent times have come under much scrutiny. Many seem to be under the impression that if the bible does not say something in black and white or red and white it is non-biblical forgetting that the bible is also a book of principles and practical instruction for living. To my knowledge the shepherd is still to protect his flock is that not correct? While Internet Theologian brought up a valid point that even our best efforts do not always keep out error in the church body should we not still do our best to keep it out?
Paul warned the Miletus believers that after he left there would be those who would come among them as wolves seeking to destroy the flock. How do wolves operate in the wild do they not try to get an animal to break away from the heard and go it alone? To me this what people who peddle false doctrine do. They try to get a believer to listen to them and pull them apart from their support group hence they become a wolf seeking to subvert proper bible doctrine but in order to do this they come into the flock and make connections with the people.
I have had this conversation with several people who hold to similar views as Rev, Keven, Int. Theologian and Annsi and while I respect their choices as believers I wonder what the lack of doctrinal perspective will reveal in their ministries either now or down the road, because it comes across (to me) as being ecumenical. As Baptist's we are to be distinct and we are to be separated both personally and ecclesiastically we have a rich history of not joining those churches on the broad road. Baptism is not salvation we say it is one of two ordinances for the local church yet we are not squeamish about practicing closed or close communion yet we seem to have problems with requiring someone to join us on our terms via baptism. We are not joining those who want to join correct? They are joining us correct? If you are from Europe or South America and you want to be a citizen of the USA do you not renounce your citizenship of the country you are from? Except in special circumstances that is the nature of citizenship so why is it so odd that a pastor or a church would require you to renounce your former membership and accept the new membership?
Our Anabaptist forefathers had no problem with requiring people to get re-baptized. I am probably beating a dead horse here but it does seem important to me.
thjplgvp
It just seems to me that things that have been practiced by our forefathers for years in recent times have come under much scrutiny. Many seem to be under the impression that if the bible does not say something in black and white or red and white it is non-biblical forgetting that the bible is also a book of principles and practical instruction for living. To my knowledge the shepherd is still to protect his flock is that not correct? While Internet Theologian brought up a valid point that even our best efforts do not always keep out error in the church body should we not still do our best to keep it out?
Paul warned the Miletus believers that after he left there would be those who would come among them as wolves seeking to destroy the flock. How do wolves operate in the wild do they not try to get an animal to break away from the heard and go it alone? To me this what people who peddle false doctrine do. They try to get a believer to listen to them and pull them apart from their support group hence they become a wolf seeking to subvert proper bible doctrine but in order to do this they come into the flock and make connections with the people.
I have had this conversation with several people who hold to similar views as Rev, Keven, Int. Theologian and Annsi and while I respect their choices as believers I wonder what the lack of doctrinal perspective will reveal in their ministries either now or down the road, because it comes across (to me) as being ecumenical. As Baptist's we are to be distinct and we are to be separated both personally and ecclesiastically we have a rich history of not joining those churches on the broad road. Baptism is not salvation we say it is one of two ordinances for the local church yet we are not squeamish about practicing closed or close communion yet we seem to have problems with requiring someone to join us on our terms via baptism. We are not joining those who want to join correct? They are joining us correct? If you are from Europe or South America and you want to be a citizen of the USA do you not renounce your citizenship of the country you are from? Except in special circumstances that is the nature of citizenship so why is it so odd that a pastor or a church would require you to renounce your former membership and accept the new membership?
Our Anabaptist forefathers had no problem with requiring people to get re-baptized. I am probably beating a dead horse here but it does seem important to me.
thjplgvp
