When Is A Believers Baptisim Invalid?

I don't see any biblical support for that at all.

I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt, though. Perhaps he's just concerned that people were baptised improperly in some way, and wants to be sure they are baptised by a real, saved pastor (which he probably considers himself to be).

Even so, I question his criteria - that being baptised by a Baptist pastor is what makes the difference. I was baptised by a Baptist pastor in whom I eventually lost confidence. I won't say he's not saved, but the fact that I question it bothers me. I'd like to get baptised again by a pastor (or even just a person) in whom I have more confidence. It's not that I think my baptism is invalid, since I did it in faith and obedience. But I would just feel better doing it again with someone in whom I have more confidence. Just my 2 cents.

 

No. Sadly many Baptist ministers think the Baptist denomination are Gods chosen people to the exclusion of other denominations. If a believer has been baptised by full immersion in another denomination that falls under the category of christian orthodoxy then the baptism should be recognised as valid. ie: if he/she is baptised in a denomination that is in agreement with the essentials of the christian faith then why on earth should the baptism be invalid. If the only reason was because *they wern't baptised by a Baptist denomination minister so therefore it's invalid* then the minister is taking a stance which in my opinion reaches outside of scripture, our sole authority for faith and practice. Not that this opinion will change anything. Too many Ministers with *Baptist pride*.

 

ditto on all points of posts 2, 3, and 4. :BangHead:

 

ditto on Allan's ditto.

When I joined Council Road Baptist in OKC(Bethany), I was coming from 34 years in a church of christ(born and raised). I was "baptized" into the coc at age 12. When I went forward at CRBC I embraced the proper message of Salvation and wanted to be baptized as a believer. I was baptized one week later.

At the time(1994), that congregation required you be baptized again if it hadn't been done in a Baptist congregation. About a week after I was baptized the pastor, Mark Hartman, met with the retired former pastors of that congregation and they agreed with him on changing the rule. He then approached the congregation about changing their rules to accept someone as a member who came from a like-minded congregation that preached the proper plan of Salvation, and who had gone through believer's baptism. The change was approved unanimously(or close I believe. I've slept since then). It was the right decision.

 

Posted by npetreley

I don't see anything wrong with doing that if it would give you more confidence in your Christian standing npetreley. I think I see how you could feel like that. I might do the same thing myself if I was in your boat. But remember, what saved you was in God's word. Baptism is an ordinance whereby you are outwardly declaring to God and those who witness your baptism, your inward decision.
:godisgood:

 

I think we'd all agree the want our baptism to follow the scriptural pattern. So what is scriptural baptism? Is it just Baptist baptism? Can it be baptism from a non-Baptist congregation which is of like faith and order?

Some basic criteria on which we all used to agree, and still do mostly:

Proper method--immersion. Proper subject--a regenerated believer. Proper design--a public testimony of conversion, without any saving efficacy.

Therefore, it would be proper to require scriptural baptism of anyone who had been sprinkled; who had been baptized in a denomination which holds to baptismal regeneration; and anyone who came to believe they were not saved at the time of their baptism.

Sadly, some Baptist churches will now accept sprinkled believers

The current debate now centers on the proper administrator. Is it a church ordinance or a Christian ordinance? Who has the authority to baptize? When Jesus gave the Great Commission, to whom was it given? I hold that he gave it to those assembled--the Jerusalem congregation, and each subsequent congregation which holds to New Testament doctrine. I believe Baptists best fit that description. And non-Baptists of like faith and order.

When we require someone to be re-baptized, that's not actually what's happening. We're requiring them to be scripturally baptized the first time.

If someone comes to your church and says, "I want to join you, but I don't believe like you do. I want you to change your beliefs to fit mine. I like your preacher, I love your choir, I think you have a fantastic youth program, you're a warm and friendly group, and I'd feel at home here, but I don't share your doctrines. And I certainly think my baptism is just as valid as yours." Would you accept them for membership?

It's a sad fact that some Baptist churches would say yes in a heartbeat.

 

IMO, soulman, it's the crass issue of NUMBERS! "Oh! Look how many WE have baptized!" No better than a Vietnam "body count" we used to hear!

