Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

Who May Baptize?


God's Child
 Share

Recommended Posts


No church, regardless of their name, is immune from potential corruption. This is something we must guard against lest we and our own church turns from truth to wickedness as many others have.

The Bible gives no direct statement of "only men may baptize" but every example given in Scripture of those who did baptize were of men.

I agree that tradition or church teaching, unless it agrees with Scripture, isn't to be our guide.

God always has a remnant and thought the land be full of wicked, wayward and even false churches, there are yet those who follow Him. We can't toss out the baby with the bathwater, as it were, when we set forth to follow Christ. We are not, and never will be, the only one around who "get's it", while all others are in error.

If we submit to the teaching of the Holy Ghost in our lives and submit our will to the Lordship of Christ in our lives, we can walk in the Spirit and not in the flesh. The Word of God will be opened to us. The Spirit will guide us to the right church. The Spirit will ensure we rightly divide the Word of Truth.

This is controversial for some, but I don't believe the actual Great Commission is for all believers. Every believer can't go forth as missionaries. The actual Great Commission is a matter of the church and was placed in the hands of the first church leaders. This is where authority resides for sending forth missionaries, conducting the Lord's Supper, baptisms, etc.

No doubt, on a localized level each believer is to be a witness of Christ. This is different from the mandate given to the church.

(sorry, must go)

Great post, John. I especially like how you put the "controversial" part. All Christians (as members of the church of Christ) have a part in carrying out the GC, but they don't all play the same role, or to the same extent. The commission was given to the apostles/original church leaders, and we, the laypeople, missionaries, etc., work together under the accountability of these God-given leaders to fulfill the GC as a church. This truth applies to all aspects of the GC...teaching, baptizing, etc. Edited by Annie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That the great commision isn't for all believers, is not only controversial, but goes against almost all protestant beliefs, baptists or otherwise.

I'm praying you, but understand I am commanded to leave you in my heart. I will be married to Jesus Christ and no other.

Points:

A) Witnessing and baptising are the same statement. They can't be split there. When someone is saved, baptising is not only a witness to others that he was saved, they are a witness that the person preaching is giving Godly preaching that saves. Most baptisms in the bible were done out in the open or in front of others where the unsaved could witness it, not locked up in a church. They are almost never done by people other than directly those that witnessed. Even the apostolic tradition crowd has it this way - as wrong as they may be.

B-) To not do something that the bible commands is a sin. It doesn't say go out and witness - Blank.

C) We are to be wary as sheep among wolves. Its my Christian duty to inform you, that quite frankly this isn't the way it is in the bible, and the way its tending in these days is back to the Roman Catholic church and religious leaders as opposed to Jesus Christ alone, but this is exactly the sort of fornicating, to use the words of the bible, we should watch against. If God uses us to save someone, we should not fornicate with a church that God did not use to save them to begin with. Its a sin.

Lastly, all your word play will not change one thing. When God uses me to witness and save people, He already knows that I will baptize them as He commanded. If the Lord does not like that, He will not baptize them with the Holy Spirit next to me.

The prOBlem of faith is here with you. You've denied the Lord, and acted like its the words of men that save. It is not. I can not save anyone except the Lord gives me what to say, and gives the other person understanding. Denying the Lord in this way is also a horrible sin. Sinning basically because "all the other men do it other ways".

I've said my peace. I will continue praying for you regardless of whether you comment again or not, and my prayers for you may actually be better if you do not. That despite the fact that I know you are sinning against God, and sinning against me by trying to keep me from witnessing and baptising. May the Lord led you in all truth in these last days. God bless, may you repent quickly. Amen.

Edited by MaxKennedy
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Great post, John. I especially like how you put the "controversial" part. All Christians (as members of the church of Christ) have a part in carrying out the GC, but they don't all play the same role, or to the same extent. The commission was given to the apostles/original church leaders, and we, the laypeople, missionaries, etc., work together under the accountability of these God-given leaders (who provide accountability) to fulfill the GC as a church. This truth applies to all aspects of the GC...teaching, baptizing, etc.


No one has the authority to tell a child of God who he can or can not witness to and who he can or can not baptize.

