Zenas said:
As much as I have been involved in Baptist life there is one thing I will never understand. If baptism is only symbolic of dying to the old life and rising in the new, why do we pay so much attention to the minutiae of this ordinance? We won't accept infant baptism; we won't accept sprinkling no matter when it is done; we won't even accept believer's baptism by immersion unless the believer believes it is only symbolic. I have a friend who has attended our church for several years but won't join because he would have to be baptized again. He was sprinkled as a child and believes he became a Christian at that time, and he is unwilling to renounce his previous baptism. Too bad, because he is a wonderful Christian and would make a really fine deacon if we would accept his baptism. What ever happened to "one lord, one faith, one baptism?
As a general rule, Baptists historically have agreed that baptism is for believers only, by immersion, a picture of the gospel and non-sacramental.
Your friend is essentially saying this: I like your church, i like the people here, I even agree with most of your doctrines. Except on baptism. If you want me as a member, you are going to have to change your doctrine. I resent that you think my sprinkling is invalid baptism. I don't mind declaring that Baptist immersion is wrong, though.
The Baptist view of baptism is either biblical or it's not. There aren't two or three kinds of baptism. I'm amazed at the willingness of some Baptist churches today which assign equivalence to all types of baptism. They have abdicated their responsibility to preserve the integrity of the ordinances, and given it to individuals. Now each individual is the arbiter of his own baptism's validity. Sad.
)
