SBC Baptism... is it good enough fo you and God?

[Guest Guest]

Are you sure he's just talking about baptism? It sounds (to me) like he's wrapping both together.

I certainly hope he is only referring to baptism, and other posts he has made in the past would lead me to believe that that is the case. :Green

[JerryNumbers]

Go to the Bible and study it out, its all there, the local church has the authority, not the pastor.

2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.
Acts 13:2-3 (KJV)

Even Saul and Barnabas realized this, their authority came from the local church. The local church was the one who sent them, they did not send their self.

We even see the authority of the local church in Acts 6, the local church at Jerusalem selected who was to serve.

In Acts 1:15-26 we have the church at Jerusalem selecting who is to replace Judas.

In Acts 5 we have Paul telling the local church to take the action of expelling a member for fornication.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Matt 16:19 (KJV)

Yes, Jesus gave the keys to the local church. When open steps out of the local church and goes on their own with out the local church sending them, they have no authority.

For instant, I'm pastor of only Pleasant Valley Baptist Church. They called me to be their pastor, if I came to your church I would not have the least bit of authority, if you pastor came to our church he would not have the least bit of authority.

If Pleasant Valley Baptist Church sent me to be missionary to Utah to go, teach, baptize, them I would have authority to go to Utah and start a local church, if I went on my own I would go without authority. Please see Acts 13:2-3.

Yes, the apostles had authority from Jesus, they had no authority to pass this power to pass on to one soul.

If you will study it out you will find that the only authority is the local church, and the pastors and deacons and missionaries are under the direct authority of Jesus' local Church.

And, just to clear something up, I never said a pastor had to be the one to baptize. But, the local church is the only one who has the authority to authorize the pastor, deacon to baptize.

If someone walked up to me on the street who just got save, I have no authority to baptize them, not until my local church gives me that authority.

Thank goodness that one does not have to be baptize to enter heaven, as many teach, and those who teach such a doctrine have no authority from Jesus nor His local church to baptize.

But dive into your Bible, study it out, don't take other peoples word for it who claim power they do not have.

And it does matter, you want the whole truth, not just parts of it

I have said over and over baptizing saves no one, why do some of you keep on saying, I hope he is just talking about baptizing. But surely you want to be baptized by the one who really has authority, given by Jesus' local church who He gave this authority to.

[Will]

And an SBC church doesn't have this authority?

Furthermore, to take this position that you are taking would be disastrous to your preaching on the Great Commission. Clearly if you truly believe what you are espousing, you MUST come to the conclusion that the GC is only applicable to pastors/church leaders.

[Guest Guest]

Jerry80871852,

I don't doubt that authority was given only to the local church in few areas mainly referring to the believers in the church. BUT can you show from scripture that authority to baptise is given ONLY to the local church? Here are a few examples why I don't feel that is scriptural.


"Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"

Lets start at this one, this verse is often referred to as a command for all Christians to evangelize. From your point of view is this a command only to the local church not to any individuals?(ie. say my church is doing all those things therefore I have no personal responsibility)


"Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days."

"Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."


These verses are not clear who was baptising, it may indeed have been the local Church here but the only thing clearly stated is that it was in the name of the Lord.

"1 Corinthians 1:13-17 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect."


Here paul specifically says he was not sent to baptize( I assume that means no special authority to do so), yet he freely admits that he baptized one "household".

"Philippians 1:18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice."

Here paul says it doesn't matter if the individual is right with God when he is publishing Christ. If it is truth it is still valid and thus a positive. I don't feel that it is a stretch to apply this principle to baptism. If it was done in a scriptural manner to a believer it should be valid.


Finally, let me pose a hypothetical question, suppose one of the NT churches that held some corrupt doctrine for a while, say the Corinthian church, baptised someone in the period of time between when they became corrupt in those areas and when they repented at paul's letter. In that time at least, they were not teaching the whole truth of God. Do you think that the baptisms in that period would have been valid or would they have had to re-baptize everyone that had been baptized in that period of time? Purely a hypothetical question, but I am curious as to your opinion. :Green

[zealyouthguy]

And as I've stated elsewhere...

Notice WHOSE churches the 5 preaching/teaching and living in error were in Revelations.

They were Christs churches, even if YOU wouldn't hold fellowship with them (and I wouldn't over some of those issues either), but they were still Christ's churches.

The most damning thing I've seen in IFB churches is elitism. We can't even get along with other IFB churches that hold 90% of the same PRACTICE AND STANDARDS than we do if they differ in one practice that we hold as our hobby-horse.

Of course that's why we have vast areas here in the U.S. that don't have and IFB witness and then other places where we have 7 within 10 miles of each other... because most of those are fragments of fragments of fragments of a church planted there in the 40's 50's and 60's.

[Will]

Of course that's why we have vast areas here in the U.S. that don't have and IFB witness and then other places where we have 7 within 10 miles of each other... because most of those are fragments of fragments of fragments of a church planted there in the 40's 50's and 60's.

And much of that is because we refuse to allow for anything different to be held to by members of the church. We want everybody to believe the same, dress the same, act the same, etc. It's a shame.