And no one has the authority to tell Jesus Christ who he can or can not save.

All though not often talked about in these terms, this is men trying to tell God what he can do.

As a witness, the moment God saves someone through me or someone like me, it proves you wrong everytime. This is great sin, and you need to repent of telling people who they can and can not witness and baptize to. God determines that, and He is the one that does the saving, not you. God bless. Edited by MaxKennedy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

That the great commision isn't for all believers, is not only controversial, but goes against almost all protestant beliefs, baptists or otherwise.

I'm praying you, but understand I am commanded to leave you in my heart. I will be married to Jesus Christ and no other.

Points:

A) Witnessing and baptising are the same statement. They can't be split there. When someone is saved, baptising is not only a witness to others that he was saved, they are a witness that the person preaching is giving Godly preaching that saves. Most baptisms in the bible were done out in the open or in front of others where the unsaved could witness it, not locked up in a church. They are almost never done by people other than directly those that witnessed. Even the apostolic tradition crowd has it this way - as wrong as they may be.

B-) To not do something that the bible commands is a sin. It doesn't say go out and witness - Blank.

C) We are to be wary as sheep among wolves. Its my Christian duty to inform you, that quite frankly this isn't the way it is in the bible, and the way its tending in these days is back to the Roman Catholic church and religious leaders as opposed to Jesus Christ alone, but this is exactly the sort of fornicating, to use the words of the bible, we should watch against. If God uses us to save someone, we should not fornicate with a church that God did not use to save them to begin with. Its a sin.

Lastly, all your word play will not change one thing. When God uses me to witness and save people, He already knows that I will baptize them as He commanded. If the Lord does not like that, He will not baptize them with the Holy Spirit next to me.

The prOBlem of faith is here with you. You've denied the Lord, and acted like its the words of men that save. It is not. I can not save anyone except the Lord gives me what to say, and gives the other person understanding. Denying the Lord in this way is also a horrible sin. Sinning basically because "all the other men do it other ways".

I've said my peace. I will continue praying for you regardless of whether you comment again or not, and my prayers for you may actually be better if you do not. That despite the fact that I know you are sinning against God, and sinning against me by trying to keep me from witnessing and baptising. May the Lord led you in all truth in these last days. God bless, may you repent quickly. Amen.


Hello, Earth to Max! Hello, anyone in there? Okay, I guess no one is home! :smilie_loco:4
Link to comment
Share on other sites


No one has the authority to tell a child of God who he can or can not witness to and who he can or can not baptize.

Except for God Himself, right? What does He have to say about the matter in NT Scripture? The Great Commission isn't the only verse about this matter; there's a bunch more Scriptural information to be taken into account. You're missing this. You're not taking into account the whole counsel of God on this matter, IMO.

And no one has the authority to tell Jesus Christ who he can or can not save.

You've got that right, brother!

All though not often talked about in these terms, this is men trying to tell God what he can do.

How so?
Link to comment
Share on other sites



How so?


This is a continuation of the same sin of the catholic church, which if we followed the way "everyone" was doing baptised, we would be baptising infants by making a mark on their forhead with our right hand, and calling ourselves fathers because we willy nilly put the Holy Spirit in them.

Although most of us seem to confess believers baptism, that we don't put the Holy Spirit in anyone like simon the sorcerer thought from acts, its the will of God and not men (John 1), and we don't put marks on people, care about what hand we use, and believe in full emersion in water as the mode, its pretty clear some of us have ritualized it anyway.

As Peter says, if they've been baptized with the Holy Spirit, who can deny them water? You won't find all the various different ways "who" can baptise in the bible, because the bible doesn't say. In the bible, witnessing and baptising are part of the same act. Its not just a witness statement that the new born believer is saved, but a witness statement by the witnesser as well. You'll have to explain to me how trying to constrain someone with what is essentially a "license to baptise" is any different than a "license to witness", because they are one and the same. Water baptisim is only a witness that the person was saved, and nothing more.

Most baptisms occured at the same time that the believer was saved that are mentioned in the bible, and most outside where persumably where the unsaved could see it as well, and not in church. Philip is an example. Pentecost is an example. There was no time delay. There was no magic. They were already saved, so they were baptised on the spot.

