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

[lettheredeemedsayso]

The baptism is just an outward witness that we have accepted Christ as our Savior. So I don't see why a baptism by immersion would not be accepted. Especially if the church where they were baptized teaches biblical salvation.

[JerryNumbers]

<
Everyone of God's children needs to be scripturally baptized by a church who has authority.

The SBC, many of their churches will accept almost anyone's baptizing.>> By Jerry808

<> by Jerry808

I might add, letting anyone into their congregation would mean letting false teaching like, Calvinism, Armenian, and or Freewill Baptist, and other such stuff in.

We would have to know the doctrinal stand on any and every church whose baptism we accepted and or letter we accepted, if we could not find it out we would not accept their baptizing nor their letter, if there were any doubt, we would not accept it. I have a feeling that no one in our church would make a motion to accept a member from a SBC Church. They are some churches around here like us that surely would. I say that because one of them invited the SBC Churches pastors to preach their revival service.

If the church has no scriptural authority from God to baptize, them that person has not took the 1st step of obedience after being saved and has not fully submitted to God and God's truth.

I understand why some cannot get a grasp on this, and I will get brow beat for this, they have yet to fully submit to the authority of God, either they don't care, or they just will not get into the meat of the word and accept God's truth. Its the world famous saying of this modern day, "it makes no difference," I so tired of hearing that when it concerns God's truth and God's Churches who hold to the whole truth.

A Few years back in a Baptist Church Sunday School class the teacher said, if someone moved to our town I would tell them, it makes no difference what church you go to just as long as you go to church, by accepting anyone's baptizing, your rightly saying the say thing as that teacher did.

And if you will accept the letter and baptizing from almost any church, why not go on thru doorway, for your half way thru it already and join in with them in worship and such, for you have already said they are in good standing with God and are walking in the truth by accepting their letter and or baptizing.

[sarcrew]

Reading all this, it brought a curious question to mind. What if someone - such as myself - was baptised so long ago, I can tell you it was "the Baptist Church" of the small town I lived in, and it was 30 years ago. I can recall the pastor's name but regarding what the church's "name" was I don't have a clue. Do I just give the last church I held membership with - still years ago. I traveled extensively for over twenty years. What now? Remember please, I am just asking (I may have found a local church to attend and this thread got me wondering how they might "look" at me).

Wayne

[John81]

What about Spurgeon, was he qualified to baptise?

[5dumplings@home]

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.

Orvals, accepting the fact that one has been saved and properly baptized is NOT ecumenical. Not one bit.

Realizing one's church was in error on other doctrines doesn't mean that person has to be re-baptized to prove anything.

Otherwise, why not re-baptize everyone who comes to your church regardless of where s/he was baptized? If it is required that the local body be witness to that act, then you MUST re-baptize everyone that was not baptized at your church.

That's just silly.

edited to add: re-baptizing isn't going to change anyone's doctrine. Solid teaching on the truth and the Holy Spirit will change doctrine.

[JerryNumbers]

Orvals, accepting the fact that one has been saved and properly baptized is NOT ecumenical. Not one bit.

Realizing one's church was in error on other doctrines doesn't mean that person has to be re-baptized to prove anything.

Otherwise, why not re-baptize everyone who comes to your church regardless of where s/he was baptized? If it is required that the local body be witness to that act, then you MUST re-baptize everyone that was not baptized at your church.

That's just silly.

edited to add: re-baptizing isn't going to change anyone's doctrine. Solid teaching on the truth and the Holy Spirit will change doctrine.

Check the bold letter in your quote, if you will go back and reread what has been said, you would firmly know beyond a DOUBT that is not what has been said. It's completely about fully submitting to God, and the one who truly has authority, and only those who hold to the complete truth have authority, and the local church is the only authority for God there is on this earth, and the pastor and or deacon has no authority outside of it and it be given by the local church.

Its not silly to completely submit to God and God's way, and never has been, but it is silly to do things mans way when God's way is the only way that is right.

And the reason why has been laid out very plain, backed up by the Holy Scriptures, so I will not go into that.

[5dumplings@home]

Jerry, I am, frankly, having difficulty following you. First you say that only the local church has the authority. Then you say certain local churches deserve to have their members re-baptized because they have no authority.

Well, what is it? Either re-baptize them all or don't.

There is no reason NOT TO accept the baptism of another local church if it was done correctly. They had the authority to do it. You can accept their authority. When the early church saints moved from place to place as they were driven by persecution, do you find in church history that they re-baptized every one of them because the previous church didn't have the authority anymore once they moved?

If I moved from Brother Timothy's church where I was baptized originally to Brother Titus' church...would I have to be re-baptized?

[JerryNumbers]

Just because a church calls their self a church does not mean they have any God given authority.

[Jerry]

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.

Does the Bible teach those were Christ's churches? Revelation 3 teaches that the majority of the Laodicean church were not even saved - and that Christ was OUTSIDE of that church (see Revelation 3:20). Just because something is a church doesn't make it Christ's church - just like various places in the Gospels indicate it was "their" church, not God's.

No, I am not arguing for any elitist position or anything like that - I just disagree with the idea that because something is a church (regardless of where they stand on doctrines, etc.) that it makes it a true church or Christ's church (No, I am not a Brider either). The church in Thyatira was basically the Catholic church of the Dark Ages - was that Christ's church? I do not believe that - instead I find the Lord telling them to repent and get saved, or He will judge them severely. What I think it means is that the Lord is concerned with anything that calls itself by His name (whether they are truly or not) and will judge what doesn't line up - as judgment must first begin with His house).

I hope what I said makes sense here. If something doesn't, please ask me to clarify. Thanks.

[John81]

Is baptism really this complicated?

From reading Scripture, it would seem that baptism is rather simple.

