Just Curious

[kevinmiller]

What gives the church the "authority" to baptize? If the pastor was ordained by a Baptist preacher?

[JerryNumbers]

Because the local church is the authority, the pastor is under the authority of his church, and outside of the church he is pastor of he has no authority. I don't have time to go into great detail on this right now, but the apostle did not pass along no authority as some claim, such as the RCC.

18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Matt 28:18-20 (KJV)

So if Jesus was giving authority only to the apostles in these verses and other such verses their authority died with them, for they did not have power to pass it on to anyone, but that is not the case, Jesus gave authority to His churches.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Matt 16:18-19

We know very well that the RCC teaches these verse wrong, they claim Jesus built his church on Peter, but He did not, His church was built on Himself, and to His church he gave the keys, keys represents authority, His church has the keys, so what ever they bind, if its in accordance with God's written Word, it stands.

[kevinmiller]

You still didn't tell me "who" has the authority of God to baptize.

[JerryNumbers]

Yes I did, the local church. The pastor is under the authority of the local church, without it he has no authority.

[kevinmiller]

But then you said only those local churches that you agree with. You make some kind of distinction as to what kind of local church has that authority but have yet to give anything Biblical to show that some churches can baptize and some can't.

[JerryNumbers]

But then you said only those local churches that you agree with. You make some kind of distinction as to what kind of local church has that authority but have yet to give anything Biblical to show that some churches can baptize and some can't.

No, what I said was false teaching churches do not have no authority for God.

[kevinmiller]

Where's the Scripture for that? Obviously, you have no spiritual authority if you are unsaved but where does the Bible say that a church differing in minor points of doctrine can't baptize? It doesn't.

[Salyan]

'Differing in minor points of doctrine' and 'false teaching' are not the same thing. If a church is teaching heresy, it is not abiding in God's truth...

"Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you..." ...goes hand in hand with the authority to baptize.

I'm not sure those two thoughts 'flow,' but that last part of the Great Commission stuck pretty firmly in my head as an answer to your question.

[orvals]

Kevin
I suppose that there is not a verse per say to spell my beliefs out in black and white. But since the local New Testament church is the representative authority for New Testament times then it would be reasonable to conclude that the authority of each local assembly is given by Christ to the pastor and deacons. There are ample verses that tell us to obey those who have been given the authority over us.

Why is baptism more than what was referenced? First of all those who are saved are commanded to be baptized as an evidence of their profession of faith. The pastor of the local church has no way of knowing if a person is saved as he was not present at their profession of faith nor was he present at their baptism. He must therefore depend on a statement of faith or a letter from a church that believes the same basic doctrines that he teaches to his people.

Would you accept the baptism of a Mormon, Seventh Day Adventist or perhaps Church of Christ how about Presbyterian or Pentecostal? Would you allow just anyone to join your membership? If not how would you distinguish between those whose baptism you accept and those whose baptism you would not accept?

Understand this, in our culture today the term Baptist means very little for we as a whole have lost our peculiar distinctives of which salvation by grace through faith, local New Testament church only, closed communion and baptism by emersion were defended with great passion. When you tell me that the authority of baptism has no bearing on the candidate you are essentially telling me that you hold to an ecumenical belief system. That all churches are equal and that doctrine is of no consequence to join the local assembly the only qualifier is was the person baptized.

The scriptures also tell us that unless two agree they cannot walk together, the scriptures also tell us to mark those that walk contrary to sound doctrine and avoid them. (Ro 16:17)

So in essence I should allow anyone membership into my church as long as they are baptized for that is all the scriptures require (apart from salvation) but once they are in my membership I should mark them and avoid them and not walk with them if they are doctrinally not in alignment with what we teach.

If you took 50,000 SBC churches you might find 500 (?) that were doctrinally sound. Last November the SBC hosted the Building Bridges conference designed to span the gap between Calvinism and their brand of fundamentalism within the conference. One of their main speakers this year is Ed Stetzer who is an avowed supporter of the emergent church philosophy.
Tell me brother how do I protect the sheep in my flock from false doctrine if as you suggest I just accept anyone into membership as long as they tell me say they have been saved and baptized?

