Originally posted by riverm:
As a member of a Baptist Church, I have friends of other denominations. Some friends of my wife and I are of the United Methodist Church. Now these friends of ours are no doubt saved and are very dedicated in their walk with Christ; they are involved in every aspect of the Church and community.
Here’s my question. If they were to visit my church on communion Sunday, they would be denied the opportunity to partake in the Lords Supper, because they were not “scripturally” baptized by the Baptist interpretation of the scripture.
Why would the Baptist want to deny them the opportunity to partake in the Lord’s Supper? They were sprinkled or baptized, in the name of the Father, the Son and of the Holy Spirit, but not immersed. I thought to be “scripturally” baptized was to be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
What I don’t understand is that the Baptist Church says that Baptism isn’t what saves, but denies a fellow Christian Communion? Will Christ deny my friends a place at the Lambs Supper, because they weren’t baptized per the Baptist interpretation? Isn't communion nothing more than a rememberance anyway?
So why should it matter if
A: Baptism doesn't save and
B: Communion is nothing more than a rememberance
As long as one is a professing Christian and has accepted the Lord as his or her Saviour, they shouldn't be denied communion.
This is really bothering me and it makes me ashamed and embarrassed to be called a Baptist.
riverm,
Nice post.
I agree with most of what you've shared. IMO Christ was baptized by immersion. There is evidence that the person stood in the body of water and immersed himself while the "baptizer" stood by. Today most are baptized by the baptizer, ironically, which IMO is not the most accurate way. Rather than focus on a human, it's better when the human focused upon is the actual person being baptized. Since it illustrates a commitment to follow Christ as well, it is appropriate that the believer himself baptize himself, IMO. But no biggee. "The Jesus Film" showed Jesus baptizing Himself, BTW.
But there is also much evidence that many in the early Christian church baptized by pouring. (The sprinkling idea developed later when babies began to be baptized.) But there is a basis for baptism by pouring. Many of the pictures found in the catacombs - most of them actually - illustrate baptism by pouring rather than immersion. Some have pointed out, perhaps accurately, that the great number baptized on the Day of Pentecost (3000 men, so probably over 6000 total) physically made it more likely that they were baptized by pouring.
Now IMO immersion better illustrates identification with the death and resurrection of Christ, as in Romans 6:3, 4. But as
riverm said, will it make a difference when we see our Lord (1 John 3:1-32)? I think that there is some danger in making too much of the physical aspect of baptism - that turns it into a rite instead of an ordinance passed on to us by our Lord. We should focus on the spiritual meaning. I would like to see the Baptist churches stand strong on immersion as the
likely (because let's face it, the scripture doesn't really say - we're basing our deduction on common sense and our understanding of Romans 6) means originally used. We could suggest to those who were baptized as believers, but by sprinkling or pouring, that if they felt moved to be rebaptized that they could do so.
But to require baptism by immersion for membership or (apparently as some churches have chosen to do) for communion is not biblical, IMO. Why do I say so? Where the Baptists have got it right is in requiring
believers' baptism. That is the crucial aspect of the meaning.
But think about it: what about the person who had a moving experience of baptism (believers') in front of family and friends... We tell them that they were not really baptized. That's what bothers me. Yes, they were baptized. Sure, the very Greek word refers to washing, though pouring could apply there as well I guess, though not as effectively. But baptism is of the Spirit - we are placed into the body of Christ. Water baptism is a picture of what has already occured spiritually. Once the person has been baptized as a believer in obedience to His Lord, though he may have gotten the mode wrong, he
has been baptized.
The person may feel that we are looking down on their old church as well. I just do not see much positive good coming from this - it seems to come mainly from human tradition.
The question to be asked is
if it is wrong to be rebaptized... even though the original physical mode may have been wrong. The only example we see of rebaptism in scripture is when those followers of John the Baptist were rebaptized "into the name of Christ."
To require that he repeat it is an affront to the original work of the Spirit, IMO. This has done some damage to the Baptist church, in general. A number of Christians have been put off by what they perceive as legalism... and you know what, I think they're right - though they've got the answer right, they are being legalistic in how they promote the practice. I know that I've had to deal with this with some friends who were offended by the Baptist approach. They listen to me... but most know that the Baptist approach is not the best way to handle it.
I tell them that sometimes you have to take the bad with the much good.
I've had discussions with some who felt that water baptism was a requirement for spiritual salvation. Now
that is a significant issue. This one is just unfortunate, IMO. I do think that more Baptist churches are beginning to take a less rigid stance here, though. PTL for that.
IMO to say that baptism by any other means than immersion is not baptism is like saying that if someone invited Christ to come into their heart they weren't really saved, since Rev. 3:20 was written to believers, and it can be shown that the meaning is not come "into" but come "in towards." Obviously someone who came forward at a retreat or prayed to receive Christ or jumped up and down 3 times to trust Christ are saved. It's a matter of what's going on in the heart. Did the Holy Spirit baptize them into the body of Christ when they "believed?" Of course.
Similarly, IMO, though many get physically baptized unbiblically, they were doing so in their hearts in obedience to the Lord's command. That's they key.
Now, I'm going to point out something about the Baptist reasoning as well. I used to be on staff with Campus Crusade for Christ. Some of their practices and even some of how they shared the gospel I did not agree with. But it was important that I show support for the leadership which God had placed over me. Similarly, many Baptists have an issue with how the SBC handles this issue, and many Baptist churches do as well. But they also wish to respect the leadership God has placed over them. That is the proper thing for them to do. After all, iy is not an issue worth splitting a church or denomination over.
Many Baptist churches are beginning to name their churches without the "Baptist" in the name - or making it very subdued. That is just more evidence of some harm that has come from over-promoting water baptism by immersion.
FWIW,
FA