He didn't have to listen to the same four line songs over and over again either.
....oops....did I type that out loud?..Frown
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
If a medical condition hinders baptism
- Thread starter rlvaughn
- Start date
....oops....did I type that out loud?..FrownThat is stretching it a bit.
So are you saying that immersion, sprinkling and pouring are each as equally acceptable for baptism as the other?
Me? No. I believe to baptize is to immerse. But not all churches hold the same view. A more important issue in terms of baptist doctrine is believers baptism.
Why is it that the typical "baptist" places great emphasis upon the mode and method being what was done originally in a baptism at the time of Christ's ministry; yet, they do not extend that same thinking upon the mode and method of the earliest church practice concerning the Lord's table?
Does that not present an inconsistency?
Where in the Scriptures does it say that the bread is to be passed as little crackers in a shallow plate and the juice distributed in little cups arranged in circles from a tray?
Does that not present an inconsistency?
Where in the Scriptures does it say that the bread is to be passed as little crackers in a shallow plate and the juice distributed in little cups arranged in circles from a tray?
Yes, ALL Baptists argue!
They just don't all argue the same things.
I was only being facetious. Not all Baptists argue, but instead present arguments to affirm that which they teach, as well as that which they disagree with. When discussion breaks down to an argument in truth, then it is no longer discussion. I view "arguing" to be different from debate because usually in an argument one or both sides is refusing to hear the argument of their antagonist. Discussion usually has both sides simply presenting their arguments without necessarily trying to assert their argument.
I like to think I am a Baptist in the truest sense, lol, and in a discussion concerning water baptism, I take the position that it is first best to understand the purpose of baptism, rather than the type of physical baptism followed, and how it fits into a salvific context. When we understand water baptism, as one member pointed out, is symbolic and does not contribute to the Work of God in salvation, it really becomes a moot issue in light of the Baptism which does save. The truest sense of being Baptist (when the context is in regards to water baptism), is not how one is to be baptized in water...but why one is to be baptized. It is for the purpose of a public confession of Christ before men, which in our culture may not be something incredible, but, in the First Century and even in certain countries in the world today, it could be a matter of life and death, or exclusion from the culture one lives in.
God bless.
Last edited:
The meaning and purpose of baptism is important, and is not necessarily disregarded by those who insist on believer immersion only.
I agree with James Leo Garrett: "First, believer’s baptism by immersion is probably the all-time central Baptist distinctive...To make believer’s immersion optional in Baptist churches would be to denigrate the central reason for a Baptist witness and a Baptist denomination."
I agree with James Leo Garrett: "First, believer’s baptism by immersion is probably the all-time central Baptist distinctive...To make believer’s immersion optional in Baptist churches would be to denigrate the central reason for a Baptist witness and a Baptist denomination."
Not sure I would agree with that being the "all time meaning," but rather the concept that there must be conscious understanding of salvation and a profession of belief, which would then demand baptism.
One thing I would point out is that when Paul is rebuking sectarian division in the Church, he "thanks God" that he had not baptized many. In view is the issue of identification, which is important in the discussion of water baptism, because it is a key element of Christian Baptism. Who we are identified with. And Paul rebukes those identifying with Apollos and Peter, his point being the singular identification this baptism carries is with Christ Who died for us. Not who water baptized us, lol. Which swings us back to the individual, for himself (as opposed to his parents having him "baptized"), to openly confess Christ (which implies repentance and faith in Christ has taken place).
I would have no problem being associated with the Ana-Baptists on this particular point.
Just to be clear, I too think that immersion is the better way, because it is a picture of being buried and rising again, and represents physically the spiritual reality of regeneration. But I do think Craig has made some great points concerning baptism, and when we understand that being baptized in water has no salvific value, then the entire debate becomes moot, in my view.
God bless.
I've been in vocational ministry for a good period of time, though not as long as others, and in my own experiences and discussions with colleagues, I've only heard of one instance where the situation presented in the OP was presented. It is a very rare situation. When it did present itself, the individual was placed under the watchcare of a church and given provisional membership and heartily welcomed as part of the family of that local church. They were in such a state that baptism by immersion simply wasn't possible, but that didn't bar them from the local church or communion.