You'll have to explain to me the importance to you that a new born is brought to whoever you have approved to in vote, but if you are following Jesus Christ, it is enough that they were brought to Him, and He baptised them. The impression is you want committees and church rules to come between the Holy Spirit led believer and God, exactly like the pope and catholic priests must come before every believer.

If this is not the exact same blasphemy, explain it to me, because my heart has completely left you. You're saying God leds you to witness to someone, baptizes them by the Holy Spirit, and then I have to ask who your particular church has "authorized" to baptize (whoever that may be), and ask them permision (and maybe kiss their catholic rings as well).

This is strange doctrine. My heart has left you. When Jesus Christ baptizes, that is authorization. You don't need any from men. Adding anything to this is taking away from the glory of God, and the simplicity of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Baptising is only a celebration of what just occured, something the Lord permitted me to eat with him at his table, to his praise and glory and great goodness and mercy. Edited by MaxKennedy
Link to comment
Share on other sites




This is a continuation of the same sin of the catholic church, which if we followed the way "everyone" was doing baptised, we would be baptising infants by making a mark on their forhead with our right hand, and calling ourselves fathers because we willy nilly put the Holy Spirit in them.

Although most of us seem to confess believers baptism, that we don't put the Holy Spirit in anyone like simon the sorcerer thought from acts, its the will of God and not men (John 1), and we don't put marks on people, care about what hand we use, and believe in full emersion in water as the mode, its pretty clear some of us have ritualized it anyway.

As Peter says, if they've been baptized with the Holy Spirit, who can deny them water? You won't find all the various different ways "who" can baptise in the bible, because the bible doesn't say. In the bible, witnessing and baptising are part of the same act. Its not just a witness statement that the new born believer is saved, but a witness statement by the witnesser as well. You'll have to explain to me how trying to constrain someone with what is essentially a "license to baptise" is any different than a "license to witness", because they are one and the same. Water baptisim is only a witness that the person was saved, and nothing more.

Most baptisms occured at the same time that the believer was saved that are mentioned in the bible, and most outside where persumably where the unsaved could see it as well, and not in church. Philip is an example. Pentecost is an example. There was no time delay. There was no magic. They were already saved, so they were baptised on the spot.

You'll have to explain to me the importance to you that a new born is brought to whoever you have approved to in vote, but if you are following Jesus Christ, it is enough that they were brought to Him, and He baptised them. The impression is you want committees and church rules to come between the Holy Spirit led believer and God, exactly like the pope and catholic priests must come before every believer.

If this is not the exact same blasphemy, explain it to me, because my heart has completely left you. You're saying God leds you to witness to someone, baptizes them by the Holy Spirit, and then I have to ask who your particular church has "authorized" to baptize (whoever that may be), and ask them permision (and maybe kiss their catholic rings as well).

This is strange doctrine. My heart has left you. When Jesus Christ baptizes, that is authorization. You don't need any from men. Adding anything to this is taking away from the glory of God, and the simplicity of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Baptising is only a celebration of what just occured, something the Lord permitted me to eat with him at his table, to his praise and glory and great goodness and mercy.

Max, your comparisons of my statements with RCC dogma are unsound. The RCC has gone too far; it has abused the legitimate authority given in Scripture to church leaders. But you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater when you say that there is NO authority to which the church (specifically, local bodies) should be accountable. It's right there in Scripture, throughout the NT: God set up men to oversee the church, and the activities of the church. I agree: if someone has been saved, then no one is to keep that person from being baptized. By the same token, it is unwise and confusing for a would-be convert to "profess faith" and be immediately baptized by whoever happened to be there, only to find out later that he really didn't understand the gospel, or what was involved in following Christ. That's why God gave pastors, teachers, etc....for accountability, wisdom, and direction in these matters. Without this accountability, chaos could easily ensue.

I'd be interested in your comments on I Corinthians 1. Paul, although he witnessed to many people, did not baptize them all, as you say he should have done (or else be sinning). This passage speaks of other leaders (but all leaders, mind you) who carried out the task of overseeing the baptism of converts.

