Can a Person be a "Baptist" and not Immerse?

See SheEagle9/11? Something else we agree on!!

 

Ps-104,

The name Baptist was not tagged on us because we go around dunking people under water. As you all know it came from "Ana-baptist"
_________________________________________________

Most profane and non-Baptist historians will disagree that our name came from the anabaptists. I quote from just one profane history:

Baptists:

are members of a religious denomination that originated within English Puritanism in the 17th century as an offshoot of Congregationalism. The name was derived from the denomination's insistence that baptism be administered only to adult believers. A History of the Baptists, R.G. Torbet (1955).

Cheers,

Jim,

An English Baptist

 

Dr Bob,
I want that book. I'm from that area in Wisconsin, and know of each of those places. I really miss God's country.

I have a book, but in storage, that relates the history of Baptists in that throughout history, the one Baptist distinctive different from all other religions was the fact of Baptists consistantly immersing believers. This was a book published in the mid-1800's. I believe the title was, "Baptists through History". He was able to trace the history of the Baptists because of total immersion. Interesting read.

 

Excellent and interesting point there. By the way, Helen was baptized by immersion. I often disagree with her views but this is perhaps an example of how we on the BB don't "know" each other as much as we think we do. It is all what we each choose to present. ANY two of us meeting and talking at length in private would have surprises about each other. Or could not belong to the same church.

Rlvaughn, for example, remains one of my most favoritest people on this board. He's a great Baptist. Would I vote for him to be a pastor or deacon in my church?
No. We differ too much theologically.

Putting it bluntly, I think Helen makes a great moderator, and she is a worthy recipient of BB member of the year. As you can see from posts by Latreia and Pastork, they do not agree with each other or with her in every detail but they help show that there is a spectrum of thought on baptism as well as every other issue among Baptists. This is hard for many on this board to accept. But Helen is not a moderator of the fundamentalist forum. And this is not strictly a fundamentalist board. You guys are doing a lot of bashing of what you infer from her statements rather than from what she necessarily said.

This thread has cleared up a couple of points for me. Based on some other threads, I thought that some of you would almost rather go to a Calvinist church that sprinkled than to a non-Calvinistic Baptist church that immersed.

Karen

 

Karen,
This is not a matter of fundamentalism, it is Baptist and the issue is a Baptist distinctive. If a person states that the mode or baptism itself is not important, that is something that requires attention. No, we don't know each other as well as when sitting and discussing, but there are certain things all Baptist have to believe. Salvation, baptism, Jesus Christ diety, etc. are those things that make a Baptist a Baptist. You can turn the cheek for alot of stands, but nice or not, this is something that makes a difference.

 

Amen Olive

I have preferences that may be changed; but my basic convictions are what make me Baptist and are not open to discussion!
"The wetter...the better"

 

No, a person cannot be a Baptist and not immerse. This is both historically and theologically sewn into the Baptist fabric. One who does not practice immersion has departed from being a Baptist in the strictest sense.

Well now we know! Karen, I was almost crushed by your statement until I remembered that I wouldn't vote for me either!!

 

That being said, it took the early English Baptists many years to come to that conclusion.

_______________________________________________

Pardon?

Cheers,

Jim

 

Latreia,

I agree with your position that:

"the circumstances under which we might find anoter mode used for practical reasons do not, at least in North America, exist.

Water shortage is not an issue as per the Didache. There is simply no excuse to not immerse on those grounds. I have seen Anglicn churches situated right on a bay, and they sprinkle instead of immerse. I think that's a perfect waste of a natural baptistry.

The closest I come to seeing reasonable grounds for using another mode is in the case of those who simply cannot be removed from their beds. Connnected to machines and the like."

Pastork

 

That's interesting RSR. I didn't even learn that in England about Baptists.....

Cheers,

Jim

 

It is difficult to respond to threads that are actually carried on simultaneously when I want to address both of them.

Not you, rl, but I think that Olive and some others have perhaps misunderstood my post.
It seems to me that the upset many are expressing is because they think Helen is saying baptism by immersion is not important and that it is not necessary to do it or believe in it to be a Baptist. I did not understand that from her posts at all. I thought she was trying to discuss the concept of "valid" for a Christian in general, not what form of baptism is correct or what is proper Baptist thought.

For example, my husband was sprinkled in a Presbyterian church as an infant. He was later immersed in a Baptist church as an adult. Yet in SOME sense his sprinkling, even though incorrect, was done by his parents and their church as attempting to obey God and witness to the world their identification with Christ. So was there ANY "validity" to that?
And on the scale of important doctrine, is the mode of baptism as important as some other things? This is what I THINK Helen, Latreia, and Pastork were addressing in different ways and aspects.
NOT that immersion isn't correct or important.

Let's discuss, clarify, and perhaps disagree, without asking for the head of a moderator.

Karen

 

I'm quite sure it was me that has infuriated a number of you. I never said that one could be a Baptist without being immersed. Today, immersion is part and parcel of being a Baptist, at least in America. It is, as was mentioned before, considered a 'Baptist distinctive.' I am not arguing that at all! I said that I was not sure that not being immersed made a baptism invalid. I asked what 'valid' meant?