It is objectional to me because it mixes man's wisdom with God's making God's look the worse for the addendum! I even know a guy that was an immersed believer from a Southern Baptist Church being told he had to ba rebaptized into the SBC church we now both attend! There is ABSOLUTELY no warrant for such hijinks and it makes Baptists seem incredibily elitist!

And how can we confront other churches mishandling of the sacraments when we ourselves are guilty of the same?!

Oh, don't get me started! "If ya start me up I'll never stop." :laugh:

skypair

 

Thank you! I don't think it's necessary, it's just something I want to do.

 

Affusion

Personally I feel that the profession of faith is the important thing, but I found this little tidbit while reading a little on the subject. How specific should we really be about the "method" that either of the ordinances are practiced?

No definite information is given of the mode in which baptism was administered in apostolic times. Such phrases as “coming up out of the water,” “went down into the water” (Mark 1:10; Acts 8:38) are as applicable to affusion as to immersion. The earliest account of the mode of baptizing occurs in the Didache (c. 7), where it is said: “Now concerning Baptism, thus baptize ye: having first uttered all these things, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, in living water. But if thou hast not living water, baptize in other water; and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm. But if thou hast neither, pour water upon the head thrice in the name of Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost.” This seems to say that to baptize by immersion was the practice recommended for general use, but that the mode of affusion was also valid and enjoined on occasions. What is here prescribed in the Didache seems to have been the practice usually followed in the early centuries of the Christian church. Immersion was in common use: but affusion was also widely practiced: and both were esteemed usual and valid forms of baptizing.
Orr, J., M.A., D.D. 1999. The International standard Bible encyclopedia : 1915 edition (J. Orr, Ed.). Ages Software: Albany, OR

 

I think the example of how one is to be baptized is from Christ himself. John baptised him by immersion and so do I.

The second part is what was one baptised into. I don't mean water but I mean what was the commitment of their bpatizm. Were you baptised believing that once I speak in tounges I am saved?

As a pastor I can say you must do what you feel is best for your Church. I don't do what the Church down the street does because it's popular, I do what I feel is commanded of me by the Father. Can I be wrong, certianly. Have I made adjustments along the way, certianly. I just feel that what I do is accountable to God so I'd rather do the overkill than not enough. As Bro Bob would say, you only come this way once...

 

Skypair referred to baptism as a sacrament.

Baptists don't do sacraments. Baptists do ordinances.


I-Pete-I quoted the fellow who said the scriptures are not clear on the mode of baptism. How about the Greek "baptizo" which means to dip or plunge?

 

It has frequently been argued that the word [baptizein] invariably means “to dip” or immerse, and that therefore Christian baptism must have been performed originally by immersion only, and that the two other forms of affusion and aspersion or sprinkling are invalid - that there can be no real baptism unless the method of immersion be used. But the word which invariably means “to dip” is not [baptizein] but [baptein]. [Baptizein] has a wider signification; and its use to denote the Jewish ceremonial of pouring water on the hands (Luke 11:38; Mark 7:4), as has already been said, proves conclusively that it is impossible to conclude from the word itself that immersion is the only valid method of performing the rite.
Orr, J., M.A., D.D. 1999. The International standard Bible encyclopedia : 1915 edition (J. Orr, Ed.). Ages Software: Albany, OR

 