Also, just to clarify, I don't think pastors (or other church leaders ordained by God) have to be the ones baptizing everybody...just that baptism, as an activity of the church, should be overseen by these men, just like it was at Pentecost and with Philip (an apostle). Edited by Annie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I am in a little heat at our local IFB Church because I allowed my Dad to baptize our daughter. He is called to preach, but not under IFB standards. I searched the Bible and didn't see a reason where I shouldn't allow my dad to do this. I don't see why others in a Church can't perform a baptism of a new believer. My dad Baptized our daughter at a local lake.

So, I wonder what others could add to this question, "Who May Baptize?"

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them…”

As a side note, it seems my daughter can't partake of communion at our Church since we followed through with this baptism. Is this normal IFB doctrine being followed?

Please refer to my post #56, 'God's Child'. In Scripture, baptism is primarily a witness to the one baptised of the perfect cleansing of the conscience.

We presume your daughter has been baptised as a believer, in the name of the Trinity, confessing her faith in Jesus Christ, crucified & risen, as her Lord & Saviour.

She should therefore be welcomed at the communion table, & into church membership. It is hurtful to be rejected as a baptised believer when she should be welcomed with love as a new-born sister in Christ.

You church is being sectarian, & legalistic. Doing the act of baptist "right" should not be an issue. God is concerned with life & the spirit, not technicalities.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


Please refer to my post #56, 'God's Child'. In Scripture, baptism is primarily a witness to the one baptised of the perfect cleansing of the conscience.

We presume your daughter has been baptised as a believer, in the name of the Trinity, confessing her faith in Jesus Christ, crucified & risen, as her Lord & Saviour.

She should therefore be welcomed at the communion table, & into church membership. It is hurtful to be rejected as a baptised believer when she should be welcomed with love as a new-born sister in Christ.

You church is being sectarian, & legalistic. Doing the act of baptist "right" should not be an issue. God is concerned with life & the spirit, not technicalities.


I did talk with my pastor about my daughter taking communion and he said he can't "police" what I do when the bread and juice are served. He seems hesitant to really state what is on his mind. His wife is clear that she believes my daughter MUST NOT partake and that her baptism was illegitimate. Oh well ..... no Church is perfect, right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Part of your pastor's hesitancy may be that he doesn't want to offend you, but I'm more interested in why your father was called to preach "but not under IFB standards." There may be something else going on just under the radar that your pastor may not be at liberty to discuss with you.

When you joined your church, you agreed to submit to the authority of that church. And if you believe baptism is a local-church ordinance, as 99.99 percent of IFB'ers do, then each local church sets the guidelines. You would hope each local church would follow scripture regarding baptisms. But the church can deny your daughter's participation in the Lord's supper if they believe her baptism is invalid. Again, the Lord's Supper is a local church ordinance and each church can set the guidelines.

If its guidelines go against the Bible, then maybe you should break fellowship with the church. If it's a matter of the church authorizes only its pastor to perform baptisms, I'm not sure that qualifies as against the Bible. But whatever your church's guidelines are, you either need to submit to them or find another church.

BTW, the pastor's wife has no authority in this matter and shouldn't be making her feelings known to anyone else but her husband.

Mitch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Part of your pastor's hesitancy may be that he doesn't want to offend you, but I'm more interested in why your father was called to preach "but not under IFB standards." There may be something else going on just under the radar that your pastor may not be at liberty to discuss with you.

When you joined your church, you agreed to submit to the authority of that church. And if you believe baptism is a local-church ordinance, as 99.99 percent of IFB'ers do, then each local church sets the guidelines. You would hope each local church would follow scripture regarding baptisms. But the church can deny your daughter's participation in the Lord's supper if they believe her baptism is invalid. Again, the Lord's Supper is a local church ordinance and each church can set the guidelines.

If its guidelines go against the Bible, then maybe you should break fellowship with the church. If it's a matter of the church authorizes only its pastor to perform baptisms, I'm not sure that qualifies as against the Bible. But whatever your church's guidelines are, you either need to submit to them or find another church.

BTW, the pastor's wife has no authority in this matter and shouldn't be making her feelings known to anyone else but her husband.