[Guest Guest]

The most damning thing I've seen in IFB churches is elitism. We can't even get along with other IFB churches that hold 90% of the same PRACTICE AND STANDARDS than we do if they differ in one practice that we hold as our hobby-horse.

That is a totally different issue than baptism. I would accept the baptism of believers from a lot of churches that hold error to such a degree that I could not fellowship much at all with them. However as far as I feel they are right on on any particular issue I will accept that. I personally haven't seen to many IFB churches totally withdrawing from one another over minor issues. Somewhat withdrawing yes, but not completely, and that's only natural, How can two walk together except they be agreed?

[zealyouthguy]

That is a totally different issue than baptism. I would accept the baptism of believers from a lot of churches that hold error to such a degree that I could not fellowship much at all with them. However as far as I feel they are right on on any particular issue I will accept that. I personally haven't seen to many IFB churches totally withdrawing from one another over minor issues. Somewhat withdrawing yes, but not completely, and that's only natural, How can two walk together except they be agreed?

I am sorry, where did I put the word fellowship? Certainly preaching that "the church down the road" isn't a real church because they disagree with: "xxxxxxxxx" is more than fellowship. That's all about getting along.

I see it here. I don't agree with everything Will says (or much of anyone else) but I don't feel the need to address every issue I disagree with in every post of theirs.

Some folks do though.

[Guest Guest]

I am sorry, where did I put the word fellowship? Certainly preaching that "the church down the road" isn't a real church because they disagree with: "xxxxxxxxx" is more than fellowship. That's all about getting along.

I haven't seen that around here. Maybe a little on this forum though, but not to bad.

I see it here. I don't agree with everything Will says (or much of anyone else) but I don't feel the need to address every issue I disagree with in every post of theirs.

No kidding about Will. :frog No offense Will. :Bleh

[lettheredeemedsayso]

I believe this is something that needs to be left up to the leaders of the church.

[Will]

I believe this is something that needs to be left up to the leaders of the church.

No, it's left up to Scripture. If one has been scripturally baptized, what the opinion is of the leaders of the church holds NO water.

[Samer]

If they were truly saved and then baptized by immersion there is no need to rebaptize.

Exactamundo. :thumb

[JerryNumbers]

Jerry80871852,

I don't doubt that authority was given only to the local church in few areas mainly referring to the believers in the church. BUT can you show from scripture that authority to baptise is given ONLY to the local church? Here are a few examples why I don't feel that is scriptural.


"Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"

Lets start at this one, this verse is often referred to as a command for all Christians to evangelize. From your point of view is this a command only to the local church not to any individuals?(ie. say my church is doing all those things therefore I have no personal responsibility)


"Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days."

"Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."


These verses are not clear who was baptising, it may indeed have been the local Church here but the only thing clearly stated is that it was in the name of the Lord.

"1 Corinthians 1:13-17 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect."


Here paul specifically says he was not sent to baptize( I assume that means no special authority to do so), yet he freely admits that he baptized one "household".

"Philippians 1:18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice."

Here paul says it doesn't matter if the individual is right with God when he is publishing Christ. If it is truth it is still valid and thus a positive. I don't feel that it is a stretch to apply this principle to baptism. If it was done in a scriptural manner to a believer it should be valid.


Finally, let me pose a hypothetical question, suppose one of the NT churches that held some corrupt doctrine for a while, say the Corinthian church, baptised someone in the period of time between when they became corrupt in those areas and when they repented at paul's letter. In that time at least, they were not teaching the whole truth of God. Do you think that the baptisms in that period would have been valid or would they have had to re-baptize everyone that had been baptized in that period of time? Purely a hypothetical question, but I am curious as to your opinion. :Green

Did Jesus take the authority away for any one of the 7 churches He spoke of in Revelations.

But, Lets not build any doctrine on hypothetical questions, with them come human reasoning, the best place to build truth is from the Holy Scriptures, not hypothetical questions.

The local Church has One who is the authority, Jesus Christ is its Head and always will be, the pastor is just its under Shepard, the Holy Scriptures is its guide, and the local church is the decision maker and they are suppose to make all of their decisions based on the Bible.

The great commission is given to the local Church, not the pastor nor deacons. Now if it was given to the apostles only, them this authority died with them, for no where does it say they had power to pass their authority on, most of those who teach this come from or are in the RCC. And to the local church is the one who has the authority to ordain pastors, deacons, and missionaries.

Did you not notice Paul did not usurp authority, but submitted to the local church.

Acts 1:15-26, the local church replaces Judas.

Acts 6:1-6 the local church elects its first deacons.

Acts 11:21,22 the local church sent Barnabas to Antioch.

Acts 13:1-5 the local church sent out 2 missionaries.

Matthew 18:15-18 here tells the local church how to handle private offences in the church membership.

1 Corinthians 5;1-5. Paul instructs the local church at Corinth how to deal with a member who is a fornicator.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 another scripture on excising discipline.

