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

[JerryNumbers]

I believe, that with Spurgeon, that he loosened up a bit on his Calvinist belief in later years, but never completely denounced it.

There is no doubt, there have been many, who held to some false doctrine, who have not been pastor of one of Jesus' true Churches, who have led many people to Christ.

I figure that orvals like myself, would not deny that.

Just as I'm sure, they have been some of Jesus' true Churches who have had a lost man standing behind the pulpit preaching the Word of God, and some have been saved under his preaching and teachings.

Anyone, can gain the knowledge of how to lead one to Christ and them lead some to Christ, but there is nothing like the blessings of being in one of Jesus true New Testament Churches who abide by the whole Word of God.

[kevinmiller]

What constitutes a "true" church?

[John81]

What constitutes a "true" church?

I'm glad I'm not the only one who was somewhat confused. :smile

[JerryNumbers]

Have y'all not read any of the post under this topic and the one called Baptist Bribers?

[5dumplings@home]

Have y'all not read any of the post under this topic and the one called Baptist Bribers?

Jerry, I've been reading them both and I still remain confused. I think you are going to have to explain it to me the way you would explain it to a 10 year old. Very simply and straightforwardly tell me what constitutes the one true church.

Terms, definitions, bullet points.

[JerryNumbers]

Here are several post explaning it, but let me say this first.

Who has authority from God, the local church or the pastor, or the deacon?

Now we know that God gave all authority to Jesus, Jesus gave authority to the apostels, but we are not told any where that they have the power to pass the authority given to them to anyone. So where is the authority today, Jesus gave authroity to the local church. The local church ordains pastors and deacons, pastors and deacon are under the authority of the local church only, outside to the local church they have no power.

But what is a local church, its discussed in these post. I feel they explained it much better than I can or did.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

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

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

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 ,

Mitch

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Brother zeal,

I believe your question opens the floor for some very broad interpretations of a Baptist Brider. Apart from ?true Baptists making up the bride of Christ and being the only ones raptured there are many IFB?s who hold to portions of BB beliefs. For instance I believe there has been a succession of the Baptist fundamentals of separation and baptism and closed communion but these beliefs do not mean I hold a Baptist Brider position.

The doctrines of Landmark Baptists, Missionary Baptist, Baptist Briders and Historic Baptists are pretty much the same and must be taken as a whole and not just pick and choose the parts you are in disagreement with and then brand someone Baptist Brider. Also like the IFB movement there are many who are on the extreme edges and represent ultra conservative, progressive and liberal. As one poster noted it is about the fundamentals of our heritage and personally I would not give much consideration to anyone who believes that Baptists began with the reformation for that is propaganda that cannot be supported historically or factually.

To get a real feel for what these men believe and do not believe start a forum on what you do not agree with or what you agree with concerning their doctrines. I think you will find that many on this board may hold to certain beliefs but not the whole package Briderism.

I believe I can defend my positions the question is can you. BTW I am not a Baptist Brider by any stretch of the imagination but I have studied Baptist history extensively and do hold to a succession faith, separation and full emersion baptism and I reject the baptism of churches that are not of like faith.

I hold to our heritage that takes us all the way back to the Montanists who believed that only regenerated persons could be members of the local church and swore that emersion was the only true baptism and all though this movement eventually became Gnostic in their belief system they were none-the less Baptistic in their beginnings. The Novatians who practiced personal holiness and refused to allow those who had recanted or denied their faith (because of persecution) back into their fellowship they also believed in full emersion and regeneration prior to baptism and had a strong separation from the Papists.

We as Baptist?s have a rich heritage that has seen more than a little blood shed for the cause of Christ. Please show me in the history books where the reformers had their blood shed because of their faith and though you may find a few I will show you thousands upon thousands of Anna Baptist?s who were killed for the cause of Christ. Many by the vary groups that today want to be called Baptist. The Catholic reformers and their leaders who are lifted up today as great theologians despised the ?again Baptizers? and drove them out of their towns and villages. I am rambling but I am very passionate in my defense of Baptists and will close.

I am not a Baptist Brider but I am unapologetically BAPTIST.

I look forward to your response.

orvals

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It sure has been a while since I've been on here...

The label "Baptist Brider" was a label given by those who opposed a certain stand on the Lord's Supper and baptism.

That is really what this boils down to are these two doctrinal issues.

Closed communion of only baptised believers of a pure conscience and in proper fellowship; and baptism only of a born again believer through immersion and only by a new testament church which clearly has Christ as it's head and worships in both spirit and all truth(John 4).

