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
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 have seen many post that John's baptism did not count as the believers Baptism but is it not interesting that when replacing Judas Iscariot (who held a position in the first church) they wanted men who had been with them beginning with the Baptism of John. How is it that the first officers in the Jerusalem church had to have ties to the first baptizer for what purpose was Jesus baptized if not as a demonstration of accepting the New Covenant and the first church?
Acts 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
Acts 1:21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
Acts 1:22 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.
Acts 1:23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
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.
