Southern Baptist Polity In 1948

[Michael Wrenn]

The Didache and other early writings may very well chronicled the differing views and practice over baptism. But any departure from immersion was never justified because immersion wasn't the New Testament mode. It was justified on the basis of convenience. It required one to deliberately ignore the words of Jesus and the other writers.

It certainly doesn't smack of Phrasaicalism or legalism to desire to be faithful to the clear word of Scripture.

Saying that baptism in NT times was always or usually done by immersion is one thing, but then making immersion an absolute requirement to a valid baptism is something else -- legalism, pure and simple.

Legalists are not consistent. If they want to be faithful to the clear word of scripture they MUST use wine and not grape juice in communion; they MUST be pacifists; they MUST do footwashing; they MUST NOT swear oaths -- I could go on. Why make immersion a test of fellowship when you don't do these other things the way Jesus did and taught?

And not only do legalists make immersion a test of fellowship, it has to be immersion done by their "tribe" -- not by a different "tribe" that also immerses. It can't be a Nazarene , Pentecostal, non-denominational, or any other kind of immersion -- no, that won't do at all because it's not "our" immersion. How foreign to the spirit of Jesus!

 

[mandym]

Saying that baptism in NT times was always or usually done by immersion is one thing, but then making immersion an absolute requirement to a valid baptism is something else -- legalism, pure and simple.

Sorry this is not legalism it is clear scripture. There is no room fro debate. No Baptist church is going to accept anything else.

 

[JonC]

West Kentucky Baptist is right that it is interesting to examine the historical practices and beliefs of the Southern Baptists. Insofar as the SBC goes, R.B.C. Howell (second president of the SBC and pastor of the FBC Nashville) argued that no one has an inherent right to share communion with another church (even within the SBC churches) or to occupy their pulpit. It is a matter of church autonomy. If I am not a member of a particular church, it is up to that church whether or not to invite me to communion.

I do find it odd that the mode of baptism is often such a big issue since baptism itself is viewed as an ordinance rather than a sacrament by Baptists. It seems those who hold it as a sacrament are not always as strict in regards to new membership (which is also odd). But baptism by immersion has been a particular mark of the Baptists (since the sixteenth century anyway). The stronger doctrine, and the one for which Baptists were persecuted (particularly if we are linking Baptists to the Anabaptist movement – which doctrinally, I would), was concerning believers baptism and not immersion.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Sorry this is not legalism it is clear scripture. There is no room fro debate. No Baptist church is going to accept anything else.

I have heard of a few who do -- none where I live.

 

[mandym]

I have heard of a few who do -- none where I live.

I missed my typo. Anyway they are not a baptist church if they do not immerse regardless of what they call themselves.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I missed my typo. Anyway they are not a baptist church if they do not immerse regardless of what they call themselves.

I didn't mean that I knew some who baptized by other than immersion; I meant I had heard of a few who didn't require rebaptism of those had been baptized as believers, whatever the mode.

 

[mandym]

I didn't mean that I knew some who baptized by other than immersion; I meant I had heard of a few who didn't require rebaptism of those had been baptized as believers, whatever the mode.

I see........

 

[Squire Robertsson]

From an Historic Northern Regular Baptist perspective, for a baptism to be valid it must meet the following criteria:

1. It must have the proper candidate, i.e. a Believer. By Believer, the candidate must be able to verbalize a statement of salvation.

2. It must be the proper mode. Sprinkling, pouring, and anointing don't count. A single immersion in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit\Ghost, not once for each person of the Trinity.

3. It must have the proper meaning. It's an ordinance, the first step of obedience. Baptism is not a way to wash away sin(s).

4. It must have the proper administrator. Baptism is viewed as an ordinance of the local church. As such, it must be done under the authority of a local church. How a given church regulates the ordinance(place, time, administrator) is its responsibility.

 

[Tom Butler]

I didn't mean that I knew some who baptized by other than immersion; I meant I had heard of a few who didn't require rebaptism of those had been baptized as believers, whatever the mode.