There have plenty of other situations where we had to get creative and I've done several pool baptisms using a specialized lift described above. Each was beautiful and a testimony to God's grace in difficult times.
While there are always provisions for the extreme situation, these are not normative and don't apply to the vast, vast majority of people. Thankfully all saved people have been baptized by the one baptism that is universal and only done by God...the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
There have plenty of other situations where we had to get creative and I've done several pool baptisms using a specialized lift described above. Each was beautiful and a testimony to God's grace in difficult times.
While there are always provisions for the extreme situation, these are not normative and don't apply to the vast, vast majority of people. Thankfully all saved people have been baptized by the one baptism that is universal and only done by God...the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
I had a cousin who had terminal cancer. A bunch of members of the church he took membership in placed him on a gurney and took him to the local creek and lowered him under water while he laid flat on that gurney. You should have seen the tears of joy as he was raised out of the ater. He could only raise one arm as he had bone cancer and lost his right arm from the shoulder. It was so bad that one time he picked up his leg to lay it in the couch it broke.
Sometimes we have to go to great lengths to help those who are terminally ill.
I agree. "Legalism" is one of the most abused terms today, but I see it as legalism when someone gnashes their teeth over what to do if submersion isn't practical, maybe even impossible. If a dying man can't be submersed, for whatever reason, sprinkle and stop gnashing teeth over it.
Sometimes things are less than ideal, because of circumstances, but that doesn't make them wrong. What's done in faith isn't wrong.
If immersion is not practical then neither should we engage is any form of psuedo baptism. Just make it known that the person desires to be baptized but cannot for health resaons. That should be sufficient. Sprinkling serves no purpose and fails to present the biblical picture. its absurd.
If you're ever with a dying man who asks to be baptized but can't be submersed, be sure to share with him your argument.
When you have to use the extreme worst case scenario then you really have no argument. However, why would a dying man want to be sprinkled?
You mean, why would a dying man want to be baptized? Some people are from faith traditions that teach baptism is necessary, or at least very important, and may not have bothered following their faith until death is at the door. Maybe someone is just an average Joe who accepts Christ on his deathbed and would like to be baptized before passing on. I'm sure it's rare, but it must happen (probably daily, given the population size).
It's the worst case scenarios that tests things.
If I wanted to be unrealistic, I'd say suppose we lived on a remote multi-generational space station (or desert planet), and the most water anyone has ever seen at the same time is just enough to fill a few cups? Would you give up the sacrament of baptism altogether, given that there is not enough water for submersion, and sprinkling is unacceptable?
Even an unrealistic situation deserves an answer.
I have been around more than one Baptist who claimed those who die on their deathbed without being baptized are in hell upon dying. They have put as much emphasis on the water immersion as they have the very grace by which they were saved.
As I stated earlier, I encountered a man, Brother Smyth, who had end-stage COPD with emphysema. Immersing him in water was not a possibility. I worked with another preacher and I asked him if he'd help me 'baptize' him in a shower. We took a wheelchair and wheeled him into a shower and covered him all over with water. He went to be with the Lord a few days later. We, as Christians, have to do everything possible to help those who can not be immersed. He wanted to answer his conscience before God, so I did everything I could to satisfy him.
As I stated earlier, I encountered a man, Brother Smyth, who had end-stage COPD with emphysema. Immersing him in water was not a possibility. I worked with another preacher and I asked him if he'd help me 'baptize' him in a shower. We took a wheelchair and wheeled him into a shower and covered him all over with water. He went to be with the Lord a few days later. We, as Christians, have to do everything possible to help those who can not be immersed. He wanted to answer his conscience before God, so I did everything I could to satisfy him.
SovereignGrace, my experience is quite different that yours. I have never been around even one Baptist who claimed those who die without being baptized are in hell upon dying.
If we find a dying person who is incapable of being immersed, for whatever reason, why gnash teeth and why sprinkle? Why require a substitute for baptism at all, if the person literally cannot be immersed?
If we find a dying person who is incapable of being immersed, for whatever reason, why gnash teeth and why sprinkle? Why require a substitute for baptism at all, if the person literally cannot be immersed?
Well, this entire topic is predicated on extreme worst case scenarios.