Mitch


I thought it was already stated that my father isn't a Fundamental Baptist preacher, and hasn't gone through any official Bible college. The IFB Churches around here require that for the most part. Also, doctrine wise, he believes you can lose your salvation. Many IFB Churches around here don't require an external proof of repentance when someone is saved, and my father believes that repentance WILL result in a change. I married a lovely lady that has a background in Baptist Churches and we choose to fellowship with IFB Churches, but my dad has preached in mostly Holiness Churches and Freewill Baptist. I don't have a IFB background until just a few years ago.

I am seeking truth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I apologize if I missed your statement about your father being non-IFB. But from what you've said, your father doesn't agree with your church's doctrine, especially regarding eternal security. That's a "biggie" for most IFB churches (Bible college shouldn't be, though). Therefore, your church prOBably sees your daughter's baptism as being performed unscripturally, because it was performed by someone who doesn't agree with your church's doctrine. Based on what I understand of the circumstances, I would agree with your church's stand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I apologize if I missed your statement about your father being non-IFB. But from what you've said, your father doesn't agree with your church's doctrine, especially regarding eternal security. That's a "biggie" for most IFB churches (Bible college shouldn't be, though). Therefore, your church prOBably sees your daughter's baptism as being performed unscripturally, because it was performed by someone who doesn't agree with your church's doctrine. Based on what I understand of the circumstances, I would agree with your church's stand.


Surely our baptism should be based on our faith in Christ and not to which church we were baptised in?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist



Surely our baptism should be based on our faith in Christ and not to which church we were baptised in?


Yes, but...there is the prOBlem of some who baptize others putting forth wrong doctrine, wrong teaching, into the ears of those they baptize. They don't simply find out if they are biblically born again, understand what baptism is (and isn't), they go into teaching. If they are teaching unbiblically then it's possible the one being baptized has been misled and their baptism may not have actually been biblical.

Some teach all sorts of false doctrines before they baptize whether it be telling them baptism saves or is part of what saves them or that once baptized they must do good works to maintain their salvation, etc. If the one being baptized accepts these false teachings as part of their baptism then they are not partaking of a Scriptural baptism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



Yes, but...there is the prOBlem of some who baptize others putting forth wrong doctrine, wrong teaching, into the ears of those they baptize. They don't simply find out if they are biblically born again, understand what baptism is (and isn't), they go into teaching. If they are teaching unbiblically then it's possible the one being baptized has been misled and their baptism may not have actually been biblical.

Some teach all sorts of false doctrines before they baptize whether it be telling them baptism saves or is part of what saves them or that once baptized they must do good works to maintain their salvation, etc. If the one being baptized accepts these false teachings as part of their baptism then they are not partaking of a Scriptural baptism.


What do you believe/think about re-baptism? When my father first step foot into a IFB Church he was open to being apart of the fellowship. Because of his background (mostly what I already shared earlier in this thread) he was told he needed to be re-baptized. He didn't take that very well and left the fellowship. He didn't see a need to reboot his faith in such a manner.

My dad didn't teach my daughter anything when he baptized her. He just asked if she believed Jesus died for her sins and he baptized her in Jesus Name. Just as scripture illustrates. My wife and children believe they are eternally secure in their salvation (and not because of baptism). Since I am my fathers child I have held to the understanding you can give up the faith - but lately I think I could be wrong about that ..... Edited by God's Child
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
What do you believe/think about re-baptism? When my father first step foot into a IFB Church he was open to being apart of the fellowship. Because of his background (mostly what I already shared earlier in this thread) he was told he needed to be re-baptized. He didn't take that very well and left the fellowship. He didn't see a need to reboot his faith in such a manner.

Again, I'm not involved with this situation, so my responses are based strictly on what you're telling me. Your father was asking to be a part of a church that doesn't agree with his background. IFB'ers don't see eye-to-eye with Free Will Baptists, and are diametrically opposed to Pentacostal teachings. Most IFB churches would argue that those types of "denominations" teach a different Christ than the One in the Bible. So, if your father claims salvation under those circumstances, there would be some questions from the IFB church regarding whether his salvation is true. That's what salvation hinges on - who you think Christ really is. If you believe in a "different" or "incorrect" Christ, then your salvation would be suspect.