Study it out, there are some more verses that deal with it, its all in the Bible for those who will take the time to search for the truth. And its clear, the local church is the authority.
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

2 Tim 2:15

I've seen many debate this on message boards here on the net, it never seem to get any where.

Besides that JJ had laid it out crystal clear by the Holy Scriptures.

[orvals]

As far as it being good enough for God I can not speak for my Lord and you probably cannot either. :Bleh

Well obviously I have not only opened a can of worms but I have found myself in the minority on this issue which is fine. I know where I stand and why I stand there.

First off unlike Jerry 808 I have a very different reason for not accepting Baptism from churches who are not of like faith. While I commend him for his stance and his study of the Word of God and his final position I also add a practical reason for my stance. Apart from baptism being commanded there are real reasons to practice re-baptism and not accept alien baptism. For instance among the SBC ranks there may well be a few who teach and preach what we would consider proper doctrine (such as the example above) but what about the alignment of the SBC as a whole? Let us start with Calvinism, ecumenicalism, post modern theology and how long will it be before they accept affusion as proper baptism? If you accept SBC baptism what about Calvinist Baptist churches or purely Armenian Baptist churches (Free Will) after all where do you draw the line and if you accept those what about about other Armenian churches? At what point do you take your doctrinal stand? From reading the posts on this thread I would think I was on a thread that supported the recently defunct group known as Promise Keeper?s.

How will you protect your church body from the wolves that move from congregation to congregation? Many of you are saying to ask the individual if they were scripturally baptized by immersion after they believed as if no one would ever lie to a pastor or deacon. The authority to proclaim one fit for the local body does not come from the individual candidate but from the congregation that is why you vote them into membership. It is not by the authority of he who is presenting himself that membership is granted it is by the authority of the local New Testament Church and not universal church or invisible church. They are joining you and you are not joining them. Acts 2:41

The purpose of Baptism is to testify publicly what took place inwardly now I would ask you, who are you testifying to? The answer to that question is your local body or church. I would never be embarrassed to be baptized by another church even though I have already been baptized by immersion as a public profession of my faith.

When you accept any churches baptism you place yourself in position of allowing disgruntled and wicked elements into your membership and I might add the pastor will have to give an account for every individual in his congregation. Hebrews 13:17

The authority of the local church and her pastor is pretty incredible both are told that purity within the body is not an option but something that is to be demanded and worked toward by all. The church is not joining the individual the individual is joining the local N.T. church and one of the safe guards for protecting the flock is baptism. The primary reason the Anna Baptists practiced re-baptizing was for purity of the flock.

Baptism has nothing to do with salvation and we would all agree with that statement but has everything to do with obedience and membership in the local body of believers. It is viewed as much the same as circumcision in the days of the Jewish nation. Now I don?t want to be crude here none the less I will ask this question and let your mind answer it. How do you know if someone is circumcised?

Is not the answer simply that you would have to see or be told by credible witnesses that it is so? How do you know one has been obedient to the faith in baptism? You must see it or accept the credible testimony of someone who has seen it.

The challenge is made in some of the posts to prove that only the pastor had the authority to baptize converts. The pastor would have had that authority only through the local church and that same local church can give authority to whomever it will to baptize.

When we accept any churches baptism we begin to lean toward the ecumenical philosophy that one church is as good as another for they all preach the gospel but my friends that is a dangerous position to take. Simply look at church history, the world and Satan move into our churches through people who do not place the same value on doctrine, separation and beliefs and if you would step back and ask yourself what would your Baptist forefathers say to your responses you would know you are on dangerous ground. (Jeremiah 6:16)

I would go so far here as to say what you do in your individual churches is between you and the Lord. But as Jerry 808 said there is no pastoral authority apart from the local church and only in that local church. Your pastor is responsible for his congregation but his authority comes from the church and I will tell you that in time the stand you are taking in reference to baptism will lead to heart ache and diluted doctrine. It always has and always will.

No I will not accept SBC baptism I am not saying it is an invalid baptism I am saying their churches are going a different direction then I belive the scriptures teach and quite honestly It may come to the point where we do not accept IFB baptism for the same reason. Purity and protection for the flock.

Orvals

[Guest Guest]

The purpose of Baptism is to testify publicly what took place inwardly now I would ask you, who are you testifying to? The answer to that question is your local body or church.

I suppose that is the heart of the matter, I consider that baptism is first of all the answer of a good conscience to God, I view it as a public testimony to God before men, with God and you being the most important parties. I join the Church to show that I am like minded with them. Joining the church shows that just as much as being baptized into it. The biggest problem I have with those who say they the won't accept churches that teach any false doctrine is where do you draw the line? If you draw it at churches that teach falsely about salvation and the purpose of baptism I would wholeheartedly agree. However what do you do when the false doctrine becomes less blatant, such as churches that use or tolerate as OK incorrect versions the bible, deny important biblical standards on modesty etc. yet preach truth on the issue of baptism and salvation? I understand where you are coming from but unless clear lines are drawn between exactly what will be tolerated and what will not I could see where one would end up re-baptizing nearly ever new church member. I don't see that as biblical. :Green