Are there valid reasons for avoiding baptism??

[Earth Wind and Fire]

What -! Baptist is just "routine"?
I like what some of the other folks have said - their immersion was a milestone! PTL!


I do agree with you that immersion is not part of salvation- and virtually no Baptists if any at all would believe in baptismal regeneration


Yes, that was your first milestone, your second should be your baptism, than comes your third, fourth, fifth, ect milestones....

After having the HS change my entire life, getting dunked in a pool & having water go up my nose didnt do it for me. I was already a new man so a tub of water seemed anti climatic...sorry.

 

[mandym]

Why was it not baptism, in your view? Because it was not immersion? Let's not make the symbolism into the essence. The essence is the heart's desire to be saved and follow Christ; the symbol we Baptists have chosen is wonderful, appropriate, Biblical -- but it is a symbol.

In addition, I would argue that this rite "became" baptism because our church approved of it as such. The authority of the local church was brought to bear to validate what we all understood was an extraordinary situation.

Now that we are discussing this, I do remember being called to Walter Reed Army Medical Center (our church was nearby) early in my ministry there. A veteran was dying and could certainly not be moved from his hospital bed. So we performed aspersion (sprinkling) baptism. I had worked, again, with him and with his wife before things got to this stage. I was not going to go an sprinkle water on someone as a magic act!

But the "symbol" should be identifying with the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, hence immersion. Without the symbol of immersion there is no identifying with the death, burial or resurrection. (Romans 6:4) Simply placing water on the head in any fashion has no value or symbolism.

 

[annsni]

Baptism is supremely important because Jesus commanded it.

I believe, like all Baptists, that immersion in the proper mode. But in circumstance like described above, I would have no problem sprinkling or pouring.

I agree with this. In most cases, we can do full immersion even with someone in a wheelchair (Call your local VA Hospital to see if they have a pool with handicapped equipment - or else a retirement home. Oftentimes they do and we've used them with great success for the handicapped.) However, there WOULD be times that immersion was not possible and in that case we'd probably not do anything unless the person requested it. Then we would figure out something.

 

[Tom Butler]

Why was it not baptism, in your view? Because it was not immersion? Let's not make the symbolism into the essence. The essence is the heart's desire to be saved and follow Christ; the symbol we Baptists have chosen is wonderful, appropriate, Biblical -- but it is a symbol.

Yep, that's it. It is a symbol, but it ought to be the correct symbol--sprinkling does not give an accurate picture of death, burial and resurrection.

In addition, I would argue that this rite "became" baptism because our church approved of it as such. The authority of the local church was brought to bear to validate what we all understood was an extraordinary situation.

I guess that's technically correct. As an autonomous congregation, you can call sprinkling immersion and make it stick. But my autonomous congregation would not knowingly accept a sprinkled believer as a member.

 

[Tom Butler]

I'm glad that Tom doesn't have the final say so on what is baptism and what isn't. Some folks need to be ashamed of their pharisee like stance.

Boy, am I glad, too, because on a rare occasion I have been wr.....wro....wrrrro.

I'm glad I can appeal to the final authority, the Scriptures. Even those denominations which sprinkle agree that the Greek, baptizo, is properly translated dip, plunge, immerse. And most of them will immerse a new convert if requested.

Now, Brother Sag, maybe you can explain how my appeal to scripture for my view is pharisee-like. Unless, of course, you weren't referring to me, then, never mind.

 

[Benjamin]

Yep, that's it. It is a symbol, but it ought to be the correct symbol--sprinkling does not give an accurate picture of death, burial and resurrection.

Guess I see a different symbol in the following picture:

(1Co 10:1) Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

(1Co 10:2) And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

(1Co 10:3) And did all eat the same spiritual meat;

(1Co 10:4) And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

I guess that's technically correct. As an autonomous congregation, you can call sprinkling immersion and make it stick.

Musta missed the part where he called sprinkling immersion.

But my autonomous congregation would not knowingly accept a sprinkled believer as a member.

:thumbsup:

 

[sag38]

Yes Tom, I was referring to you. You scriptural appeal is not valid. But, thanks for interjecting your opinion and negating a legitimate alternative in the case of a woman that I could not immerse but still wanted to follow the command of Christ as closely as she could.

 

[sag38]

I guess that's technically correct. As an autonomous congregation, you can call sprinkling immersion and make it stick. But my autonomous congregation would not knowingly accept a sprinkled believer as a member.

In 99% of the cases I would agree with you. My church only accepts baptism by immersion. In fact, we require those coming to join our church from other denominations or churches with significant doctrinal differences to submit to believer's baptisms as a demonstration of their having become Baptist. But, in the case of the senior saint who could not be immersed we made an exception.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I guess that's technically correct. As an autonomous congregation, you can call sprinkling immersion and make it stick. But my autonomous congregation would not knowingly accept a sprinkled believer as a member.

In 99% of the cases I would agree with you. My church only accepts baptism by immersion. In fact, we require those coming to join our church from other denominations or churches with significant doctrinal differences to submit to believer's baptisms as a demonstration of their having become Baptist. But, in the case of the senior saint who could not be immersed we made an exception.

Play this out for me Sag. I'm a committed reformed believer & I was baptized in a pool by a Congregational Pastor. Does your church necessitate that I be re-dunked?

 

[sag38]

I'm not familiar with a congregational church. But, if there are significant differences then we might ask that you identify with us by being baptized not as a sign of salvation but as a sign that you are now a Baptist of like faith and mind. There are lots of SBC churches and Independent churches that have this requirement for membership.

 

[Tom Butler]

Are they still active Christians?

I don't know. They left our church for another one 20 years go and I've lost track of them.

 

[Tom Butler]

Yes Tom, I was referring to you. You scriptural appeal is not valid. But, thanks for interjecting your opinion and negating a legitimate alternative in the case of a woman that I could not immerse but still wanted to follow the command of Christ as closely as she could.

I understand and sympathize with your desire. But following Christ's command closely as possible is not quite following it exactly.


Earlier, I said:
I guess that's technically correct. As an autonomous congregation, you can call sprinkling immersion and make it stick. But my autonomous congregation would not knowingly accept a sprinkled believer as a member.

In 99% of the cases I would agree with you. My church only accepts baptism by immersion. In fact, we require those coming to join our church from other denominations or churches with significant doctrinal differences to submit to believer's baptisms as a demonstration of their having become Baptist. But, in the case of the senior saint who could not be immersed we made an exception.

I appreciate your church's position. But the exception you made is an admission that it's not actually baptism. An act of kindness, certainly. But not baptism.

 

[Jim1999]

What if we used an empty baptistry and just went through the dunking motions? Would it still symbolize death, burial and resurrection? Like in the desert of sand and no water!

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Tom Butler]

Play this out for me Sag. I'm a committed reformed believer & I was baptized in a pool by a Congregational Pastor. Does your church necessitate that I be re-dunked?

I'm not familiar with a congregational church. But, if there are significant differences then we might ask that you identify with us by being baptized not as a sign of salvation but as a sign that you are now a Baptist of like faith and mind. There are lots of SBC churches and Independent churches that have this requirement for membership.

Here, we are definitely on the same side. Jesus could have gotten anybody to baptize him, but he traveled a long way to submit to baptism by the proper administrator.

 

[Jim1999]

Smyth, the so-called founder of the baptist church, was never immersed. He baptized himself by pouring water on his head!

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Tom Butler]

We got our name from our enemies. I can imagine their shouting an epithet at our ancestors: "You, you, cursed immersers!"

We also incurred their wrath because we would immerse believers only.