There are even some churches here in far Western Kentucky which accept other baptisms, or should I say other immersions. Of course, they are wrong.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

There are even some churches here in far Western Kentucky which accept other baptisms, or should I say other immersions. Of course, they are wrong.

According to Butler 5:17?

 

[Tom Butler]

From an Historic Northern Regular Baptist perspective, for a baptism to be valid it must meet the following criteria:

1. It must have the proper candidate, i.e. a Believer. By Believer, the candidate must be able to verbalize a statement of salvation.

2. It must be the proper mode. Sprinkling, pouring, and anointing don't count. A single immersion in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit\Ghost, not once for each person of the Trinity.

3. It must have the proper meaning. It's an ordinance, the first step of obedience. Baptism is not a way to wash away sin(s).

4. It must have the proper administrator. Baptism is viewed as an ordinance of the local church. As such, it must be done under the authority of a local church. How a given church regulates the ordinance(place, time, administrator) is its responsibility.

Your post and my post #34 are remarkably similar, which suggests that both Northern and Southern Baptists were agreed regarding baptism.

I'm sure these criteria go back a long way. Seems to me that there has been some erosion of those principles over the years.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Yes, they are. If you take a look at Wayland's Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches, you'll see the problem wasn't basic church polity. It was the Northern position that a Baptist Church can not be represented.

Your post and my post #34 are remarkably similar, which suggests that both Northern and Southern Baptists were agreed regarding baptism.

I'm sure these criteria go back a long way. Seems to me that there has been some erosion of those principles over the years.

 

[agedman]

.....

Tom,

A short account then question.

I also agree with the baptism view you have given with only one very rare and one time assembly authorized modification.

Back in the very early 1970's an aged and frail woman became a believer. She because of health issues could not be baptized by immersion. The pastors and deacons held multiple meets over the issue, and put the question before the assembly. They allowed for the woman to be lifted into the baptismal pool by four strong men passing her wheel chair down the steps. The baptism was performed by pouring rather than dipping.

As a deacon, how would you recommend the person have been baptized?

I realize that with modern medical advances (especially in delivery of oxygen) the problems are greatly diminished, and the situation may never again be addressed. I also know that many wanted no baptism to occur, some for safety and others who just didn't want to be troubled into making a decision.

I also realize that this is a bit off thread, but I just wanted your wisdom.

 

[Tom Butler]

Tom,

A short account then question.

I also agree with the baptism view you have given with only one very rare and one time assembly authorized modification.

Back in the very early 1970's an aged and frail woman became a believer. She because of health issues could not be baptized by immersion. The pastors and deacons held multiple meets over the issue, and put the question before the assembly. They allowed for the woman to be lifted into the baptismal pool by four strong men passing her wheel chair down the steps. The baptism was performed by pouring rather than dipping.

As a deacon, how would you recommend the person have been baptized?

I realize that with modern medical advances (especially in delivery of oxygen) the problems are greatly diminished, and the situation may never again be addressed. I also know that many wanted no baptism to occur, some for safety and others who just didn't want to be troubled into making a decision.

I also realize that this is a bit off thread, but I just wanted your wisdom.

My short answer is nice try, but no cigar. Baptism is immersion, or its not baptism, in my view.

This similar situation came up when I was a child. A bedridden man who had not darkened the door of a church in decades experienced a deathbed conversion. He wanted to be baptized in the worst way, but was not physically able to even get into a bathtub.

So, the church decided to baptize him "in absentia." In other words they simply declared him to be baptized and admitted him to membership in the church. I was a brand new believer (9 years old) and clueless as to whether that could be done or not.

Regarding your example, if they got the lady and her wheelchair down the steps of the baptistry, into the water, why didn't the just finish the job? Just tip the wheelchair back, push her under for a second, and it's done.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

My short answer is nice try, but no cigar. Baptism is immersion, or its not baptism, in my view.

This similar situation came up when I was a child. A bedridden man who had not darkened the door of a church in decades experienced a deathbed conversion. He wanted to be baptized in the worst way, but was not physically able to even get into a bathtub.

