Immersion and Membership

That pastor should have been fired before the next second passed on the clock.
I can understand insisting on immersion, as that is the Biblical way. However, he had no right whatsoever, to question or make a statement about their salvation. That is cause for dismissal on the spot.

I have seen a pastor bully a non member couple before over closed communion when it was not even our policy. They left out of hurt and anger, never to return. I greatly respected this couple. At the time, I did not realize what was happening.

He is gone now, but as God is my witness, this will never pass by me again if I have any say so in the matter.

 

The pastor may have more wisdom than you give him credit for. I also have witnessed to some "dyed in the wool" Methodists. It seems like some of these people have put their trust in their baptism and in their ritualistic religion rather in Christ. Even though the gospel was just explained to them there is a fear of letting go of the things that they were so long attached to.
Similar things happened to me when I first got saved. I was a Catholic for 20 years. When I first went to an Alliance church (the first non-Catholic church I went to), they were having a Communion service. I didn't know what to do. My belief in transubstantiation was still ingrained in my thinking. To me it would be like a mortal sin in partakng of a non-Catholic bread and juice (which I had never done before. What was I to do? The fear of such was condemning.

In the same manner the belief in baptism saves, may not have been fully eradicated from his mind. He may not have been truly saved as long as he did ot have that theological concept totally separated from the doctrine of salvation. Not baptizing him was probably the right decision. Never force a person to be baptized. It needs to be a voluntary decision; one of obedience to the Lord, that a saved person must make on his own.

 

Amen, brother!

 

Your post brings out some really good points. The pastor did not err on insisting on Biblical baptism. These two would have to come to that realization in God's good time.

However, what this pastor or any other mortal has no right to do (especially a leader) is question a salvation experience. The testimony from the writer of the post is much more convincing to me than the pastor's conclusion.

The solution would have been for these two (a brother and sister in Christ) to be gently and lovingly told that they have to understand the Biblical purpose of Baptism before it can be done by the local church, followed by membership.

I agree with your statment that baptism should not be forced. At the same time, not baptizing a person should never be forced once they come to an understanding.

The way I read this post above, this pastor did not have a clue as to how to handle this, and a mean and angry spirit came though that would run off anyone if they were not saved. Pastor is not a dictator. The governance of the local church rests with the congregation. These people needed a loving leader, not an angry accuser.

 

Debbie -- this is one of my sore subjects.

First off, many are baptised without knowing what it means besides allowing one to be a member. Are we to equate baptism to "hazing?" "Initiation?" Are we not part of the body by belief alone?? NO! It is to signify the baptism of the Holy Spirit, identification with Christ, and a new resurrected life! New Christians don't realize that they have a new life and baptism is highly symbolic of the FACT, 1Cor 15:35-38!! But we "wham, bam, thank you m'a'm" them so fast that we fail to teach them to live anew -- to find out what "body pleases Him!"

Second, because it is so often done "ASAP" after salvation, it often gets mixed reviews as to whether we foster a "works" salvation by it.

Third, it's become a "body count" for the SBC! And that is, unfortunately, what it looks like to the outside world, too! A friend of mine was saved and immersed in another baptist church but they forced him to be rebaptized in his new church anyway.

Lastly, we are imposing it like "law." There are only 2 laws of the new covenant -- love the Lord with all your heart and love thy neighbor as thyself. But most SBC are not ashamed to impose that, tithing, etc. when it suits their own ends.

Sorry. I've become a little jaded lately on this issue but I feel with good reason. Anyone like to straighten me out? I know it is a matter of obedience and I have been saved and then baptized, but what we have made of it is rather dark, to me. It is indeed a glorious thing when done rightly.

skypair

 

"church triumphant" the church,not a church or denomination. Baptism was never intended for membership in a local church. It is an ordiance into "The Church"

 

Let me rephrase my earlier question asking for an explanation. Would you like to defend your view? Would you give scripture that drives your view? Repeating a flat statement is neither an explanation nor a defense.

Further, I would welcome a response to what I have written. Tell me why I'm wrong.

 

Go here and read. http://www.gerald285.com/view/?pageID=311993 This explains what I have said and answers your questions.

 

I know where you're coming from, and in part I agree. But I also have a nagging feeling that neither the pastor nor the church members should completely and unreservedly accept an initial profession of faith.

I'm leaning to the idea that before a church baptizes a new convert, maybe some time should pass in order to see if that convert gives further evidence of his conversion.

To the extent that we can never completely know beyond a shadow of a doubt about anyone's salvation; and to the extent that you, and only you, know for sure that your are saved, I agree with you.

 

Your treatise is a series of statements. Some I agree with. But the essay never does defend your view that baptism is for the "church triumphant" and not the door to the local church. And except for quoting the Great Commission, no other scripture is used to defend your opinions.

 

I wish the scriptures gave us some fallback instructions on this matter of baptism, but it does not.

Biblical baptism is always by immersion, and pouring is not baptism.

If a person believes his sprinkling or pouring is a valid baptism, yet seeks membership in a Baptist church and won't seek immersion, he demonstrates that ihe is not a good candidate for membership. He is seeking to join for the wrong reasons.

