converted preacher

Nope. Just because they wrote extensively on issues doesn't mean they are genius. They are considered such by people of like belief.

 

Why, on a Baptist Board, is someone questioning the nature and validity of true baptism? A baptism by sprinkling is like a square circle. It does not exist. Baptism by definition is immersion. That is the meaning of the word and the symbolism of the act. It does not matter what one's intention is. If the act is not the biblical act then it is not valid. The question is not about intention, it is about truth.Obedience to Christ involves doing what Christ commanded. Obedience to Christ is not fulfilled by ignoring what Christ commanded and doing something that you think is better.

We do not seriously suggest that someone can be saved by being sincere about a false belief. So we cannot seriously question whether someone can be obedient by being sincerely disobedient.

If someone wants to argue about that the baptist distinctive of baptism is incorrect or unnecessary as has been done here, they need to refrain from posting in the baptist only sections. This is a baptist board; we should be in agreement on this. We should not be presenting arguments against it.

[ January 17, 2003, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

At the very least they must be prohibited from serving as a moderator, particularly in the Baptist Only section.

Am I overstating to say that the integrity of this Board depends on our making the right and difficult choice here?

 

Drew, thank you for your clarification. I just didn't want any 'lurker' readers to misinterpret you. Thank you for your patience.

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.

But to say a baptism isn't 'good' is to say that it was something more than an obedience and a testimony in the first place.

As far as I can see, the only baptism which is not good is the baptism of a nonbeliever -- of any age. And plenty of those occur, even by immersion in Baptist churches!

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.

Under that conviction, when I was baptized, it was by immersion in Lake Folsom in the summer (many years ago). Lots of people hanging around. It was absolutely a public testimony of my obedience to my Lord Jesus Christ.

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?

All in all, however, God judges the heart, and so let us in all sincerity simply encourage obedience to our Lord an all of our words and actions and thoughts in life. To say of one particular action "that is not right" while so many of ours aren't is, if the person we are talking to was sincerely attempting to be obedient to Christ, is hypocritical, and we need to be very careful of that.

 

Well in the words of many of our Primitive Baptist preacher brethren... If they were not saved before they were Baptised... Then they went in a dry devil and came out a wet one!... Brother Glen

[ January 17, 2003, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]

 

Helen,
Baptism done where the water is located is not unscriptural. How many people where there for the Ethiopian Eunich? We would never have known about it if it weren't written in the Bible.

Last time I was at a "sprinkling" was for my son, as an infant (before I was saved, of course). That is not a testimony of the believer. All those present were in favor of infant sprinkling, and were unsaved. Did they know the meaning of baptism? No. They still look at it as keeping that baby from hell.

I was baptised in a lake, at a public beach. Many saw. I've also heard that some have gotten saved. My daughter was baptised in a river, in December, in Wisconsin. Testimony to the unsaved, ?, how many more thought she was a nut?

I have been to many baptisms, in church baptistries, in backyard water troughs, in secluded ponds. The testimony was to God. But, not excluding the unsaved. They are welcome to come. Just as they can come to church, or read that tract that they chose to throw away. God doesn't tell us that it has to be in a public place for the unsaved to witness so that they may be saved.

It is for a testimony of your belief. Sprinkling doesn't do any of that. There is no representation of the burial and resurrection. Preferred? Where is that scriptural?

And I also believe, but will stand to be corrected, but wasn't the time after the early churches formed and opposition was coming in, that churches had met in secret, and many baptisms performed in secret because they needed to protect themselves from the very real possibility of death for such practices?

[ January 17, 2003, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: TheOliveBranch ]

 

1. It is the only accurate way of doing it. The very word means immersion. Therefore, it is the only way of doing it, not merely preferred.

2. Please rephrase this. I don't follow. Baptism is indeed obedience, Helen.

3. Although the statement is true, your broad definition of baptism is where you go wrong. Water baptism that is not by immersion is a waste of time and invalid.

4. Not every church can afford to have a baptistry. Therefore, they use what they can.

5. Except for the Ethiopian Eunoch (who was immersed). Of course the N.T. does not record the location of every baptism, so your statement is an assumption.

6. I have attended such an event. It is fine of course. I am not sure what the connection is to the discussion about the correct MODE of baptism.

7. Neither. No one can prove one way over the other.

8. Baptism is by immersion only, Helen. Look up the word in a dictionary, corcondance, or lexicon. Therefore, if it is not by immersion, it isn't valid even if it was televised in primetime. Also, the witnesses are just that. If they are saved or not has no impact on the validity of the baptism.

9. God does judge the heart. The heart must follow what he has declared in his word. That is why I brought up the Bible in an earlier post. We need to rely upon it only.

Also, I think Uzzah had a pretty good heart when he wanted to stop the Ark of the covenant from hitting the ground. Guess what:

2 Samuel 6:7
Then the anger of the LORD was aroused against Uzzah, and God struck him there for his error; and he died there by the ark of God.

I am sure God does not turn a blind eye to sin.

10. When I read this, the first thing I thought of were all the women who use head coverings and the flak they took for it.

 

Bro. Glen, how very right you are.

For others, saying that Scripture is not our sole authority is ignorance. Because some don't believe does that make the faith of God of non-affect? God forbid.
All are welcome to believe anything they want to about baby's being baptised and sprinkling, but the word is still the same and it still teaches baptism by immersion.
I can say the sky is not blue, but does that make it so? We are taught one way and only one way of baptism in the Bible and that is by immersion. End of story. Why should there be anymore question? If someone doesn't want to follow the words of the Bible, go for it, but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord...and do what He tells us in Scripture.
God Bless. Bro. James

 

Actually the opposite is true. Historically Sola Scriptura never meant to completely do away with all other authorities, like traditions, commentaries, historical theology. It simply means to give those authorities their proper place, under the norming authority of Scripture. This was in contrast to the RCC which had given (and sadly continues to give) a disproportionate place to tradition.

