Alien Baptism

[TCassidy]

However, my definition of 'scriptural baptism' is that the baptism is done by immersion in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and that the one baptized should have openly and credibly professed repentance of sins and faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.

Yes, this seems to me to be the crux of the issue. Is your definition of "scriptural baptism" the same as mine or of a church down the road?

What if the church down the road only considers baptism to be scriptural if it meets certain criteria? And those criteria are not the same as yours, as stated above?

I have a friend who pastors and IFB church what examines the baptism of every potential member to determine if there was a:

Scriptural Subject, IE, a person already born again and confessing Christ as Lord and Savior. And that the baptism was performed using a:

Scriptural Method. Complete immersion in water as a testimony of the work of Christ in the life of the person being baptized, immersed one time backward in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Scriptural Purpose. To show forth a certain body of truth which is not only the property of the believer, but the property also of the body into which the believer is baptized. To picture the gospel; the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and signifies that the one baptized is dead to the old life of sin and risen to a new life in Christ Jesus.

Scriptural Administrator. A bible believing Baptist church of like faith and order.

So, is it possible there may be others who have a different opinion regarding the definition of "scriptural baptism?" And is it possible their opinion is as valid as ours?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Scriptural Administrator. A bible believing Baptist church of like faith and order.

This is the bit I have a problem with. It's denominationalism. There will be no denominations in heaven, so we really ought to being trying to do without them now. To deny another church's baptism is to deny that it is a church, but even that is not the real point. Baptism isn't the property of any one church or denomination; believers are baptized into Christ, not into a church.

So, is it possible there may be others who have a different opinion regarding the definition of "scriptural baptism?" And is it possible their opinion is as valid as ours?

It may well be as valid as yours. Laugh

backward

Really? And where exactly is that in the Bible? I have seen pictures of ancient baptisteries that simply would not accommodate someone lying out full stretch.

 

[TCassidy]

To deny another church's baptism is to deny that it is a church, but even that is not the real point. Baptism isn't the property of any one church or denomination; believers are baptized into Christ, not into a church.

I have many friends, including Pastors, who are Southern Methodists. They are saved people who engage in corporate worship on Sunday. But they also sprinkle babies. If I refuse to accept their baptism aren't I guilty of denying they are a legitimate church? Where do we draw the line. And do we all have to draw the same line?

It may well be as valid as yours. Laugh

I think mine is valid. I'm not sure about anybody else's.

Really? And where exactly is that in the Bible. I have seen pictures of ancient baptisteries that simply would not accommodate someone lying out full stretch.

So would you accept the "three times forward" of some Brethren groups?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I have many friends, including Pastors, who are Southern Methodists. They are saved people who engage in corporate worship on Sunday. But they also sprinkle babies. If I refuse to accept their baptism aren't I guilty of denying they are a legitimate church? Where do we draw the line.

This is a problem. There are fine paedobaptist churches in Britain (though very few fine Methodist churches), but I think we can't recognize infant baptism as valid. You may disagree, but I think that is a different issue to telling someone who has been baptized by immersion on his profession of faith that its not good enough because it wasn't done in one of 'our' churches.

So would you accept the "three times forward" of some Brethren groups?

Yes. We have a chap in our church who has a phobia about putting his head under water. The thought of having water going up his nose scared him witless. In the end, we had him kneel in the water and our minister pushed his head quickly under the water. It's possible to scoff at fears like that, but in fact it was one of the bravest things I've seen. The guy was shaking like a leaf when he entered the baptistery, but he was determined to follow his Lord. His joy afterwards was wonderful to see!

I wouldn't tell someone who had had the triple immersion that he has to have a fourth one.

 

[TCassidy]

I think we can't recognize infant baptism as valid.

I agree.

Yes.

Me too.

But I would never even consider violating the autonomy of any church who chose to do things differently.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Me too.

But I would never even consider violating the autonomy of any church who chose to do things differently.

I have absolutely no authority to violate the authority of any church, even if I wanted to. I merely do what I suppose everybody does on a discussion forum- I give my understanding and hope that it may influence others.

 

[West Kentucky Baptist]

Since preachers like to alliterate, here's my four points of scriptural baptism:

The Right Pattern - Full immersion in water

The Right Person - A professed believer in Jesus Christ.

The Right Purpose - Symbolic of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.

The Right Permission - Performed under the authority of a New Testament Church.

Also most immersions performed by non-Baptist churches not only fail to qualify on #4, but also on #3. If you were immersed by a pedobaptist church (like Methodist or Presbyterian), your immersion did not symbolize the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. Pedobaptists believe baptism is symbolic of the Holy Spirit, not the Resurrection of Jesus. Something to think about!

For more good quotes from our Baptist Heritage check out my website at:https://westkentuckybaptist.wordpress.com/

 

[Squire Robertsson]

I don't know about West Kentucky. However, there are many Bible churches which are Baptist in their polity. They just don't use the label. Then, there are the Evangelical Christian-Baptists who immigrated from the Former Soviet Union. They have no ties to any US Baptist grouping being the fruits of German Baptists settling in the Volga River region in the early 19th century.