So, the church decided to baptize him "in absentia." In other words they simply declared him to be baptized and admitted him to membership in the church. I was a brand new believer (9 years old) and clueless as to whether that could be done or not.

Regarding your example, if they got the lady and her wheelchair down the steps of the baptistry, into the water, why didn't the just finish the job? Just tip the wheelchair back, push her under for a second, and it's done.

Yep, I can just hear Jesus saying, "They'd better put that old frail woman -- wheelchair and everything -- all the way under the water, or it ain't baptism, and I won't accept it."

 

[saturneptune]

My short answer is nice try, but no cigar. Baptism is immersion, or its not baptism, in my view.

This similar situation came up when I was a child. A bedridden man who had not darkened the door of a church in decades experienced a deathbed conversion. He wanted to be baptized in the worst way, but was not physically able to even get into a bathtub.

So, the church decided to baptize him "in absentia." In other words they simply declared him to be baptized and admitted him to membership in the church. I was a brand new believer (9 years old) and clueless as to whether that could be done or not.

Regarding your example, if they got the lady and her wheelchair down the steps of the baptistry, into the water, why didn't the just finish the job? Just tip the wheelchair back, push her under for a second, and it's done.

I suppose that in rare cases it is physically impossible, however our church had a similar case. Another deacon and I took a woman in a wheelchair on oxygen down a narrow flight of stairs to the Baptistry. It was one of the most grueling experiences of my life, without going into detail. We finally got here there, and the pastor baptised her. I believe if someone had made a motion to switch to sprinking up to a week after that, I would have voted for it.

 

[Tom Butler]

I suppose that in rare cases it is physically impossible, however our church had a similar case. Another deacon and I took a woman in a wheelchair on oxygen down a narrow flight of stairs to the Baptistry. It was one of the most grueling experiences of my life, without going into detail. We finally got here there, and the pastor baptised her. I believe if someone had made a motion to switch to sprinking up to a week after that, I would have voted for it.

I remember that, and I really felt for those of you who were helping the pastor in that situation.

If we ever have something like that again, I'm gonna vote to meet at the Paducah riverfront, roll that wheelchair about six feet into the river and let it happen. It's not deep, but it has a nice incline and would be infinitely better that what you guys went through.

 

[Tom Butler]

Yep, I can just hear Jesus saying, "They'd better put that old frail woman -- wheelchair and everything -- all the way under the water, or it ain't baptism, and I won't accept it."

Great. I think that's exactly what he's say. Glad you're on board.

 

[agedman]

My short answer is nice try, but no cigar. Baptism is immersion, or its not baptism, in my view.

This similar situation came up when I was a child. A bedridden man who had not darkened the door of a church in decades experienced a deathbed conversion. He wanted to be baptized in the worst way, but was not physically able to even get into a bathtub.

So, the church decided to baptize him "in absentia." In other words they simply declared him to be baptized and admitted him to membership in the church. I was a brand new believer (9 years old) and clueless as to whether that could be done or not.

Regarding your example, if they got the lady and her wheelchair down the steps of the baptistry, into the water, why didn't the just finish the job? Just tip the wheelchair back, push her under for a second, and it's done.

If I recall correctly, the problem was the oxygen mask and the lack of ability to hold her breath without immediate spasmodic coughing. I recall that the process was tedious, but the assembly was so grateful to see such a sweet feeble woman submit to the leading of the Holy Spirit in her life.

I can still picture the baptism. She was just shoulder deep and to keep water from going into the mask, the preacher held the hanky over the side fresh air inlets as she bowed her head and a great bowl of water cascaded over her.

I have witnessed many baptisms, but none compare to the outpouring grace of this one.

I also recall that a person such as John Merrick (think elephant man) could not be laid back because his neck muscle and bone structure would not support his head - the neck would have snapped.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This case proves the dictum:

"Hard cases make for bad law."

As such, it should not be used for guidance. Another congregation would be well within its rights to not recognize it as a valid immersion of a believer.