[chev1958]

Jerry808, this is very similar to the discussion we have a while back on closed communion. You and I stood shoulder to shoulder about how communion was only for the local church and should include only the members of that local church. The responses of most folks about baptism falls in line with their responses about that issue.

I think one of the main points that's not being discussed here is someone joining a church "of like faith and practice." If the person's baptism was conducted by a church "of like faith and practice," then I think the baptism should be accepted. But there's a well-known Baptist mega-church in Seattle that has an ordained woman pastor and an ordained, outwardly gay pastor. Obviously that church is not of like faith and practice as mine is, even though it officially teaches salvation by faith in Christ alone and baptism by immersion. I could not accept a baptism from that church.

Someone else said that it's a gateway to joining a church. I agree with that. If a person's baptism came from a church of unlike faith and practice -- even though it was by immersion -- that person would be bringing those unlike teachings with him/her. If the pastor of the prospective church wants to re-baptize and the prospective member agrees, then the member is submitting to the authority of that local church and its teachings. It would be an indication that the prospective member would not be troublesome. But if the prospective member refuses, then he/she would most likely have other issues with the church's teachings and become a problem.

I've given this example before, and I'll give it again: There are several IFB churches in the upper Midwest that have resorted to baptizing all prospective new members, regardless of previous church affiliation. The reasoning is that there's so much confusion about baptism, the new pastor wants to make sure.

I don't think it's a fair comparison to use the Great Commission to say that all Christians have the authority to baptize. Christ gave the Great Commission to the first church, His disciples. They went out and established other churches, transferring the authority given them by Christ to those local churches. The local churches are commissioned to "go ye therefore," not just the ordained.

Therefore, baptism is a church ordinance, practiced under the authority of the local church. Most churches, if not all, give their authority to baptize to their pastors, but they could choose anyone. What if the pastor could not physically baptize someone because of physical ailment? The church would simply authorize someone else, which would probably be a deacon. I guess if there were 100 candidates for baptism, the church could authorize 100 baptizers to speed things up (that would be a sight to behold!)

Matthew 28 authorizes the local church to also spread the Gospel. The local church could pass that authority to the pastors and deacons if it so wished. Unfortunately, that's the way it seems to be in most churches today. But if you'll do a thorough search of Scripture, you'll see the Biblical principle is that all Christians have the responsibility to share the Gospel, not just the pastor or deacons. Plus there's too many lost in the local community for the pastor and deacons to reach anyway.

My :2cents ,

Mitch

[chev1958]

Is baptism really this complicated? From reading Scripture, it would seem that baptism is rather simple.

It is, John, and so is salvation. but look at how man has messed that up.

Mitch

[JerryNumbers]

Mitch, Well said and I add amen to it..

I wanted to add some more while ago, but had not the time, but here it is.

I will try to explain it a bit better.

I can go out and buy a badge to pin on my chest, a gun to strap on my side, and lights to put on top of my car, but that does not give me the least bit of authority to be an office of the law. Unless, some one who has authority gives it to me, like the city, county, state, or federal government. Without their authority I would only be impersonating and office of the law.

Now why would anyone want to impersonate a true church? Because they do not care about doing things God's way.

We know that God has authority, and He gave all authority to Jesus, now who has Jesus given authority to? Jesus gave authority to the apostles, He gave it to the His Church. I think we all agree that the apostles had no authority to pass on the authority that Jesus gave them, but of course the pope thinks this authority was passed on to the RCC, but that is far from true, the RCC has no authority and nether does the pope.

The local church who called me to be their pastor had the authority to call me to be their pastor, and the only authority I have is within this local church and that authority which is given to me by them. The local church who ordained me had authority to do this, and only the local church has authority to ordain a pastor, deacon, or missionary.

If the local church who called me, were to fire me because I was teaching false doctrine and or for what ever reason, them I went out on my own, started my own church, I would not have no authority from God nor Jesus, nor from a local church to do this, so it would just be a church in name only, it would have no real authority.

But, if my local church sent me out to the other side of the state to start up a mission church, I would have authority to do that, as long as I abided by the Bible and they kept supporting me, But if I went off teaching any false doctrine, they fired me, them I would have no authority in that mission church nor anywhere else. If I remember right, the church Brother Mitch is at, they are under the authority of his home church, that is his home church is giving the right hand of fellowship, Brother Mitch did not step out on his own to do this, but under the authority of his home church like Barnabas and Saul did.

Barnabas and Saul realize the authority of the local church and submitted to it. Why is it we can't learn from them?

1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

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 13:1-3 (KJV)

The local church who had authority given them by Jesus sent Barnabas and Saul, they fasted, prayer for them, ordained them, and sent them out to do the work that the Lord had called them to do.

So no, just anyone who goes out and starts a church has no authority, unless a local church has invested it into them such as the local church at Antioch did for Barnabas and Saul .

And so it goes, the local church is the only one who has authority from Jesus to go teach and baptize. We need to do everything God's way, if we don't, them we have not fully submitted to Him.

4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Matt 4:4 (KJV)

We are to live by every word that proceeded out of the mouth of God.

15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
John 14:15 (KJV)

1 The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth;
2 For the truth's sake, which dwelleth in us, and shall be with us for ever.
3 Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.
2 John 1:1-3 (KJV)

If we really love God and Jesus, we are going to try our best to stay in the whole truth. The truth is only the true local church has authority to go, teach, and baptize. Therefore they are the only baptism that we will accept and or fellowship with.

And its not complicate, its right there in the Bible for those who want to abide by God's Word.

[John81]

What about Spurgeon' date=' was he qualified to baptise?[/quote']

Does anyone have an answer to this question?

[5dumplings@home]

I'll wait for an answer with you. But what about the Wesley's? Could they baptize?