There are a lot of churches out there which have left the way Christ designed his NT church and have replaced Christ as their head with an earthly popish authority. I believe it is at this doctrine of the Nicolaitans(Rev. 2:6) where most true NT churches first have their candlestick removed and no longer have Christ as their head. Then what ill-doctrinal direction this social gathering(because that is all they are now) goes is entirely up to them.

On baptism, we see that Jesus Christ traveled from the sea of Galilee on foot to where John was baptising, which is approximately 30 miles one way, and then soon after went back on foot to the sea of Galilee to call disciples that had already been baptised. Jesus Christ, who is God, certainly had no need of being baptised as John clearly points out, but I believe he did it as an example for us. Why waste so much time making sure the right person baptised him? Why not just have one of those already baptised believing disciples at the sea of Galilee baptise him there? Was there not water? Was there not a believer who had been baptised? But the authority was given by God to John the Baptist. And then in Matt. 28 we see Christ give that authority to the NT church. If it was important to Christ, it certainly should be important to us.

On the Lord's Supper, we also see Christ give an example again to how it ought to be done. It was only the 12 disciples and Jesus Christ which partook of the Lord's Supper. There were many other believers at that time, yet none of them were present, even though they were only half an hours walk away in Simon the lepers house, in Bethany.

And then in 1 Cor. 5 we see a man who was not to partake of the Lord's Supper even though he was a baptised believer. Some then try to use 1 Cor. 11 in an attempt to negate or ignore what was done in 1 Cor. 5, but I say you have to get through 1 Cor. 5 before you can get to 1 Cor. 11. It is only after examining each other to make certain that no one is taking of the supper unworthily, that we can then examine ourselves and prayerfully ascertain whether we are also able to partake.

God bless!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
itch,
Regardless of what you believe about what FUTURE events, you are labeled a "Brider" by those who do not hold to closed communion and baptism by proper authority, mode, and candidate(all three, not just one). The belief that only those who are saved and part of a scriptural NT church will make up the bride is no different then us debating pre-tribe, pre-wrath, post-tribe, etc. Those things haven't happened yet. However, if you have held to closed communion and baptism only with proper authority, and therefore "church" only meaning a local congregating entity, you have therefore been labeled a "brider" and a "landmarkist" by those who have left Christ's church for the doctrine of the Nicolaitans(namely protestants and catholics). They used to label us Baptists, but now that's too broad a term.
by JJ
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^



You call yourself a baptist, yet I believe your doctrines are heretical. How is that any different from them? There was certainly more then one group called Paulicans by the orthodox church. There was certainly more then one group called Waldenses and Albigenses. However, does that mean they all believed the same things with each other? Or was it just like you calling yourself a baptist yet believing that proper authority for baptism is not necessary?

If the orthodox church labeled every "heretic" in those time periods a certain way, based on region or time period, would it mean that each of those groups agreed or that each of those groups were pure in doctrine and truth? Obviously not so of the label "baptist" anymore either.

Yet there are some who were of right doctrine. They did not all believe as you and your orthodox commorades label them. Nor are all the labels or beliefs that an organization gives to it's enemies accurate.
by JJ
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I would like to comment on the those posts which demean our Baptist heritage based on what early groups did or did not do and try to correct what I believe are fallacies in your reasoning.

First, when the first persecutions came in Jerusalem and drove the believers into the utter most parts of the then known world do you believe that each person left the area with a complete bible and a list of the Baptist distinctives? Certainly they did not, as a matter of fact they left with the Old Testament and a belief that Jesus Christ was the promised Messiah and their Saviour, they took that limited knowledge and went into the highways and by ways of the land telling folks that they had to believe on Jesus Christ and repent to be saved.

Not every group of believers had all of the Old Testament for many were armed simply with their experience and the limited knowledge concerning how they were saved. The church at Jerusalem was in fact the beginning of all the churches in the region and in Asia Minor including all those made mention of in Revelation. In Ephesians 4 (though some will disagree) I believe the primary intent of 4:11ff was to assure the church at Ephesus that not having in their midst those with all the gifts was no reason not to share Christ because each of them had experienced the grace of God and each was expected to speak the truth in love.

With the command to go into all the world and preach and teach Christ is it of little wonder that some groups along the way taught what we would consider heresy today but the question remains did they teach that salvation was only through Jesus Christ obtained by faith and demonstrated by repentance, that believers only were to be baptized by immersion, and that the scriptures beginning with the Old Testament and later epistles that were passed from church to church were the final authority. At best guess (ok some study) the four gospels were not agreed upon until around 150 A.D. and it was near 180 to 196 before we had compiled most of the circulars that later were to become the N.T.
So were believers not to meet until the New Testament was completed? Perhaps the writer of Hebrews had this in mind when he penned 10:25? What I am saying is that there was no school of theology that is why Jesus taught the disciples and Paul out of due time, that is why some had allowed wolves in sheep clothing to enter in unawares, that is why there were so many warnings written by those who cared about all the churches.

