Featured Does it matter where you are water baptized?

Wow. I have no idea why you think I gloat or glory in being a Baptist. Believe me, I am more often ashamed of Baptists, sometime for their theology, but much more often for their practice.

I was simply saying that if I believed Baptists to be doctrinally unsound I have plenty of choices -- dozens and dozens in my own town. And I have often considered those choices.

Pedigrees are for the American Kennel Association; they mean nothing to churches; the only pedigree that matters is that we are brothers of Christ by adoption and children of the Father.

There are parts of our heritage, however, that I believe are worth preserving (such as the historic Baptist belief in separation of church and state.) And where heritage is tarnished (such as in the widespread justification of slavery and Jim Crow) is should be acknowledged to prevent us making such mistakes again.

 

The question becomes to many, "Was the baptizing done by and under the authority of a local church?" I know Russian Baptists in the Metro Sacramento area like to baptize in the American River.

 

The early churches, of course, had no property and would have baptized where it was convenient.

There are many accounts of Baptist churches conducting the ordinance in a pond or river, sometimes chopping the ice away to perform the ceremony.

 

I read a report form Slavic Baptist Church of San Diego. They baptize in San Diego Bay.

 

Hmmmm. I am an unabashed fundamentalist. Could you please tell me which of the 5 fundamentals of the faith are "not that old" and steming from "error not so long ago?"

1. The virgin birth and deity of Jesus.

2. The substitutionary atonement.

3. The resurrection of Jesus Christ.

4. The inspiration of the Scriptures.

5. The second coming of Christ.


Thank you.

 

I tend to think the crux of the issue hinges on your definition of "Baptist." I believe "Baptist" is a doctrinal distinction not a denominational name. Therefore our church would accept any church of like doctrinal distinction.

We accepted baptism from another church that believes in:

Baptism of believers only.
Baptism by immersion.
Baptism as public identification with Christ.
Baptism not required for salvation.
Baptism not a sacrament but an ordinance.

 

What do you mean by "ordained?" Does baptismal authority lie with the man, or with the church? Can the church approve a layman to baptize?

 

Well, you seemed to be bashing "fundies" of which I am one based on my belief in the fundamentals.

The point is the revisionist change in the definition of "fundamentalist" away from those who believe the fundamentals to those who inhabit the radical outer fringe of Christendom.

Changing the definition of accepted theological words is the game played by the Neo-Orthodox crowd which developed shortly after WWI.

 

This is one of the few points on which the authors of the Second London Baptist Confession specifically differed from the Westminster Confession, introducing some ambiguity about the qualifications of the administrator of the ordinance; while the Presbyterians required ordination, the Baptists deliberately fudged:

Westminster: There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the gospels, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any but a minister of the Word, lawfully ordained.

Second London: These holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ.

Possibly that may be because the Baptist tradition had not specifically required ordination and, in fact, had sometimes explicitly rejected any specific requirement for the administrator, as reflected in the First London Confession:

The person designed by Christ to dispense baptism, the Scripture holds forth to be a disciple; it being no where tied to a particular church officer, or person extraordinarily sent the commission enjoining the administration, being given to them as considered disciples, being men able to preach the gospel.

 

I never said otherwise. But to think that only one who is "ordained" (whatever that really means, in a nonconformist Baptist context) has the requisite understanding to administer the ordinance tends to elevate the clergy above the laity in a fashion inconsistent with Baptist history and polity.