Would you receive sprinkling?

[rlvaughn]

A Baptist group at North Texas recognizes sprinkling as baptism. That may not be exactly clear on the web page where they say, "If you were baptized as a believer prior to The Village, we don’t require you to be baptized again unless your baptism preceded conversion." But if one doesn't get the hint there, you can get a better picture from their Baptism Booklet: "For those who were sprinkled or immersed at an earlier age, it is important to understand that we should only be baptized once. If you trusted in Christ at that time, your baptism is valid and need not, indeed should not, be repeated. (p. 5)" "While we practice a baptism by immersion at The Village, we do not require the mode of immersion for membership. If a person was sprinkled or immersed (or a possible other mode) after conversion, he or she has met our requirement for membership. (p. 10)"

Would you receive sprinkling or pouring as a valid mode of baptism?

 

[TCassidy]

We would not. The church is probably ABC-USA, which have accepted sprinkling or pouring for many years, unfortunately. And doing so is contrary to their statement of belief which says, "Baptism, an act of full immersion following Christ’s example, is undertaken by those spiritually mature enough to understand its profound, symbolic significance: resurrection to new life in Christ."

But the Denomination does not require the local congregations to adhere to the Denomination's statement of belief.

 

[Craigbythesea]

We would not. The church is probably ABC-USA, which have accepted sprinkling or pouring for many years, unfortunately. And doing so is contrary to their statement of belief which says, "Baptism, an act of full immersion following Christ’s example, is undertaken by those spiritually mature enough to understand its profound, symbolic significance: resurrection to new life in Christ."

But the Denomination does not require the local congregations to adhere to the Denomination's statement of belief.

The individual congregations that are members of The American Baptist Churches USA have a great deal of freedom in their theology because of the denominations stand that “all who truly seek God are both competent and called to develop in that relationship. They have rejected creeds or other statements that might compromise each believer’s obligation to interpret Scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and within the community of faith.”
http://www.abc-usa.org/10facts/

This stand is essential for Christian growth and development because it allows the pastors and teachers the freedom to study the Bible and think for themselves without the fear that is experienced in many other Baptist denominations that they may be fired as a consequence of coming to believe that their denomination’s detailed statement of faith is in error on a minor point or two.

I have dear friends who are Lutherans, and their walk with Christ is no way compromised as a consequence of their having been sprinkled rather than immersed. Indeed, a Christian’s faith and character is not measured by a single act of obedience; but rather it is measured by how one lives his or her life moment by moment, and day by day throughout one’s life.

Moreover, baptism by immersion is highly inappropriate for some ill or elderly recipients, especially in far Northern Europe and Asia during the winter, and denying them water baptism because the church has “this thing” about baptism by immersion in no way reflects the character of Christ.

I was baptized by immersion, and my church baptizes believers by immersion when appropriate. It does not deny membership to faithful believers merely because they received baptism in another church or denomination though sprinkling or pouring.

 

[rlvaughn]

The church is probably ABC-USA...

Brother Cassidy, this church is (perhaps surprisingly) affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention:
http://www.sbc.net/church/5529-75067/the-village-church

It seems to me that if a church accepts into membership those who received sprinkling or pouring for baptism, they must either:

1. believe that these are valid forms/modes of baptism
2. believe that baptism is not prerequisite to church membership
3. believe that the feelings of the person receiving baptism determines what is valid

 

[Squire Robertsson]

No, but there are Godly Methodist or Presbyterian churches they could attend.

 

[Revmitchell]

No

 

[rlvaughn]

No, but there are Godly Methodist or Presbyterian churches they could attend.

Squire, your comment brings up the question, If a person is satisfied with their infant baptism and/or sprinkling or pouring mode, why would they want to join a Baptist Church that does not agree when they could be part of a church that supports and teaches their view?

 

[Revmitchell]

What someone is satisfied with is neither here nor there. The real question is, is God satisfied with it.

 

[Alcott]

Would you receive sprinkling?

Only if I were hot.

 

[rlvaughn]

What someone is satisfied with is neither here nor there. The real question is, is God satisfied with it.

Revmitchell, I agree. I am not wondering what is scriptural. I believe immersion is, and I believe only that is what God is satisfied with. But the fact is that many Baptists today are compromising the idea that "believer immersion" is the only baptism.

