Does it matter where you are water baptized?

[rsr]

Perhaps ‘the whole point of being Baptist’ is wrong then? Yes, it most certainly is, and the statement given is mere gloating. ...

This entire thing was not heard of nor encouraged in the church, this boasting, schism concerning ones religious pedigree and heritage under the name and guise of a ‘biblical’ denomination I follow the ______ church, and it is seen in Scripture that this behavior is considered self-righteous, prideful and is rightly condemned. It is behaving in a human way as 1 Cor. 3:1-9 attests.

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.

 

[Marooncat79]

The whole point of being Baptist is having "old-fashioned religion." If we didn't think we were the closest approximation to the New Testament church there would be no point in our being Baptists.

The main difference between fundamentalists and Landmarkers is their area of concentration. The Landmarkers are principally interested in ecclesiology: what constitutes a church, its authority and its lineage. Fundamentalists (by definition) are concerned about the basic beliefs of Christianity: the virgin birth, the atonement, the authority of scripture (and I'm sure I'm leaving something out).

You forgot about fundy women wearing pants too. Thats a huge no no I covered you though.

 

[Melinda]

what about those that are baptized in a lake or river..that isn't church property

 

[Squire Robertsson]

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.

what about those that are baptized in a lake or river..that isn't church property

 

[rsr]

what about those that are baptized in a lake or river..that isn't church property

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.

 

[agedman]

There was at one time a great difference between Baptist and all others. Just one saying they were Baptist was significantly demonstrating that their view was not the same as the typical religious groupings.

There was no particular blending of the Baptists with other groups, and often the Baptists were held to a much higher standard of conduct by those outside the Baptist than even the Baptists.

Here is a link to a good read on not only the history, but the various distinctions of Baptists and what is significant about Baptist.

It is unfortunate (imo) that a growing number of churches are dropping "Baptist" from their title, and yet proclaim some hold to Baptist views. (imo) They want to blend in and be part of what is popular, not "offend anyone."

In my own area, it is getting extremely difficult to find a fellowship of Baptists that are not compromised with worldliness, or spouting the error of easy accept-ism. I don't like the term easy believism, because often they use the words: put your faith in, or accept, or some other Arminian type suggesting of human effort and work - where belief is generated from a changed heart, not just a head knowledge. But that is all for another thread.

I don't want a dead church. I want a church that sets aside all that is of the world, and worships the Lord. I want an assembly that leaves the meeting armed with the Word and ready to do battle with that which is ungodly. I want a fellowship that is honest and transparent in that all are frail and "prone to wander" and we each have a responsibility to each other as Christ builds the body.

Oh well.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

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

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.

 

[TCassidy]

Both groups, (though one in the same with a few differences Brider theology being a main difference) feel they are following the closest example of a NT church, that they have 'old-fashioned religion'. Their views are not that old in most cases and much soteriology stems from error not so long ago.

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.

 

[TCassidy]

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.

 

[Reformed]

From what I read, you were baptized in what many refer to as a "Bible" church. I haven't heard of anybody not recognizing the validity of a Bible Church baptism.

On the other hand, I have heard of difficulties with Mennonite baptism. The accepted formula is a single dunk "I baptize you now in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. While, some Mennonites triple dunk, seemingly "In the Names of . . ."

My Baptist Polity professor at MBU, the late Dr. Richard Weeks, taught that for a baptism to be valid it had to have the following elements:

• The Proper Meaning: E.g. No baptismal regeneration, not infants
  
• The Proper Administrator: some one authorized by the local church.
• The Proper Mode: Full immersion in water, no sprinkling, pouring or anointing.

I would one additional requirement: the baptism must be Trinitarian.

 

[Reformed]

I see one has assumed you were baptized in a Bible Church and am wondering if this were true.

Would it matter to anyone here if a person were baptized in the following church's:

- WoF (let's say at Joyce Meyers' church)

- Joel Osteens church (maybe they get ready to dunk the candidate then decide the person is such a champion, overcomer, and 'I am!' person, an 'I can and Will!' person and forego baptizing)

- The Restored Church of God

- A church of Christ (baptismal regeneration)

- At a prosperity gospel church (baptized by Creflo Dollar himself)

If any person came to join your church, with these backgrounds, would you accept them into membership by baptism, or would you line out their beliefs and/or be cautious in 'laying hands suddenly' on them?

Some of my Reformed friends disagree with me on this. They say that as long as a baptism is Trinitarian in nature, and administered by an ordained minister of the church, that is valid. These same friends would accept Roman Catholic baptism as valid. I agree, but with a twist. A minister of the Gospel must be ordained. However, Word of Faith, and other heretical denominations (including RCC), do not have lawful ministers of the gospel. Ergo they cannot administer lawful baptism.

 

[TCassidy]

They say that as long as a baptism is Trinitarian in nature, and administered by an ordained minister of the church, that is valid.

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?

 

[Internet Theologian]

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.

None of the above. Of course, you already know this.

 

[TCassidy]

None of the above. Of course, you already know this.

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.

 

[Reformed]

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?

The authority lies with the church, although the the pastor/elders typically administer the ordinances. If a church wishes to grant authority to a lay member, that is up to the church. In the Reformed tradition I think it also has more to do with good church order.

 

[rsr]

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.

 

[Jerome]

It's because Reformed "baptisms" are most often performed on oblivious infants.

As Charles Spurgeon explains in "Fragments of Popery Among Nonconformists":

we fear that the most of them must have the minister to do it, and would hardly like their infants to be left to the operation of an unordained man. If it be so, we do not so very much wonder at their belief, for as it is clear that no good arises to an infant from its own prayers or meditations during the ceremony, there is a natural tendency to look for some official importance in the performer of the rite

It is very natural that our friends should desire their minister to baptize them, and yet there is no reason why he should do so on account of his office. It does not appear from the Scriptures to have been an act peculiar to preachers; in fact, at least one of them, and he by no means the least, was not sent to baptize, but to preach the gospel. A vigorous Christian member of the church is far more in his place in the baptismal waters than his ailing, consumptive, or rheumatic pastor. Any objection urged against this assertion is another unconscious leaning to tradition, if not a relic of superstition. The usefulness of the ordinance does not depend upon the baptizer, but upon the the gracious meditation and earnest prayer of the person baptized

 

[Reformed]

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.

Those who are qualified are often those who are ordained. This is typically the custom in confessional Baptist churches. The confession reads:

1689 LBC 29.1 Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.

Since the Church is making a statement that the person being baptized is receiving the sign of the New Covenant, that is something to be taken seriously. The person administering baptism should have a good understanding of these facts.

 

[rsr]

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.

 

[Revmitchell]

The idea that somehow if those who are ordained or the pastor has a role and responsibility that they laity does not have puts them above the laity is patently absurd. Hebrews 13:17 makes it clear that pastors have a role and responsibility others do not have which also includes an accountability.