Secondly the original Ana-Baptist groups that have been maligned by some of the posts on this thread stood against what they knew to be false, primarily that church authority should not be in a false structure controlled by men but in local assemblies controlled or guided by scripture, that Baptism was only for believers, that the state had no say so in the local church, that saving faith was only in Jesus Christ and not the law or institution and that Lord?s Supper was to be local and for members only. Consider that at the close of the first century there were approximately 500,000 believers and around 300 churches most many miles from one another. Their separation from the world and false believers demanded that unless their reputation was observable they could not partake of the Supper, period.

Thirdly concerning early groups such as the Montanists and the Novatian?s keep in mind that they were responsible to God to practice biblically what they knew to be truth and they are noted in our heritage because of their stand on the beliefs mentioned above. @Kevin the majority of the info you referred quotes current writers for instance the Montanist info quotes no one prior to 1987 the Donatist quoted no one prior to 1944 I have in my private library books that go back to the late 1800?s and that quote sources from the 1600 and 1700?s I did not check all of your sources but I can pretty much guarantee that the larger portion of those works quoted are from Catholic and reformed writers who have deliberately strove to replace our historic Anna-Baptist history with revisionism.

Most Catholic writings refer to Anna Baptist?s as heretics and most reformed writers simply write us off as not true Baptist?s because we were not called Baptist. You will also find that hundreds if not thousands of Anna-Baptists were put to death by burning and drowning by the Reformers. I would challenge you to read some of the following works.

History of the Baptist?s by Thomas Armitage 1897

Short History of the Baptist?s by H.C. Vedder 1907

Baptist History by J.A. Shackleford 1892

Get away from revisionist writings and read from an era when integrity and truth in writings was still appreciated. Revisionist writing began as early as 1950 primarily through the liberal SBC universities and colleges who sponsored many of the writers who wanted to remove opposition to their liberal ideologies and German higher rationalism theology. Since those within the Anna-Baptist groups were preaching against their liberal way the loudest many of the liberal believers/unbelievers turned their pens toward our historical demise. Today it is hard to find churches who believe that our history goes back to the first century for we are baptizers by immersion, we separatists by choice, we are soul winners by command and we chose to observe the communion in order to remember what Christ did for us.

It is not my desire to attack anyone but if this is a Baptist board and it is then let us defend our heritage and not depend nor quote the revisionists who act on their own purposes and have yet to survive a two hundred year persecution. Show me one time in history where reformed Baptists have had to go underground for more than 3 or 4 years. Thomas Munzer does not qualify since he did not believe in nor practice baptism.

Stick around for surely history will repeat its self and we shall be persecuted once more for our faith then you will see why the Anna Baptist?s refused another?s Baptism and rejected the state run church or the church run state, you will see why the Anna Baptists desired a pure untarnished local body and prevented anyone but those known to them to participate in communion. You see there were historical reasons for many of the stands they took and local purity and separation were just two of these reasons.

What would you do today if you could be turned into the authorities and tortured for preaching, for baptizing, for taking communion? What kind of defenses would you put in place to protect your loved ones and your local assembly?

Do you think you might require Baptism so as to link the baptized with body, communion to be closed, purity for God?s protection and blessings?

orvals
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
First, What need did Jesus have to be baptized? Absolutely None. He is God Almighty in the flesh and has absolutely no need of anything. Yet he was baptized as an example for us. He was baptized BEFORE he called his New Testament church.

Take out a map. Jesus Christ was at the sea of Galilee. Then he traveled south approx. 30 miles on foot to be baptized by John the Baptist. Then he went back up to the sea of Galilee to call disciples that were already baptized by John. If it wasn't so important who did the baptizing, why did Jesus Christ waste(according to your line of thinking) so much time in being baptized by the right person? Why did he ask John to suffer it to be so? Why not just ask one of those disciples around the sea of Galilee to baptize him right there and save him the trip? Yet the Father spake, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Go walk 60 miles on foot and tell me if he must have thought it was important.

If it was important to Jesus Christ, it's certainly important to me. Then Jesus Christ commissioned the NT church:

"Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

Observe that the audience was the eleven disciples. Not every believer at that time, only those who were first placed within the NT church. Then those who were added later(and as it divided) were to fulfill that same commission until this day.