I'm just now getting to this thread, but Tom Butler brought up two interesting points, actually, one by what he did say, and one by what he did not say. And that was by two mentions of "like faith and order", a phrase I used to hear often, but not as much anymore. I do mostly agree with that phrase, but wonder how far it reaches, for others. Would one have to 'agree' with the BF&M, for someone to consider one "of like faith and order"? On every point, or just the 'major' ones? Is a five-point 'Calvinist' of "like faith and order" as a five-point 'Arminian'? How about the 'dispensationalists' , such as me, of varied flavors, vs. those all the way to the A-millenial bunch? How about the 'free-grace' crowd, "of which I are one", as opposed to "Lordship Salvation" advocates? How about the 'charismatics' vs. non-charismatics? This opens up a whole bunch of other "cans-of snakes" (pun intended), doesn't it, by definition? And that is merely among those who would be characterized as "Southern Baptist", the above distinctions, most of which are not even addressed in the BF&M in any of its three incarnations, to say nothing of other 'groups' or individuals who are 'Baptist' and are not "of like faith and order", by any usual realistic meaning. Not to be picking on anyone, but Westboro Baptist Church is a 'Baptist' church, for one well known example that gets mentioned frequently on the BB. (That is the church where Fred Phelps is pastor, for anyone who might not get the 'quick-connect'.) And I could mention some other individuals whom I pretty sure some of us would not agree with very much, as well. :BangHead: (Either that, or several posters 'really need to "Get a life!"'), and not stay on the BB so much, starting with me. :type While I do agree in principle with Tom, I suggest in practice, it is far harder to implement, and there is an awfully lot of 'gray' between the black and the white of it. And I'm pretty sure I would not make the exact same 'call' as some others, in every case.

Ed

 

:thumbsup: :tongue3: :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

A few years ago we had a very severe drought in Central KY. It got so dry, and there were severe restrictions of water usage. It got so dry, here, that the Baptists started 'pouring'; the Presbyterians went with 'sprinkling'; and the Methodists were using a 'dab-rag'. :tongue3: :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

Ed Sutton said:
While I do agree in principle with Tom, I suggest in practice, it is far harder to implement, and there is an awfully lot of 'gray' between the black and the white of it. And I'm pretty sure I would not make the exact same 'call' as some others, in every case.

Bro. Ed, unfortunately, I'm afraid you're right in your post #15. I guess it boils down to what a congregation wants to make a test of fellowship and what it doesn't.

Salvation by grace through repentance and faith is pretty much a no-brainer. Preservation and perseverance of the saved is, too, as well as the Trinity, the deity of Jesus and the nature of the atonement (Cals and non-Cals can agree that it is substitutionary). I personally can accept the baptism of one from a church that holds these doctrines.

In the western end of Kentucky, the growing problem is not Calvinism or tongues. It's baptism. My own church is not considering an unequivocal statement on baptism because sooner or later someone whose alien baptism was accepted by a Baptist church is going to want to join our congregation. So a perfunctory request for letter won't get the job done any more. We're going to have to ask them a direct question about their baptism.

If a congregation wants to identify itself as Reformed, Fundamentalist, Pre-mil-pre-trib, Landmark, Lordship, KJVO or whatever, fine by me. In fact, just about all these views are represented in our church, but are not tests of fellowship.

But baptism needs to be a test because each congregation has been charged with guarding the integrity of the ordinances; it has the right, nay the obligation to ensure that its members have been scripturally baptized.

Ephesians 4:5 says there's only one baptism. Baptists have it. A different kind of baptism is no baptism at all.

 

It's interesting that the people to which Jesus gave the Great Commission were also told to baptize. There can be several conclusions from this:

1. The Great Commission is only to those disciples that Jesus directly addressed. They had authority both to preach the Gospel and to baptize converts.

2. The Great Commission is only to ordained elders. Those who have the "authority" to baptize are those who have the duty to preach the Gospel.

3. The Great Commission is to all believers. Therefore, each believer must have the duty and the authority to baptize. Did Philip baptize the eunuch in a "church"? Can we do the same?

Any way you look at it, it seems that those who have the duty to preach the Gospel also must of necessity have the authority to baptize in the same Commission.

 

Hello Aresman,

My quick take is that Jesus gave great commission to his church assembled on the mountain before his asenscion--and to each succeeding church. The commission was given, and Paul says the ordinances are committed to the local church.

Of course, the commission will be carried out and the ordinances administered by individuals within the assembly, but the congregation was given the authority to oversee their work and hold them accountable, a la Antioch and Jerusalem..

In another thread, I pointed out that local churches are uniquely equipped to implement the commission. Individuals acting alone are not, and the apostles are dead.

The so-called "universal church" is useless, if it exists at all, for it has never obeyed one syllable of the great commission, nor can it.