Since preachers like to alliterate, here's my four points of scriptural baptism:

1. The Right Pattern - Full immersion in water
2. The Right Person - A professed believer in Jesus Christ.
3. The Right Purpose - Symbolic of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.
   
4. The Right Permission - Performed under the authority of a New Testament Church.

Also most immersions performed by non-Baptist churches not only fail to qualify on #4, but also on #3. If you were immersed by a pedobaptist church (like Methodist or Presbyterian), your immersion did not symbolize the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. Pedobaptists believe baptism is symbolic of the Holy Spirit, not the Resurrection of Jesus. Something to think about!

For more good quotes from our Baptist Heritage check out my website at:https://westkentuckybaptist.wordpress.com/

 

[Afshin Yaghtin]

Hello to all,

Recently I had to defend my position concerning alien baptism. I hold to what I consider conservative stance namely that if the one who is applying for membership is not from an IFB church of the same doctrines they would be asked to be re-baptized and for the following reasons.

1. Protects the flock from false doctrine
2. Reveals the heart of the one applying for membership
3. Refusal gives an opportunity to instruct and see how they will respond to authority.

Your thoughts? Please don't beat me up to bad.

thjplgvp

The idea of being re-baptized to fit a particular denomination is not Biblical and, without meaning to be insulting here, a slap in the face of God.

We are baptized, as believers, into the body of Christ, not the local church. If a true believer has been baptized, accept it on their word. It will be between them and God at that point.

 

[TCassidy]

We are baptized, as believers, into the body of Christ, not the local church.

I disagree. We are baptized by the local church into the membership of the local church, which membership can be transferred to another local church when moving is necessary.

Our baptism is our first step of obedience, proclaiming our identification with Christ. Local church membership is our second step of obedience, gathering with the saints for discipling, mutual edification, and service.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Our baptism is our first step of obedience, proclaiming our identification with Christ. Local church membership is our second step of obedience, gathering with the saints for discipling, mutual edification, and service.

This part of your post is exactly right. Baptism proclaims our identification with Christ. Church membership proclaims our identification with the local church- that is, our joining together with its people and our submission to its constitution and discipline.

 

[Afshin Yaghtin]

I agree that baptism proclaims our identification with Christ. But, respectfully, do you have any Scriptural evidence that baptism is baptism in the local church body? I didn't realize it was the church body that saved me, but Christ Himself. As for me, I was baptized into Christ, not into a local expression of His body.

For Scripture on this, I turn to Ephesians:4:4-6:

4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

There is only one baptism ... not many. All these terms are being used in their universal sense to express that we are all one in Christ. One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

There is also one body, not many. That one body (the church) expresses itself regionally in the local churches. We are baptized into that one body, the church. Colossians 1:8: "And he is the head of the body, the church ..."

 

[TCassidy]

As for me, I was baptized into Christ, not into a local expression of His body.

I was not baptized into Christ. I was already in Christ at the time of my baptism. That is what baptism does. It testifies, outwardly, publicly, to that which has already happened, inwardly, privately.

I was baptized IN water, UNTO the testimony of the death, burial (buried with Him in baptism), and resurrection of Christ (raised to walk in the newness of life).

The idea of a person having a good testimony of being a follower of Christ without being in a local church is foreign to the bible.

The local church has two ordinances, baptism and the Lord's Supper. To give those ordinances away to a "universal, invisible" "church" is to give away the Truth to those who hold the truth in unrighteousness. The "universal, invisible church" also contains baby sprinklers and others who do violence to the ordinance.

If baptism is not done by and with the authority of the local church you don't get baptized. You only get wet.

 

[Afshin Yaghtin]

I agree that we are baptized into Christ at the moment of belief and that water baptism is an outward expression of that.

Every believer, as priests and kings, filled with the Holy Spirit, have the authority to do something as simple as a water baptism. This concept gets cleared up when we realize that as members of Christ's body, we are the one church invisible, the universal church, but that that that one universal church expresses itself locally and regionally when believers of that one church gather locally.

Believing that there is One Body does not automatically equate with Roman Catholicism and "baby sprinkling", any more so than that the doctrine of the Trinity (Godhead) is not exclusive to the Roman Catholic church.

I don't know if you have time or care to watch this, but I did a sermon title, The Universal Church, where I explain my views on this.

I also know that Baptists have a hard time with the idea of a universal church, but nevertheless, the Bible speaks of it in Colossians 1:8, and other verses, where the "the body" is equated with "the church" (singular).

That one church, which is the one body of Christ, expresses itself regionally, i.e. the "local church".

Once this doctrine is understood, water baptism becomes clear.

 

[TCassidy]

This concept gets cleared up when we realize that as members of Christ's body, we are the one church invisible, the universal church, but that that that one universal church expresses itself locally and regionally when believers of that one church gather locally.

And where do you find the "universal invisible church" in the bible. A church is, by definition an assembly. Where does this "universal invisible church" assemble? A church has two offices, Pastor and Deacon. Who is the Pastor of the "universal invisible church." Who are the deacons?

