converted preacher

Dear Massdak;

Are the preachers being discussed Baptist, or are they of another faith, ie. Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, etc.?

Are the baptisms Believer's Baptism through immersion, or are they infant baptism, and sprinkling?

Just seeking to clarify. God bless.

A servant of Christ,
Drew

 

Drew, I'm having a problem with your response. Are you saying that Methodist, Lutheran, etc. are not Christian? For our faith is the Christian faith -- faith in Christ -- not faith in the Baptist church.

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?

In response to the original post -- this happens with a larger number of pastors than we might suppose -- in all flavors of Christianity. It is very easy to become a minister now if one has gone to a seminary and received a degree. It is very easy to say the words an investigating committee wants to hear.

It is very, very hard to fully yield to Christ, however, when one is in a leadership position. To do so takes incredible humility and when a pastor says this is what has happened to him, that very well may be a man to really listen to. If he has made errors in the past in his doctrinal presentation, the Lord will show him and he will show the congregation. However as far as a baptism is concerned, the point of the baptism is not any 'magic' done by the pastor, but the fact that the believer is making a public statement of faith and obedience, and the position of the pastor's heart with the Lord actually has nothing to do with that.

 

Just my thoughts on this question. Regardless of the status of the messenger, the message remains the same. Truth is not contingent on my believing that truth, but the truth itself.

Hence, the baptism remains valid because it is the act of the believer and not the act of the dunker. This is also true of weddings and the like.

I grew up in the Anglican Church and was a loyal follower and "believer". I never disbelieved in the Lord and the acts of regeneration, repentance and acceptance of the gospel. I did happen into a Plymouth Brethren assembly and heard the gospel preached whereupon I made an outward acceptance of that gospel, or as I say it, realized the Lord in my life. The question remains, was I actually saved beforehand, but needed to make a public statement to settle the matter? Was my act of acceptance in Confirmation the act itself?

After many years, I am convinced that somewhere in my youth I became a Christian by conversion. It was not a cataclysmic experience, but nonetheless an experience of the Christ in redemption. When asked for a date, I usually give that day I went forward in the meeting, but I am certain it took place quietly over time many years before. Sometimes I think we get far too academic over these things, and forget that God moves in His own time and in His own way, but He does and must move in one's life.

Cheers,

Jim

 

1. This is the biblical mandate, Helen. This is something that all Baptists hold to. Even the Baptist Union (which Spurgeon fought till his death over liberalism) required baptism by immersion. There is no such thing as another kind of baptism. Therefore, the only valid baptism is done by immersion (waiting for someone to bring up a person who gets saved in the hospital and can't move bit ).

2. Although faith is in Christ and not the church, the historic Baptist faith is Christian. There is nothing unchristian about the historic Baptist faith. Although many have hijacked the name for different reasons, the historic baptist faith is true Christianity.

 

True Christianity is being born again in the Spirit and maturing in Christ through obedience to Him.

Period.

God is not going to ask if you were a good Baptist. What is going to matter is if you are in Christ, first, and your obedience to Him, second. The first is a matter of your salvation, the second of your 'crowns', or rewards. Not every Christian is going to hear "Well done, good and faithful servant," but I can also guarantee NONE will hear "Well done, good and faithful Baptist!"

 

I think Drew brings up a valid point about what church they are ministers in. Many of these "christian" churches do not follow the belief of salvation, thru the shed blood of Christ, and belief in the heart. So many of them accept a salvation in the head, not in the heart.
It doesn't mean that the Baptist's are the only saved Christians, but many more are saved with this church background.

The other thought that comes to my mind is that those that do find true salvation after ministering for 30 or more years, is it really that they were never saved, or is it more emotional feelings that are stirred? Or, could it be that they were "dead" in Christ, but they are rekindled? Maybe they had faith in Christ, which was good enough for them, but came to know the Savior personally, and their eyes were opened to the truth.

So many maybe's, but it's great that they can be assured in their salvation.

 

1. So as to not be idolatrous, one must have the correct view of God. If not, salvation never happened. Also, maturing as a believer includes correct doctrine. Can you point out to me where historic Baptists are wrong about something?

2. I have never hinted otherwise.

3. This is an interpretive issue. Such a dichotomy doesn't necessarily exist.

4. This cannot be proven. In fact, it can be disproven. Believers will enter into the joy of the Lord. The rest will be cast into outer darkness and hell, which was prepared for the devil and his angels (Matt. 25).

Please point out your basis for saying believers won't enter the joy of the Lord.

As to the original question, God's word is powerful even in the mouth of a fool. Balaam is one such example. He was wicked and is in hell. He did prophesy for God though. Come to think of it, so did his donkey.

The baptism is valid because it was done by faith and was administered in the proper manner (immersion). If either of these were untrue, then the baptist wouldn't be valid.

 

Please point out your basis for saying believers won't enter the joy of the Lord.


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.

 

I can't go for that. I certainly agree that the NT presents immersion as normal, even best practice. But normal does not indicate normative, nor does best practice necessarily imply only practice.

The NT IMO does not prove that immersion is the only legitmate practice.