I guess it's that I do believe that Baptists aren't the only Christians in the world. Nor do I believe that it is baptism that gets you into heaven. Jesus is the key. And only Jesus.

I was immersed publicly as a believer in my baptism. I obviously hold to immersion given the amount of knowledge I have. But one does not need a large amount of knowledge to be a believer. One only needs to know Christ. Other knowledge may come later -- or it may not if the person is going to die soon! But whatever he does to try to obey the injunction to be baptised is going to be just as much obedience for him as my immersion was a matter of obedience for me.

The more you know, the more you are responsible for. This is biblical. But the reverse of that is the implication that you are not responsible for what you don't know. And if you don't know that immersion is what 'baptism' means, but you do what you think is right in the circumstances you are in, that is as important as the widow who only gave her pittance because she had so little.

We obey as we can with what we have, be it knowledge, talents, or possessions.

Again, God, and God only, knows the heart.

[ January 18, 2003, 01:46 AM: Message edited by: Helen ]

 

[ January 18, 2003, 01:48 AM: Message edited by: Karen ]

 

Pastork --

The Didache also espoused a works salvation. By
the time this work was written, there were a lot of
things going on among supposed "believers" that
were clearly wrong, and the leaders were both
teaching and practicing them.

 

Quotes from the person in question:

1.Secondly, are you saying that an adult baptism (I think we all know that infant baptism is not a sign of obedience by an infant believer!) done in faith and as a public witness, if it is not by immersion, is somehow invalid as a witness or a sign of obedience to Christ?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.I didn't say that. All believers will be in heaven. Not all will hear "Well done..."

As far as the method of baptism is concerned, I have a feeling God is far more concerned with the attitude of the heart than the amount of water used.
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------
3.About baptism: what we are immersed in is the death of Christ -- Romans 6. In imitation of that, baptism by immersion is the most accurate form of a picture and therefore to be preferrred.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.But I'll tell you what bothers me as being unscriptural -- the 'in house' baptisms which are done without it being a public testimony. How many times are baptisms done in swimming pools in someone's back yard -- or even in the baptistries up at the front of the church with only members of the congregation attending?

Biblically, all baptisms were in public -- a river, a fountain, or whatever. Unbelievers would be watching, too.

So what is more biblical, a person being baptized in public or in private?

And, following that up, which is then more biblical, a baptism by sprinkling (or pouring, or whatever) in public, with unbelievers also watching, or a baptism by immersion in an enclosed place with only believers there?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.I am really curious as to the idea that 'any other baptism is not valid. '

What does valid mean? Does it mean the person who was baptised, as a believer, in some other way than immersion was somehow not sincerely trying to obey the Lord the best he knew how? Does it mean that the testimony of obedience and love of the Lord did not count?

What does 'valid' mean here? What is baptism supposed to DO if one is immersed that it cannot do otherwise?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.The thought of "valid" baptism was introduced by "person". see point 5

2."Person" gives her belief that God isn't too concerned about Baptism. If it wasn't important, then why did He command it to be done?

3."Person" shows she believes that type of baptism is a "preference". Again, this is an unbiblical statement, and a non-baptist belief.

4."Person" believes "in-house" baptisms are unscriptural. So, she inadvertantly is saying that whoever was baptised in the church baptistry has had an unbiblical baptism. Do we go as far as saying that this means that all those baptised where the world hasn't been present need to be re-baptised?

5."Person" is curious as to the term "valid", in which she is the one who originally labeled types of baptism as invalid.

Without a name, or knowing who this is, I think we can see the problem here. Who this is should not make a difference in truth. Just because you have a special feeling for this person should not fog your judgement of what is biblical, or what is baptistic belief.

 

For Pete's sake, I have a name! If you are going to attack me, at least attack by name!

And now let me respond to these points:

1.The thought of "valid" baptism was introduced by "person". see point 5

I originally asked if a baptism by some other method was invalid as a sign of obedience and public testimony. This was never answered. I stated that I personally believe that immersion is biblical, but I also want it VERY clear that I am willing to respect others of my Christian brothers and sisters who have attempted to present their witness and obedience through other than immersion. In other words, I am being attacked -- and that is definitely what this thread is all about -- because I am willing to respect others whom I accept as my brothers and sisters in Christ.

2."Person" gives her belief that God isn't too concerned about Baptism. If it wasn't important, then why did He command it to be done?

That is most definitely not true. Anything Jesus has requested of us is of primary importance. I question the inability of one group of Christians to accept other groups of Christians, that's all. Over and over again I have asked what right we have to judge the heart of another person. We don't have that right. And I know that our Lord is leading us all to His Truth -- Himself -- step by step. Baptism means immersion, but, as Paul says in Romans 6, what we are actually immersed in is the death of Christ. I do think that a public full immersion baptism is the best possible and most biblical form of baptism, and it is the one I wanted for myself. But I am not judging others for their choices. If others, again, want to judge me for not judging others, that is up to them.

3."Person" shows she believes that type of baptism is a "preference". Again, this is an unbiblical statement, and a non-baptist belief.