Now, your father may be truly saved and has just gotten involved in denominations that are in error. That's between him and God. However, based on the "external proof" of what your father has been involved in, then the IFB church is questioning him and has that right. Baptism being a local church ordinance, the church (and the pastor as the shepherd of that church) will be held accountable to how they "did" church. Many churches are filled with professing Christians who will be surprised when left behind at the rapture. And it's each local church's responsibility to do everything possible to make sure all its members are true believers.

This may be a poor illustration, but the only one I can think of right now. A doctor completes medical school from the University of North Carolina and moves to Omaha, Nebraska, to start his practice (Why, I wouldn't know :icon_mrgreen:). He has to get a Nebraska medical license first, despite graduating from one of the best medical schools in the United States. Just across the Missouri River is Council Bluffs, Iowa, considered part of the Omaha metropolitan area. If that doctor wants to open an office in Council Bluffs, he has to apply for an Iowa medical license.

Imagine his medical school graduation as a believer's salvation. The believer (doctor) wants to join a church, then he must be scripturally baptized (licensed) to join that church. If the believer moves on to another church (state), that church ensures the believer is saved and properly baptized (licensed) to join.

If your father is truly saved and the "external proof" satisfies the IFB church, then then the issue becomes one of authority. Do denominations founded by men, such as Pentecostals, Mormons, and yes, even Protestants, have scriptural authority to baptize? The majority of IFB churches would say no. IFB churches believe they are the closest to the actual church begun by Christ Himself, and the authority to baptize was given to true churches. Religions and denominations founded by men have usurped that authority from Christ. I'm not talking about apostolic succession, like the Roman Catholics teach. But IFB doctrine has been handed down since Christ, and the churches that have maintained that doctrine throughout history have the scriptural authority to baptize.

Look at it this way: Imagine a wire underneath a rug. Both ends of the wire are exposed at opposite sides of the rug. If you wiggle one end of the wire and the other end wiggles too, then it's safe to assume its the same wire, even though you can't see the entire wire. It's the same with Scriptural authority. The only authority the local church I pastor has is the authority given it by our sending church, which received its authority from its sending church, which ... I hope you get the picture.

To make a short answer even longer, your church prOBably doesn't recognize the scriptural authority of the church that baptized your father. Therefore, in your church's opinion, your father has not been properly baptized. If he wants to join the IFB church, then scriptural baptism is required and I'm sure they'll be more than happy to conduct it.

So, if that church believes your father has not been scripturally baptized, then they also believe he doesn't have the scriptural authority to baptize anyone else. Thus, the church believes your daughter's baptism is unscriptural.

Mitch

P.S., Actually, I'm somewhat surprised your church accepted you as a member if you don't believe in eternal security. I am making an assumption that your church teaches eternal security, as most IFB churches do. New members are usually required to agree with everything in the church's doctrinal statement before joining.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Surely our baptism should be based on our faith in Christ and not to which church we were baptised in?
You're exactly right that baptism is based on faith in Christ. That's why IFB churches are opposed to infant baptism, because an infant cannot come to faith in Christ. But, as I said in my response to God's Child, the issue of baptism also involves who has scriptural authority to baptize. Just because a building has the word "church" above its door doesn't mean it has scriptural authority to conduct baptisms.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


Again, I'm not involved with this situation, so my responses are based strictly on what you're telling me. Your father was asking to be a part of a church that doesn't agree with his background. IFB'ers don't see eye-to-eye with Free Will Baptists, and are diametrically opposed to Pentacostal teachings. Most IFB churches would argue that those types of "denominations" teach a different Christ than the One in the Bible. So, if your father claims salvation under those circumstances, there would be some questions from the IFB church regarding whether his salvation is true. That's what salvation hinges on - who you think Christ really is. If you believe in a "different" or "incorrect" Christ, then your salvation would be suspect.

Now, your father may be truly saved and has just gotten involved in denominations that are in error. That's between him and God. However, based on the "external proof" of what your father has been involved in, then the IFB church is questioning him and has that right. Baptism being a local church ordinance, the church (and the pastor as the shepherd of that church) will be held accountable to how they "did" church. Many churches are filled with professing Christians who will be surprised when left behind at the rapture. And it's each local church's responsibility to do everything possible to make sure all its members are true believers.