"It doesn't matter who baptizes someone, as long as they are a believer."
"I don't need proper authority to baptize people."
You will need to take that one up with the Lord. He didn't commission the world to baptize. He commissioned the NT church which he built to baptize. Baptism isn't about getting saved. People in the OT were saved and none of them were baptized. It is about separation from the world unto Christ. That is something which happens after salvation. For Israel it was done through circumcision, representing the law. In the NT it is done through baptism representing the death and resurrection of our Lord and Savior, in which we take on his death and resurrection and live with newness of life.

@Calvary,

If it was all about self, then Christ would not have died for us. However, he gave his life for us and requires of us to submit one to another within the NT church.

Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt(rock salt) have lost his savor, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick(stick with many candle holders); and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

You see, when you do it by yourself, the glory of men goes to you. But when it is done within Christ's NT church, the glory goes to God. Not only that, but according to Matt. 5:13 when you do it by yourself you will lose your effectiveness and be of no use for Christ.
by JJ
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Seth Doty wrote:
Quote:
If it wasn't so important who did the baptizing, why did Jesus Christ waste(according to your line of thinking) so much time in being baptized by the right person? Why did he ask John to suffer it to be so? Why not just ask one of those disciples around the sea of Galilee to baptize him right there and save him the trip? Yet the Father spake, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Go walk 60 miles on foot and tell me if he must have thought it was important.



The baptism of John is NOT the same as the baptism of the NT believer.


Oh, it isn't? You are confusing water baptism and baptism of the Holy Ghost. Water baptism is the same as it was back then. I guess the ethiopian eunuch got baptized the wrong way, and so did Cornelius and his household by Peter, and so did the Ephesians, first by Apollos and again, the wrong way by Paul. I guess Peter must have been lying when he said:

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.



Quote:
"Mathew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:"



You might want to study that word "unto". Water baptism is still today a representation of turning(repentance) from this world to the things of Christ. It is being buried with him and being raised with him. It represents what took place at salvation and is an expression of the believer to the world showing whom they name as their Lord.


Quote:
"Acts 19:4-5 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."



Did you notice that those Ephesians in that chapter were the only people we have in the NT that needed to be rebaptized? Apollos did not need to be rebaptized. Yet Apollos, who baptized them, did not have the authority to baptize them. So they were rebaptized. Apollos was baptized under the same understanding as them. But no where do we see him being rebaptized.



Quote:
Johns baptism was preparation for Christ and the NT. The NT believer is baptized after repentance as identification with Christ. Not the same thing.


Do you believe Christ needed to be baptized? If John was baptizing "unto repentance" then why would Christ need his baptism?

(Answer: He didn't need it, but did so as an example for us.)

Also, why did Peter in Acts 2 offer to baptize them "for the remission of sins" if baptism by water unto repentance was no longer an important thing?





zealyouthguy wrote:
So if someone gets saved and then gets baptized (by immersion) in a community church that has elders instead of a solo pastor and some deacons.

Are they part of the NT church? Is that a legitimate Baptism? Again the question about Southern Baptist Church. Do you accept their baptism of the believer?


It purely depends upon the church. Are their doctrinal beliefs lined up with that of the scriptures regarding salvation, baptism, and the Lord's Supper? Is the presence of the Lord in their midst? If Christ isn't present among them then they are no church of his. There are probably still a few southern baptist churches that may still be his churches, but that would be a church by church basis. It would be foolish to make some general claim as to all of them.
by JJ
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Seth Doty wrote:
Quote:
Did you notice that those Ephesians in that chapter were the only people we have in the NT that needed to be rebaptized?


Why exactly do you think that would be?


Because they were the only people we have in the NT not baptized by John or by the NT church.


Quote:
Yet Apollos, who baptized them, did not have the authority to baptize them.


There is as far as I am aware no proof that Apollos baptised them, that is just a extra-biblical supposition. The verse does not state "Apollos didn't have the authority to baptise you, you need to do it again." It just says certain "disciples" not necessarily disciples of Apollos. The only reason it gives for re-baptising was because they knew only the baptism of John.

[kevinmiller]

Whoa....that's not ten-year-old lingo. lol
No offense, but I really haven't got the time to read that. And I'm not saying it because I'm lazy or bored, I really don't have the time to take and read through all of that while trying to keep note of the points you are making. Could you condense what you think constitutes a true church into a few bullet points?

[sarcrew]

Kevin, I would have to agree - I bet that post is probably the longest single post here!

Wayne

[Guest Guest]

He just copied and pasted the baptist brider thread. :roll I think I do have a good understanding of where he stands anyway though. :Green

[JerryNumbers]

Maybe I'll get the reward for the longest post of the month, or maybe even this year. :Bleh :roll :saint

Right, I copied and pasted some post, I think I mentioned that in that long post. As I said, they explained it better than I could.