Of course there is preference involved. There are some Baptist pastors who refuse to use a baptistry but insist on a public baptism. That is their conviction, and it became mine for myself. However it is not nearly so much a matter of preference as a matter of knowledge. I think I made that as clear as I could. Again, those who do not know that the word baptism means immersion may be baptised by some other way as the way they know to show obedience to the Lord. I personally am not one to condemn a person doing the best he knows how to do. If others feel it right to condemn them, that is something they will have to work out with God, not me.

4."Person" believes "in-house" baptisms are unscriptural. So, she inadvertantly is saying that whoever was baptised in the church baptistry has had an unbiblical baptism. Do we go as far as saying that this means that all those baptised where the world hasn't been present need to be re-baptised?

I wondered about it. I don't think that is quite the same as believing something -- except I did believe it was right for me to be baptised publicly and openly -- and so I was. For me, at the time, it was also my quiet form of identification with my Christian brothers and sisters in lands where Christians are persecuted and where there are no baptistries in churches, but all baptisms are in public and are sometimes raided by police and the participants jailed. My heart has always gone out to these people and they remain in my prayers. So you see, I tried to indicate that my reasons were personal -- that I did have a preference. But I also indicated, I think, that part of the reason for my preference was that from what I could see, the biblical baptisms were all done publicly -- as by John in the river or by the disciples at Pentecost. I honestly don't see any mention of a special baptising pool anywhere in Scripture... Does that mean that I consider the baptisms of anyone who is baptised in a church baptistry to be unscriptural? No, not at all. Two of my children were baptised that way, but during a regular service and not during a special baptism ceremony away from the public. I do have feelings about that, but that does not mean I am judging anyone who prefers that!

Why is it I am being attacked because I will respect others? It doesn't mean I have to agree with them, but I will respect them.

5."Person" is curious as to the term "valid", in which she is the one who originally labeled types of baptism as invalid.

I didn't label any type of baptism invalid. I asked if it was. And then I later asked what the term 'valid' mean regarding a baptism, because, as I understand it, baptism is the believer's testimony to the world regarding his faith and obedience to Christ. And if he is doing the best he knows how to do, no matter what that is, who are we to say it is no good? It is the job of the Holy Spirit to guide us. It is not a SIN to be baptised another way, is it? Is it something that needs to be repented of by a person who honestly believed he was doing the best he knew how to do?

That is my point. It has nothing to do with me declaring any obedience a person has to the Lord 'valid' or 'invalid.' It does have to do, however, with a challenge on my part regarding the right of others to do so.

Without a name, or knowing who this is, I think we can see the problem here. Who this is should not make a difference in truth. Just because you have a special feeling for this person should not fog your judgement of what is biblical, or what is baptistic belief.

My name is Helen Setterfield. And I literally plead with you all to quit judging and attacking others. I am quite sure that when we get to heaven every single one of us is going to be totally humbled when presented with the clear and unfogged truth in and of Christ. We will all realize how wrong we have been in so many of our judgments.

If being baptised by some other method is a sin, please inform me, for I was not aware of that. And please show me where the Bible indicates it is a sin. And if it is not a sin, and if it is rather a matter of loving obedience to our Lord God, then wouldn't it be better to build up the body of Christ instead of putting people on the defensive about doing or saying the best they know how to do where their faith and love of the Lord are concerned?

I have stated clearly what I believe: that immersion, publicly, is the most biblical way to be baptised. That is MY take on it, based on what I have read in the Bible. But there is no way I am going to judge the understandings others of my brothers and sisters in Christ have, including those who are seeing fit to start and continue a thread whose sole purpose was to attack me. That's not being paranoid, folks -- I don't have time for that nonsense. That is simply calling it as I see it and not hiding behind a 'this person' sort of thing.

[ January 18, 2003, 09:13 AM: Message edited by: Helen ]

 

Interesting topic. It is true that in the first 30 years of the Baptist movement they did not regard the mode as important as long as it was Believer's baptism. The Anabaptists who preceded us baptized by pouring, sprinkling and immersion as their own confessions testify as did the first Baptists from 1609-1638.

I have a problem disfellowshiping those who planted the seeds for the Baptist movement (Conrad Grebel, George Blaurock, Felix Manz, Michael Sattler) and saying that the first Baptists were not REALLY Baptists such as John Smyth, Thomas Helwys. Seems to dishonor those who began our movement and suffered for opposing infant baptism. The Particular Baptists by 1638 corrected the confusion by teaching correctly that Baptism is most correctly Immersion and I agree with them but I have a hard time saying that the Anabaptists and the early General Baptists did not have true Baptism.

[ January 18, 2003, 09:26 AM: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

To my Sister in Christ Helen;

Do you feel that if one comes to the Baptist church, after having been baptised by sprinkling as a Methodist, Lutheran, Anglican, etc., they should or should not be rebaptised as a Baptist?

I myself was rebaptised as a Baptist several years ago, in the lake I caretake for, after having been baptised 25 years ago in a lake, but in the oneness pentecostal tradition.

I wanted to follow the ordinances of my faith, and to outwardly show my inward heart.

A servant of Christ,
Drew