This may be a poor illustration, but the only one I can think of right now. A doctor completes medical school from the University of North Carolina and moves to Omaha, Nebraska, to start his practice (Why, I wouldn't know :icon_mrgreen:). He has to get a Nebraska medical license first, despite graduating from one of the best medical schools in the United States. Just across the Missouri River is Council Bluffs, Iowa, considered part of the Omaha metropolitan area. If that doctor wants to open an office in Council Bluffs, he has to apply for an Iowa medical license.

Imagine his medical school graduation as a believer's salvation. The believer (doctor) wants to join a church, then he must be scripturally baptized (licensed) to join that church. If the believer moves on to another church (state), that church ensures the believer is saved and properly baptized (licensed) to join.

If your father is truly saved and the "external proof" satisfies the IFB church, then then the issue becomes one of authority. Do denominations founded by men, such as Pentecostals, Mormons, and yes, even Protestants, have scriptural authority to baptize? The majority of IFB churches would say no. IFB churches believe they are the closest to the actual church begun by Christ Himself, and the authority to baptize was given to true churches. Religions and denominations founded by men have usurped that authority from Christ. I'm not talking about apostolic succession, like the Roman Catholics teach. But IFB doctrine has been handed down since Christ, and the churches that have maintained that doctrine throughout history have the scriptural authority to baptize.

Look at it this way: Imagine a wire underneath a rug. Both ends of the wire are exposed at opposite sides of the rug. If you wiggle one end of the wire and the other end wiggles too, then it's safe to assume its the same wire, even though you can't see the entire wire. It's the same with Scriptural authority. The only authority the local church I pastor has is the authority given it by our sending church, which received its authority from its sending church, which ... I hope you get the picture.

To make a short answer even longer, your church prOBably doesn't recognize the scriptural authority of the church that baptized your father. Therefore, in your church's opinion, your father has not been properly baptized. If he wants to join the IFB church, then scriptural baptism is required and I'm sure they'll be more than happy to conduct it.

So, if that church believes your father has not been scripturally baptized, then they also believe he doesn't have the scriptural authority to baptize anyone else. Thus, the church believes your daughter's baptism is unscriptural.

Mitch

P.S., Actually, I'm somewhat surprised your church accepted you as a member if you don't believe in eternal security. I am making an assumption that your church teaches eternal security, as most IFB churches do. New members are usually required to agree with everything in the church's doctrinal statement before joining.


You have given me much to think about. When we started visiting our current IFB Church we were encouraged to become members. We were asked if we ever were baptized. At the time I just said yes, but since then I have shared with my pastor I was baptized by a non-IFB pastor (the pastor of my childhood church). We never were asked to believe the Church's doctrinal statement and right now I'm not certain the Church has one (now that you mention it).

It seems IFB Churches/pastors believe differently. Some (like the IFB Church my dad went to) view Pentecostal Holiness churches and Freewill Baptist as completely useless and unscriptural, while others see them as okay but doctrinally off in some minor details. I can remember Oliver B Greene stating he had no prOBlem fellowshipping with all sorts of denominations as long as they believed in salvation by faith, no works. I was taught that "another Jesus" would be one that asked you to come to the cross another way besides faith (works). A Biblical example would be those who said law+faith was needed for salvation.

My personal testimony is simple. When I was in the first grade I started crying in class, the teacher asked what was wrong and it became clear I wanted to accept Jesus as my savior. She took me to another man and he went over salvation and I asked Jesus into my heart. All my life since then I have depended on God for salvation because the Bible said all I needed was to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation. I was baptized a few months after my first grade confession.

My mom and dad didn't teach me doctrinal truths much and after I got married my wife and I joined a IFB Church. Things didn't go well so we ended up in a Calvinistic Church. We left after learning more about election, attended Church of the Open Door in Westminster (55min ride) for awhile, and then we found an IFB Church closer to our house (we are still attending this church). All this time I have tried to understand and believe set doctrine, but it has been hard. After so many Churches (and audio preaching) I am confused. I am amazed at how sometimes a visiting preacher contradicts my own pastor.