 

Obedience is obedience. To say that a baptism is good is not the issue. Any baptism is good provided it is a baptism. A sprinkling, of a baby or an adult is not a baptism. We are not saying that baptism isn't good. We are saying that sprinkling isn't baptism. Why? Because that is what the NT teaches.

As I already stated, a "baptism by sprinkling" does not exist. Therefore, it doesn't matter whether it is public or private. It is simply getting wet. The NT does not specify whether baptisms are public or private. It does specify that baptism is to be performed.

And God judges obedience by conformity to his truth. Our sincerity of is no issue if we do not conform to his word.

Again I ask, why is this a matter of discussion in the Baptist only section of the board from a moderator and administrator no less??

 

are not all Christians part of the church no matter what denomination they are in? that of coarse does not include clear apostacy of the non Christian churches such as liberal religionist, catholic, mormon, jws, and other cults.</font>[/QUOTE]

[ January 17, 2003, 09:36 PM: Message edited by: JOHN3:16 ]

 

To go back to the two questions posed by massdak,

1 Yes, a baptism is the response of the beliver to God. So the baptism by immersion of a beliver is valid regardless of who does it, no other baptism is valid.

2. This is the harder question, can the unconverted preach the true gospel? He can say the words, give his presentation, be accurate, and not know the power of God .... BUT remember, even with the greatest of preachers it is the work of the Holy Spirit that gives power to the words in the hearts of men. So my answer would be yes, but without knowing the power of God. God can overrule in any situation.

Unfortunately there are many well meaning people who are in a pastoral type position (even in baptist churches) who are lacking in knowledge of God.

 

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?

Isn't the idea of being a Christian love and obedience? And aren't all born-again Christians who are yet alive on this earth deficient in complete knowledge of what pleases God? And aren't all of us eager to do the best we know anyway?

And if all that is true, then who are we to tell a person who was sprinkled as a testimony during his baptism, because that is what his pastor at the time did, that somehow his baptism was not a sufficient obedience or testimony? If he was doing the best he knew just as we all try to do, who are we to judge him? If, however, the Holy Spirit leads him to repeat his baptism in a ceremony of immersion, that is another matter. But truly, folks, God judges the heart and we need to respect that.

 

And if all that is true, then who are we to tell a person who was sprinkled as a testimony during his baptism, because that is what his pastor at the time did, that somehow his baptism was not a sufficient obedience or testimony? If he was doing the best he knew just as we all try to do, who are we to judge him? If, however, the Holy Spirit leads him to repeat his baptism in a ceremony of immersion, that is another matter. But truly, folks, God judges the heart and we need to respect that..
_________________________________________________

The Holy Spirit has already led them......The Bible teaches it to be so.

A valid baptism is exactly as the Bible teaches; to follow the Lord in expressing one's conversion by being immersed in water. There is NO other valid baptism in either the word or in any Baptist Church.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Yes, Jim, I understand everyone is saying that, but that word 'valid'. What does it mean here? Valid for what?

Isn't baptism the believer's sign of obedience and his testimony? How dare we call anyone's efforts in that direction invalid?

And, for baptism, what other validity is there?

 

Is not ones baptisim the outward sign of ones inward faith?

Is not ones baptism one of the TWO ordinances of the true followers of Christ?

Does not ones baptism validate the belief system under which they are baptised?

In Acts 19 the Jews had been baptised under the baptism of John, but when they heard the Gospel from Paul they were rebaptised as believers.

If one is baptised by sprinkling then that validates the apostasy coming out of Catholicism, whether it be Methodist, Anglican, Lutheran, sprinkling baptism comes directly from the papacy of Rome and validates corruption.

When one becomes a believer then that one should follow the ordinances of faith established by Christ, and practiced by the early Church, the Believers Baptism, and the ordinance of the Lord's table. One should NOT validate such apostasy as transubstantiation of the elements, by lending any credibility through outward participation in any facet or practice of such a belief system.

A servant of Christ,
Drew

 

Again, we need to use biblical terms and make the distinction here. A "baptism" that is not immersion is not baptism. So what makes a baptism invalid? If an unbeliever is baptized or if baptism is undertaken with the wrong symbolism (i.e., regenerative, sacramental, etc.).

Valid means conforming to the biblical commands and examples.

No one was ever baptized unless it was by immersion and no, sincerity and love is not the measure of obedience. Obedience is the measure.

But what is he standard for judging the heart? The heart is judged by conformity to God's revelation. Sincere disobedience is still disobedience ... just ask Uzzah.

 

Latreia, "best practice" is your term. "Only" by immersion is the "only" kind of baptism in the New Testament. The fact that the church is commissioned (Mt. 28:18-20,et.al.) to baptize (which ONLY means immerse, not sprinkle or pour) should be sufficient authority to only follow the practice that the Lord commissioned. Unless you can show that the command to baptizo (immerse) is a command to rhantizo (sprinkle), etc., I don't see how you can sustain such an argument.

 

I object to the argument which equates etymology with theology. It is an unspoken assumption that we must make an absolute equation of a word's etymological meaning and its theological meaning. But it is one that needs to be questioned. The NT expounds on the theology, not the etymology of baptism. Now obviously immersion is what best pictures the theology. That is why I insist on baptism by immersion myself; there is simply no good reason, excpet for those who are totally bedridden and cannot safely be moved, to use another mode. But as I said, normal practice does not of itself imply normative practice, and the theology is what is more important.

As such it is an easy argument to maintain, if one simply insists on the priority of the theological meaning of baptism. Not to the exclusion of the etymology of course, but we are not enslaved to it.