Unfortunately, more and more Baptist churches, particularly in my part of Western Kentucky, will take this man in a heartbeat.

This sets the stage for some future debates pitting scriptural baptism against church autonomy. My own church is preparing for the day when a person whose alien baptism was accepted by a sister Baptist church, tries to join our church by letter from that church. That letter will say that person is a member in good standing.

Oh, it's a slippery slope when we ignore the scriptures just this one itty-bitty time.

 

It seems that arrangements could have been made to address security concerns and immerse. It may have taken some intervention, but it does not seem to be something that couldn't be solved.

Recently, we baptised a woman who is wheel chair bound, and did what was necessary to get her to the baptistry, and ensure her safety. It took quite a few men, but we did it.

Membership requirements are really a seperate issue from the method of baptism. The rules concerning membership are strictly up to the local church. They may or may not choose to link baptism or a particular baptism to membership. They may allow baptism without membership, or require membership afterwards to be baptised by the local church. There are endless possibilities from church to church. This issue of rebaptism is the same, a decision of the local church.

If you are at odds with local church policy on the issues, you have three choices. You can try and change the policy through a vote of the congregation, live with the policy, or change churches.

Since all of us come from different local churches, commenting on your church's policy would serve no purpose. In my church's case, in general, for membership, one should have been immersed from a church of like faith and order. I know we would not accept infant baptism from another denomination, although some of the baptist churches in another association have started that.

This case would be unchartered territory for us, as we have never faced this situation. I would say it would take a lot of prayer and discussion. One thing that I mentioned above, is that there would have to be no doubt that all remedies had been exhausted to accept pouring, which I feel from what you say may still be worked out.

I am a definite believer in immersion, however, there are circumstances that sometimes no one has faced, so its hard to make a 100% hard and fast rule. As told in one of the posts above, a situation like this is no excuse for a pastor or any other leader not knowing how to handle the situation or be pure hateful about it.

It is my prayer that between the local church, the prison, God, and these men, this can be resolved in a manner that edifies all and glorifies God. Best wishes in your journey through this.

 

If I've read my church history correctly, the Roman Catholic church acknowledges that the original mode of baptism was immersion (and Orthodox churches still immerse. Most RC churches (and sprinkling Protestant churches, as well) will immerse you if you request.

The RC church went to sprinkling or pouring as a matter of convenience.

We should be careful about ignoring the scriptures as a matter of convenience.

Circumstances should not dictate the mode of baptism. Guess what should.

 

I have never seen God fail to work out requirements of the Scripture. In the case above, I would say there is a way to immerse these men if the right people are talked to.

Life has taught me not to make Sherman type statements, and while I cannot think of a circumstance that would require a local church to examine this, I am not about to say we will never find ourselves discussing it as a church.

Again, these are matters for each local church, unless Brother Tom, you in the past two hours have joined that great Universal Church in the sky. If you have, I would suggest you request immersion.

 

God does have a way of erasing barriers, doesn't he saturneptune? I join you in hoping that a way will be worked out to baptize those prisoners.

BTW, do you know the difference between the Universal Church members and local church members? U-Churchers don't have to go to meetings.

However---I do look forward to joining you and my other brothers and sisters at the great General Assembly in the sky. I'd call it the ultimate Universal church, except the General Assembly in the sky is a meeting. And U-churchers, remember don't do meetings.

 

The Roman Catholic church not only acknowledges immersion and offers it, but in some cases promotes it. There is a parish here in Washington, DC, that constructed a baptistry pool so that adult converts could be immersed. St. Teresa of Avila is in a majority-African American neighborhood, and is recognizing that most of the people with whom they deal have some sort of Baptist or Baptist-related background.

When I was a pastor, two different United Methodist churches requested the use of our baptistry on several occasions, because they had people who wanted immersion baptism.

 

Aain I say --- sounds more like "club initiation" when a church won't accept that you are saved without baptism and especially without immersion if you believed and were baptized.

I don't see a "slippery slope" as some do. Course, I'm no pastor either -- nor "gatekeeper." Baptism is "imagery," not substance, folks.

skypair

 

Of course it is imagery. It's a picture--a picture of the gospel.

The imagery requires immersion to properly depict it.

Jesus not only approved of it, he also commissioned the church he established to practice immersion in his name, the name of his father, and the name of the Holy Spirit.

This ordinance is so important that people have been persecuted, thrown in jail, beaten, burned at the stake for holding that baptism does not save, for not baptizing infants. I would hardly call this a "club initiation."

 

You're right, Tom. The scripture says "TEACHING and baptizing them in the name of the..." Let's TEACH them about it when they are saved and then not make it a "law" so that there is an issue of "immersing" prisoners, eh?

And I also agree with you that many have been persecuted and marytred on account of being "rebaptized" which "skewered" the church's (both Catholic and Reform) institution of infant baptism. So, yeah, I'm not "hard over" against it. I just think there should be more TEACHING if we are going to REQUIRE it.

skypair