One Body does not automatically equate with Roman Catholicism

I didn't say it did. There are many Protestants who sprinkle babies but are still born again. So, again, why give away the ordinance of baptism to those who deny its meaning and mode?

the Bible speaks of it in Colossians 1:8, and other verses, where the "the body" is equated with "the church" (singular).

Yes, the ONE (singular) church at Colossae. That may be why Paul addresses his epistle to "the saints and faithful brothers in Christ at Colossae."

Once this doctrine is understood,

Yes, that is my goal. To help you understand biblical Ecclesiology.

 

[Afshin Yaghtin]

Do you have time to watch the sermon I posted above? I explain in great detail why there is one church which expresses itself regionally in many churches.

Matthew 16:18, the first time church appears in the Bible, it is used in the singular, describing the whole church that Jesus built (not churches): "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

That is the church universal, the one church, the one body of Christ spoken of in Ephesians 4, which you have not yet addressed.

We see through the book of Acts that this one church began in Jerusalem, and that once the church was persecuted at the hands of the physical circumcision (the Jews), and by Saul of Tarsus, the one church spread abroad into Asia Minor and localized expressions of that one church were established in various cities.

That is why they continued to call the churches, "THE church at Antioch", "THE church at Ephesus", "THE church at Rome", etc. It was the one, singular church, united in faith, and doctrine, one body, one baptism, but now meeting in different locales.

Again, we this is in Colossians, speaking of the entire body of Christ, not just the local church at Colossae.

Colossians 1:24: "Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for >>> his body's sake, which is the church <<<".

How many bodies does Christ have? He has one body, not many. He has one head, and one body, which is THE church.

There is a duality. There is one church, many local expressions of that one church. Baptists have a real hard time with this, I understand that, but the "local church only" concept is not Biblical. Is Christ's body divided? Does He have one head and thousands of bodies? No. He has one head, one body, one church.

The Bible defines "the body" as "the church".

 

[TCassidy]

Matthew 16:18, the first time church appears in the Bible, it is used in the singular, describing the whole church that Jesus built (not churches)

Yes, at that time there was only ONE church, the church at Jerusalem.

That is why they continued to call the churches, "THE church at Antioch", "THE church at Ephesus", "THE church at Rome", etc.

That is the very worst exegesis I have ever seen. And, believe me, as a Seminary professor for over 25 years I have seen a lot of terrible exegesis. First of all the only reference to the church at Antioch even close to what you stated is Acts 13:1 "Now there were in the church that was at Antioch . . . "

Now, God said, in Acts 13:1 "ησαν δε τινες εν αντιοχεια κατα την ουσαν εκκλησιαν προφηται και διδασκαλοι ο τε βαρναβας και συμεων ο καλουμενος νιγερ και λουκιος ο κυρηναιος μαναην τε ηρωδου του τετραρχου συντροφος και σαυλος

Please, show me a definite article in that sentence that agrees with εκκλησιαν in case, number and gender.

Again, we this is in Colossians, speaking of the entire body of Christ, not just the local church at Colossae.

So, when Paul said "To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse:" you think he was lying?

How many bodies does Christ have?

One. It is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He has one head, and one body, which is THE church.

He has one head, on his body, and one body, which is seated with the Father in the Heavenlies.

Does He have one head and thousands of bodies?

See above.

You seem confused about the meaning of the word "body." We have, in this country, "the body politic." Your position denies that any other country also has a body politic.

The school I attended had a "student body." Our student body had a student counsel. Our student counsel had a president. It would be presumptuous of me to claim that all student bodies must consider themselves the same as ours, and that our president was also their president.

Every country has a body politic made up of citizens who exercise their respective franchise.

Every school has a student body made up of the students attending that school.

Every local church is a body of baptized believers belonging to Christ.

 

[Revmitchell]

Your position denies that any other country also has a body politic.

Not only does this misrepresent anything he has said it is ridiculous. It is poor debate tactic to characterize someone else's position and then paint it broadly like this. You need to just stick to what he said and avoid poor characterizations.

 

[Revmitchell]

the fact is both are true, there is the local assembly where we are to serve God faithfully and there is the broader world wide church made up of believers everywhere. It is poor exposition to emphasize one over the other except where certain things can only be applied. Jesus said He would build his church. He said this knowing that his disciples were to go out and start churches everywhere.

 

[TCassidy]

there is the broader world wide church made up of believers everywhere.

No such thing ever called "church" in the bible. What you are referring to is called the "Family of God" in Ephesians and "Kingdom of God" in too many places to reference.

It is poor exposition to emphasize one over the other except where certain things can only be applied.

It is poor exposition to invent something that isn't there.

Jesus said He would build his church.

Yes. The generic use of the term. Just as I can say "I believe the horse is the most magnificent animal in God's creation."

"Horse." Singular. Meaning: No horse in particular, all horses in general.

"Church." Singular. Meaning: No church in particular, all churches in general.