Low morals

Observe these words carefully. There is great misunderstanding. Humble yourself as you read this.

If when I say baptism is with or without water, as does God's Word, this does NOT suggest I am against baptism with water (for that is anabaptists, they are wrong too), but rather, the claim that it must be with water, which so happens to be the false teaching of Baptist denomination and derivatives.

Point in case, when you said "While we Baptists believe in total immersion, in those regions it is impossible to follow the Biblical mandate. And while we are at it".

The truth of your mistaken assumption is that it is not the Biblical mandate. You just misread the Bible. It is not impossible to follow the Biblical mandate if baptism is with or without water.

Satan will no doubt accuse me of saying I said someone was unsaved that I did not say was unsaved, but such words through men that accuse like this really are of no account.

Any questions? This is really an exceedingly simple matter, but not so simple for those being harnessed by a denominational teaching.

 

So much blaming instead of accepting the simple truth. This is done for you.

I do not believe Baptists think one must be baptized by water to be saved.

The error of Baptists is in thinking baptism is not with or without water, but requires the physical.

That first step does not demand the physical, but burial and resurrection with Christ with or without water.

The baptism of which the Lord told Nicodemus is a reality. Paul also sees reality in baptism: burial with the Lord for newness of life. He told the saints in Colossae, “Having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him” (Col. 2.12). To him baptism and burial are one and the same thing; so too are baptism and resurrection. He knows what is meant by being buried with the Lord and also what is meant by being raised with the Lord. He does not see the water of baptism only, nor does he view some as being truly baptized while some others are not. He communicates to others the reality of that baptism which he has touched.

Regeneration is being “born of water and the Spirit” (John 3.5). This needs a little explanation. When John the Baptist came to preach and to baptize he proclaimed: “I baptized you in water; but he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit” (Mark 1.8). Just as in Mark 1 John the Baptist joined the water and the Holy Spirit together, so in John 3 our Lord Jesus also joined the water and the Holy Spirit. Now since the water which John referred to was the water of baptism, then the water which the Lord Jesus spoke of must also be the water of baptism. The word the Lord answered Nicodemus with must be something which the latter could quickly grasp. At that time many people knew of John baptizing with water. It was but natural for Nicodemus to take the water which the Lord Jesus mentioned as being the baptism of John. Had the Lord had another thought in mind concerning water, it would not have been easily comprehended by Nicodemus. We may therefore conclude that “water” here points to the water of baptism.

 

One Baptism. Is it by immersion or by sprinkling? Is it single or triune? There are various modes of baptism accepted by the children of God, so if we make the form of baptism the dividing line between those who belong to the church or even a denomination and those who do not, we shall exclude many true believers from our fellowship by making such rules tenants of some denomination. There are children of God who even believe that a material baptism is not necessary, but since they are the children of God, we dare not on that account exclude them from our fellowship. What then is the significance of the “one baptism” mentioned in this passage? Paul throws light on the subject in his first letter to the Corinthians. “Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized into the name of Paul?” (1.13). The emphasis is not on the mode of baptism, but on the name into which we are baptized. The first question is not whether you are sprinkled or immersed, dipped once or thrice, baptized literally or spiritually, the important point is, into whose name have you been baptized? If you are baptized into the Name of the Lord, that is your qualification for church membership. If anyone is baptized into the Name of the Lord, I welcome him as my brother, whatever be the mode of his baptism so therefore, there is no need to specify mode of baptism at all. By this we do not imply that it is of no consequence whether we are sprinkled or immersed, or whether our baptism is spiritual or literal. The Word of God teaches that baptism is literal, and is by immersion, but the point here is that the mode of baptism is not the ground of our fellowship, but the Name into which we are baptized. All who are baptized into the Name of the Lord are one in Him. Why was it literal? Because that is how men can understand, but this means then, you never make it the name of your denomination to determine a mode of baptism. Never! That divides falsely. In fact, you never have a denomination at all. Just as Pentecostals lord over others with false tongues, Baptists ought not to lord over others with a mode of baptism.

My deepest prayers go out to you to do the right thing.