Edited to add this.

I might add, there are 2 small book that explains this quite well.

The Glorious Church by Roy M. Reed copyright 1955

Baptist Doctrine by E. C. Gillentine copyright 1949

I've had mine for quite some time, they cost $1.50 each.

[5dumplings@home]

Whoa....that's not ten-year-old lingo. lol
No offense, but I really haven't got the time to read that. And I'm not saying it because I'm lazy or bored, I really don't have the time to take and read through all of that while trying to keep note of the points you are making. Could you condense what you think constitutes a true church into a few bullet points?

:faint:

Yep. That's gonna take me a while to weed through...I have 5 kids under foot.

[5dumplings@home]

Alright, my reply to one part of Jerry808's posting. It's long for some reason.

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?

~~Accepting baptism does not mean you are aligning yourself with anyone. It means what took place was done according to the Scriptures. It does not mean you condone anything else they do. If someone wants to join your church and you make them get re-baptized, you are telling them that basically anything they did before they met you was worthless. At least that?s how I would read it.



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.

~~As if no one ever lied to you in your days as pastor. People lie. That?s what they do. They are sinners, saved or not. God will judge. Do you monitor what people watch on television and listen to on the radio as well? There are wolves there. How about what they read? There are wolves there.

~~You protect your people from wolves by preaching the whole counsel of God. You preach the truth every Sunday. When you get wind of a contrary doctrine floating about, you preach about it. You speak directly with the person spouting it. If necessary, if the offender is in a teaching position, you remove him from said position.

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

~~ Our church accepts baptisms from other churches. Guess what? I have yet to see disgruntled members and/or troublemakers from other churches. Granted, I am not in leadership at this time, but most people who come are happy to have found a church that doesn?t have contemporary services and are glad to use a hymnal again. Others have come because they have transferred to the area with a job and want a like-minded church.

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?

~~What does knowing someone is circumcised have to do with something public like baptism?

~~The body of Christ is made up of believers. Believers from one church are as much a part of the body of Christ as the believers from another church. We are all one body. If I am baptized by one church, then technically, the whole body has witnessed the baptism.

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.

~~Is your church the only church that has credible witnesses? Then God have mercy upon our souls. Our churches are filled with lying scum. Do you automatically assume that when one says he was Scripturally baptized he is a liar? Thanks a lot for your vote of confidence in my integrity.

Sheesh, that?s enough for now.

[JerryNumbers]

The thing is, God has His way, for us to be obedient to Him we must do things His way.

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 (KJV)

To know God's way we must study the whole Bible, dig into it, where we can rightly divide the Word of the truth and know what God expects out of us. I understand well, they are many people that thinks any building that says church on it is Jesus' Church, but that is far from true.

Its not about me, its not about anyone on earth, its about God and His way of doing things.

Its been explained, very good by Orvals and JJ.

If someone comes to our church, wants to join my letter or statement, if they do not have a scriptural baptism by a scriptural church, they will either submit to baptizing or never become a member of our church.

If that makes them mad, they need to take it up with God. We stand firm on God's Word, all of it, we try to please Him in every way. Sometimes God's way does not please man.

1 Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more.
1 Thess 4:1 (KJV)

10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
Gal 1:10 (KJV)

33 Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.
1 Cor 10:33 (KJV)

[5dumplings@home]

If someone comes to our church, wants to join my letter or statement, if they do not have a scriptural baptism by a scriptural church, they will either submit to baptizing or never become a member of our church.

Jerry, with all due respect, you have been talking about re-baptizing all who come to your church regardless of the status of their baptism--Scriptural or no.

Apart from baptism being commanded there are real reasons to practice re-baptism and not accept alien baptism.

This is what you posted from Orvals, I think. You said he explained it well.

Now you are saying that it depends upon whether it was Scriptural baptism or not. You need to make up your mind. Are you re-baptizing ALL or just those who were NOT baptized correctly?

[Bakershalfdozen]

And just what is Scriptural baptism, Jerrynumbers?

If a person was led to the Lord by a non-IFB but still was truly born again (repentance/confession/faith) and was subsequently baptized as an evidence of their faith, the baptism is valid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Invalid baptisms are:

Sprinkling or whatever as an affirmation into a particular denomination Immersion into a particular denomination As a means of salvation After a false profession[/list:u] But if you have a person who was truly born again and followed the Lord in baptism out of love and obedience, the baptism is the believer's baptism, not the baptizer's baptism. It doesn't matter if the baptizer was SBC, PCA, green, blue or purple, it was the believer who believed and was obedient!

• Sprinkling as a baby