I am open to understand the Bible alone, but I need guidance. I read words and don't know their true meaning. I seek help from men who are preachers and teachers only to see they contradict (leaving me to choose). I am told at my Church to just serve God more, don't ask questions but believe things by faith, and my one talent (singing with guitar) was smashed at our current Church when I was showed it was unholy. I have sold my old guitars (except one I keep to sing songs with the kids at home) and removed all CCM, bluegrass, gospel music from my house so that we can honer God and not have the world. We don't watch TV except a good movie here and there. But, my current pastor believe guitars don't have a place in the Church. We homeschool. We know that God wants us to be holy and not conformed to this world and we are working on that for fellowship with Him. We pray and read the Bible. We do it all for God and to have fellowship with Him.

Still. Understanding doctrines and explaining them to others is hard.

I am sick of Churches playing games with people. Some people really want to grow, and most of our Church friends are so worldly we have a hard time getting along. Everything at Church is service oriented. Join choir, tithe, help with building projects, clean church .... but nOBody really works to study together and understand the Bible. I have learned after two years at this current Church that the people are all on a different page. It's amazing what they believe.

It's not about us, but Christ!!!!!!!!!!

I believe I just have an understanding inside, but just not verbal. Almost like I can't express truth. Many times I say something (like the post about repentance)and it comes out wrong, but inside I know God saved me by his grace. Almost like i don't know the magic words to describe what is inside me.

I have found my songs written did good at describing Biblical truth, but sadly that is demonic. Maybe. I guess so since my pastor showed me that yoking with the world is a sin.

Forgive the scattered nature of this message. Edited by God's Child
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
It seems IFB Churches/pastors believe differently.

Please understand that I'm not being "snarky" when I say this, but that's what IFB churches are about. There is no hierarchy of men ruling over individual churches. That being said, it can also lead to myriad different practices and beliefs. That's why we're encouraged to be Bereans and verify the preaching with God's word.

Mitch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 33 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • Recent Achievements

    • ITJesus earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • ITJesus earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • JenM earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • ITJesus earned a badge
      First Post
    • ITJesus earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

    No members to show

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Barbara Ann

      I am a researcher and writer at Watch Unto Prayer which I started 25 years ago. On this website there are many well-documented articles and audio programs by myself and other researchers whose ministry is to expose the endtime apostasy of the Church. Now more than ever Christians need information in order to identify and avoid the various deceptions that are in nearly all the churches.
      My husband and I attended the IFB Bible Baptist Church of James Knox a couple of years ago. We left the church after we were informed by the assistant pastor that we were not allowed to express views to other members that do not agree with the views of the pastor and leaders of the church. We were not introducing heresy but expressing our views concerning the State of Israel. We had never been in a church which forbade private conversations on issues where there are diverse opinions. This we recognized as cultlike control of church members. To inform Christians, my husband, who is also a researcher and writer, started a website on the subject: Zionism Exposed: A Watchman Ministry.
      · 0 replies
    • Free Spirit

      Jesus said:"I am the truth, the way, and the life. No man can come to The Father, but by Me."
      · 0 replies
    • Richg  »  BrotherTony

      Brother Tony, I read your reply on Anderson, I know you all think I'm argumentative but, when you don't agree.....the first thought I had is, I wish you would introduce me to the guy that hasn't sinned, maybe David, that had a man killed so he could commit adultery, yet, he was & is a man after Gods own heart, or maybe Paul the guy that persecuted and had Christians killed, or maybe Richg or Kent H, or even you ! I used to listen to personalities also when I was younger but today and for some time, my only concern is, does it line up with scripture & to me its hilarious that you think "I'm in a fix" LOL, I interpreted what we've discussed perfectly, not because I'm smart, but because with an open mind to things of God, its an easy read.
      · 1 reply
    • Richg  »  Jerry

      I thought you wanted me to stop talking to you !
      · 0 replies
    • Richg  »  PastorMatt

      Why is it here in 2022 that truth is all of a sudden arrogance ?
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...