Wade Burleson removal as trustee

J.R.,

It is the second part of the IMB's definition of Baptism that has a lot of Southern Baptists worried.

-----------------------------------------------
2. The Church

a. Baptism is a church ordinance.

Baptism must take place in a church that practices believer’s baptism by immersion alone, does not view baptism as sacramental or regenerative, and a church that embraces the doctrine of the security of the believer.

b. A candidate who has not been baptized in a Southern Baptist church or in a church which meets the standards listed above is expected to request baptism in his/her Southern Baptist church as a testimony of identification with the system of belief held by Southern Baptist churches.

------------------------------------------------
The IMB policy goes beyond the scope of the BF&M 2000 and seems to even go beyond the Biblical Understanding of Believer's Baptism.

The idea that the only valid Biblical Baptism is a baptism that takes place in an organized local church and by authority of an organized local church seems to be a reaction to the proliferation of denominations rather than a strict adherance to Biblical revelation.

 

I think what Burleson is saying is that these issues are all valid and should be discussed, but are we going to start kicking out missionaries over them?

 

This, in fact, would eliminate Freewill Baptists, General Baptists, and Assemblies of God baptisms.

How strange that we would be required to accept the Baptism of a SBC liberal church.

 

"Alien" immersion: 1) the immersion of an alien (a lost person). Acts 19 requires proper baptism AFTER salvation, not "in order to."

2) an immersion that IS alien, that is, foreign in purpose or principle. Persons immersed "in order to" salvation have an "alien" immersion. Any immersed by those who consider sprinkling, pouring, and/or immersion of a believer or an infant all the same thing do not have "Christian baptism" - this does not say they are not saved, since (contrary to "atestring's" assumption), baptism has absolutely nothing to do with going to heaven as such. Yes, it is harder to get into a New Testament church than it is to get into Heaven, and I'm glad it is! God takes care of the Heaven trip, on His own standard. But He requires of us faithful obedience to ALL THINGS that Christ commanded to continue (Mt. 28:18-20), and those who deliberately disobey in any given area invalidate their testimony in that area. It is harder to get married than to fall in love! A NT church should not encourage disobedience in either ordinance (baptism or the Lord's table) any more than we should encourage disobedience in moral and ethical standards. To receive a person immersed by a group denying salvation by grace, or to receive a person immersed by a group that also practices false baptisms, is at least as bad as receiving a person who has been taught and still believes that it is acceptable to have multiple marriage partners; until they are properly taught and repent, John tells us (II John verses 9-11) "Receive him not."

In fact, the Baptist principle ("Salvation before service, as stated in Scripture") is the only basis for genuine, voluntary church fellowship with no coercion and no judgment of non-members, whether or not we consider their baptism valid. (By judgment, clearly, I mean as to their eternal destiny. All we have is their testimony, and of course some evidence from their fruits; "Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart." Even withdrawal of church fellowship for a disorderly walk does not condemn anyone to a lost condition; it doesn't even necessarily say we believe they are lost! It speaks of conduct.

Hope you all have a great day in the Lord tomorrow - best - Charles Blair - Ro. 8:28

 

Both my wife and I became members of Travis Avenue Baptist Church without knowing that they required one to have been baptized in a Baptist Church. It was quite a laugh when someone in a church history class brought that up. I told the class that my wife was baptized in the ocean by a then Evangelical Free Church pastor and I was baptized by an IFB pastor in a non-denominational church. I had come to TABC from another SBC Church which did not teach that one had to be baptized in a Baptized church but rather had to have been immersed in an evangelical Bible believing church.

What really got interesting is when I was hired by a church I later found out that they had re-baptized people because some were not baptized in a Baptist Church. You should have seen the look on their faces when I told them I had not been baptized in a Baptist Church.

 

In another forum, the question of "re-thinking our terminology" has been discussed. Could we do some of that here, and ask why anyone would use the term "re-baptize"? If there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism, then any "re-baptism" would of course be improper. The point should be, in my judgment, whether there has actually been a baptism in the first place. Not everything called "baptism" is!

For me, the proper terminology is "biblical baptism" which involves a proper candidate (a saved person), a proper method (immersion), and a proper authority, that of the Lord Jesus Christ as Head of His body, a local, visible New Testament church. Authority is based in truth. We are taught not to receive those who do not bring "this doctrine" - that concerning and taught by the Lord Himself (II John vv. 9-11). If believer's immersion is a doctrine commanded by our Lord, and anyone practices or receives anything else as "baptism," they invalidate even a believer's immersion that they might (usually under pressure) actually do. Each candidate and baptismal experience must be evaluated invidually, in the mixed bag of religious views today. If someone does not use the triune Name of Mat. 28:18-20, or if someone teaches some form of "baptismal regeneration," or if they try to teach that sprinkling and pouring are the same things as immersion, or that an infant is "baptized" with reference to "future faith," why should Baptists want to receive even a believer's immersion from such a source?

Well, as gb says, this could really "get interesting." Seems that some congregations say one thing and wind up doing another! Best- Charles - Ro. 8:28