 

[Revmitchell]

Revmitchell, I agree. I am not wondering what is scriptural. I believe immersion is, and I believe only that is what God is satisfied with. But the fact is that many Baptists today are compromising the idea that "believer immersion" is the only baptism.

Which puzzles me. It appears some have a different understanding of what Baptism is. To accept sprinkling is to accept the heresy that it administers grace. Sprinkling is not just another form of immersion.

 

[Jeremy Seth]

The individual congregations that are members of
Moreover, baptism by immersion is highly inappropriate for some ill or elderly recipients, especially in far Northern Europe and Asia during the winter, and denying them water baptism because the church has “this thing” about baptism by immersion in no way reflects the character of Christ.

I was baptized by immersion, and my church baptizes believers by immersion when appropriate. It does not deny membership to faithful believers merely because they received baptism in another church or denomination though sprinkling or pouring.

If we were to conclude that the ordinance of baptism refers only to full immersion, would any practical excuse be permissible? I assume the best that the churches exclusively recognizing baptism by immersion do so for theological convictions, rather than an opinionated "thing".

EDIT
I see we are discussing this in the other thread

 

[rsr]

Well, no. Accepting sprinkling or affusion is not necessarily to adhere to that it administers grace (although many hold to that).

It may be that the mode of baptism is not as important as important as the act itself, so long as the elements are preserved.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

On the one hand, baptizo clearly means to 'dip' or 'immerse,' and the ordinance symbolizes the dying to the old life and rising to the new.

On the other hand, we may be in danger of straining out gnats and swallowing camels. 'For the LORD does not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD Looks at the heart' (1 Samuel 16:7).

IMO, the far greater problem with Baptist churches is Pastors baptizing people who show no signs of repentance or new birth, so that they can boost their numbers. This is nothing else than sending people to hell with a pocket-full of false promises.

In my church, we had a chap who was obviously saved, but who was a very nervous individual who suffered from panic attacks and couldn't bear the thought of putting his head under water; it scared him silly, yet he really wanted to be baptized. On the day of his baptism, our Pastor had a jug with him and would have poured water on him if he couldn't go through with full immersion. In the event, God strengthened him to go through with it, but I would have had no problems accepting baptism by pouring in his case because his heart was obviously right with God.

The man is now a deacon in the church and as fine a Christian as you would wish to see.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

In place where rivers and ponds ice over, folks wait until spring and summer to baptize.

 

[Craigbythesea]

What someone is satisfied with is neither here nor there. The real question is, is God satisfied with it.

Countless millions of people have been baptized by all three methods, and so far not so much a one Baptist has ever shown any evidence that God is not satisfied with all three methods.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Revmitchell, I agree. I am not wondering what is scriptural. I believe immersion is, and I believe only that is what God is satisfied with. But the fact is that many Baptists today are compromising the idea that "believer immersion" is the only baptism.

Surely you do not mean to imply by using the word “compromising” that Baptists who disagree with your interpretation of the Bible are compromising what the Bible teaches—for such an implication would be, in my opinion, a serious injustice. Therefore, I request that you explain what you are attempting to express to us.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Squire, your comment brings up the question, If a person is satisfied with their infant baptism and/or sprinkling or pouring mode, why would they want to join a Baptist Church that does not agree when they could be part of a church that supports and teaches their view?

The membership of my church includes members whose denominational background is very diverse. They choose to fellowship with us because we meet their needs—including the need to be loved and accepted, and the need to be given an opportunity to use their spiritual gifts for the profit of others in the congregation.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The membership of my church includes members whose denominational background is very diverse. They choose to fellowship with us because we meet their needs—including the need to be loved and accepted, and the need to be given an opportunity to use their spiritual gifts for the profit of others in the congregation.

My little church also has folk from diverse denominational backgrounds (eg. 3 ex-Roman Catholics) and from none. We 'meet their needs' by preaching the unvarnished Gospel, which is, of course, their greatest need.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Which puzzles me. It appears some have a different understanding of what Baptism is. To accept sprinkling is to accept the heresy that it administers grace. Sprinkling is not just another form of immersion.

Please post the name of a denomination that teaches that baptism by sprinkling “administers grace.” Lutherans teach that water baptism is a work of God through which He confers grace to the recipient, and that it is not a work of men, but a work of God.