 

Helen:

Drew, I'm having a problem with your response. Are you saying that Methodist, Lutheran, etc. are not Christian? For our faith is the Christian faith -- faith in Christ -- not faith in the Baptist church.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

My Dear Sister in Christ Helen;

I was not implying that the faith of the different denominations was not in Christ, but I was referencing the different practices of faith and the faith traditions of different denominations.

If the respective preacher came out of a denomination wherein the infant is baptised, and the individual has been considered a believer do to growing up in the church, such as in the UMC, then this tradition would be somewhat culpable in a non-believer entering the ministry. One could sit in a UMC pew for 90 years, and have never made a decision to follow Christ.

The Baptist practice of a public declaration of faith, in coming forward to the alter, and the ordinance of Believer's Baptism, of only those who have reached an age of understanding, and have CHOSEN to follow Christ, leads to a greater assurance within their faith traditions/practices, that the membership has received and is following Christ.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Helen:

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?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

My Dear Sister;

I am saying that so many of those traditions of faith which practice sprinkling, also practice infant baptism, and also much of the practice of faith lies in the traditions of man, rather than a specific coming to Christ, and reliance upon the Word of God, and the God of the Word. It would seem possible for one to have come from a denomination of sprinkling tradition, gone to seminary, and served in a pastorate, and have never made an individual specific decision for Christ. This makes the faith tradition/practice culpable.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Baptisim is the outward sign of an inward faith, and so if the baptisims are Believer's Baptisms by immersion, then they are valid. If the baptisims are infant, or from a sprinkling tradition, then the individuals should be Baptised as a Believer.

I apologize for not communicating effectively, for this old greybeard often staggers around like the bull in the china shop. May God so bless His precious children, and lead them into His truth and the glory of His salvation through Christ Jesus our Lord.

A servant of Christ,
Drew

 

1. You are getting this from Matthew 25. This is not about heaven. This is about Christ's kingdom. Read the surrounding context.

2. Please point out your basis for saying believers won't hear - Well done...

3. With all due respect, your feelings on the matter are just that. I have feelings also. We must agree to use an objective source for truth. I recommend the Bible on this issue. It is inerrant and worthy of belief. Scripture was authored by God and written by men. It is completely accurate in everything it touches on. It is correct in regards to but not limited to science, history, geography, man, sin, God, and baptism.

 

Latreia, I have enjoyed your posts. However, you are arguing from silence here. That is an argument I will not engage in because it is just a matter of how deafening silence is. Scripture presents baptism by immersion and it was the practice of the church as recorded in Acts. I think to go beyond that will lead to confusion (as evidence by all the non-dunkers out there).

 

Latreia, I have enjoyed your posts. However, you are arguing from silence here. That is an argument I will not engage in because it is just a matter of how deafening silence is. Scripture presents baptism by immersion and it was the practice of the church as recorded in Acts. I think to go beyond that will lead to confusion (as evidence by all the non-dunkers out there).</font>[/QUOTE]I agree that Scripture presents baptism by immersion. But the silence you speak of goes both ways. You have to assume that normal menas normative and best practice means only. YOu read in normative when all you have is a normal practice. Nowhere does Scripture say "imerse only or it does not count" nor does that idea occur. I think one can easily make a case fro immersion as normal and best practice. But no more than that.

The history of the church shows that the NT was understood as making immersion normal, not normative. A reading of the Didache makes that clear enough. Not that the Didache is itself normative. Only Scripture is that. But the silence of scripture as to the question of normal vs normative, coupled with the witness of the didache, is instructive.

Please don't misunderstand. I am not saying that Scripture explicitly affirms any other mode. Neither am I saying that mode is unimportant or that I myself, xcept for perhaps exceptional circumstances, would ever use another mode. But since I understand the NT as indicating a normal and normative practice, I think that to say that immersion is the only legitimate mode is to go beyond where the evidence leads.

 

Helen et al, What does the word mean? It only means one thing or the other. It does not mean both and it isn't just a "sign". It is an act of profession and obedience commanded by the scriptures.

The attitude of submission is all important. Therefore, when a person is enlightened of the fact that biblical baptism is by immersion, that person can submit or resist. Additionally, it is an act of compromise and lack of submission for someone being properly baptized, knowing this truth to approve of another method.

The scriptures are not ambiguous nor pliable on this subject- We should not be either.

 

I agree that Sola Scriptura must be our guide.

But Sola Scriptura does not mean that the ECFs are nothing or that early traditions are nothing.

That is a mistake.

Sola Scritura simply teaches that we subject tradition to the standard of scripture. Scripture is the norm that norms all other norms. It is our ultimate authority. Not our only authority.

And since Scripture presents immersion as a normal practice, a best practice, not a normative, only possible practice, then there is no contradiction between the Didache and Scripture on this point.

It is a mistake, IMO, to take a normal practice and make it normative where Scriture does not make that teaching itself.

Llike it or not, it is necessary to actually prove that normal requires an understanding of normative.

 

We call upon and rely such great theological thinkers as Hodge, Berkhof et al, and non of these baptize by immersion, and indeed sprinkled infants under covenant theology. These men are considered genius in theology and men of the Book, yet they are so wrong on the question of baptism. Strange isn't it?

Let it be clear, I am strictly a believer in baptism by immersion and the right candidate, but we must allow for some credence to these other chaps...Maybe they are right and we are wrong!

Cheers,

Jim