Orvals

[Guest Guest]

Kevin
I suppose that there is not a verse per say to spell my beliefs out in black and white. But since the local New Testament church is the representative authority for New Testament times then it would be reasonable to conclude that the authority of each local assembly is given by Christ to the pastor and deacons. There are ample verses that tell us to obey those who have been given the authority over us.

Why is baptism more than what was referenced? First of all those who are saved are commanded to be baptized as an evidence of their profession of faith. The pastor of the local church has no way of knowing if a person is saved as he was not present at their profession of faith nor was he present at their baptism. He must therefore depend on a statement of faith or a letter from a church that believes the same basic doctrines that he teaches to his people.

Would you accept the baptism of a Mormon, Seventh Day Adventist or perhaps Church of Christ how about Presbyterian or Pentecostal? Would you allow just anyone to join your membership? If not how would you distinguish between those whose baptism you accept and those whose baptism you would not accept?

Understand this, in our culture today the term Baptist means very little for we as a whole have lost our peculiar distinctives of which salvation by grace through faith, local New Testament church only, closed communion and baptism by emersion were defended with great passion. When you tell me that the authority of baptism has no bearing on the candidate you are essentially telling me that you hold to an ecumenical belief system. That all churches are equal and that doctrine is of no consequence to join the local assembly the only qualifier is was the person baptized.

The scriptures also tell us that unless two agree they cannot walk together, the scriptures also tell us to mark those that walk contrary to sound doctrine and avoid them. (Ro 16:17)

So in essence I should allow anyone membership into my church as long as they are baptized for that is all the scriptures require (apart from salvation) but once they are in my membership I should mark them and avoid them and not walk with them if they are doctrinally not in alignment with what we teach.

If you took 50,000 SBC churches you might find 500 (?) that were doctrinally sound. Last November the SBC hosted the Building Bridges conference designed to span the gap between Calvinism and their brand of fundamentalism within the conference. One of their main speakers this year is Ed Stetzer who is an avowed supporter of the emergent church philosophy.
Tell me brother how do I protect the sheep in my flock from false doctrine if as you suggest I just accept anyone into membership as long as they tell me say they have been saved and baptized?

Orvals

IMHO, this should get the "Biblical Post of the Day Award"! WOW... Very well, stated...Pastor!

[kevinmiller]

Why is baptism more than what was referenced? First of all those who are saved are commanded to be baptized as an evidence of their profession of faith. The pastor of the local church has no way of knowing if a person is saved as he was not present at their profession of faith nor was he present at their baptism. He must therefore depend on a statement of faith or a letter from a church that believes the same basic doctrines that he teaches to his people.

Hm, so since you don't have their statement of faith from the previous church, will you sit down with them and have them "pray a prayer" again, too? If you can't trust their honesty when it comes to baptism, how can you believe that they are actually saved either? Other doctrines aside from salvation and baptism are irrelevant to the baptism issue. Baptism is a picture, nothing more. It is not something that is necessary for anything, whether that be church "membership"(which I disagree with in some ways), or salvation or anything else.

Would you accept the baptism of a Mormon, Seventh Day Adventist or perhaps Church of Christ how about Presbyterian or Pentecostal? Would you allow just anyone to join your membership? If not how would you distinguish between those whose baptism you accept and those whose baptism you would not accept?

Thankfully, I'll never have to answer that question. lol
But, hypothetically speaking, I'll do my best to answer it. Accepting the baptism of a Mormon is irrelevant because a Mormon wouldn't be joining a Christian church, nor could they, being unsaved. The others would be on a case-by-case basis. If they were saved and baptized, it would be completely acceptable, regardless of the church they're coming from. Baptism is baptism is baptism. What church it takes place in has no bearing on a spiritual act. That's like saying that someone who was saved as a Pentecostal should be "saved" again when they join your Baptist church.

Understand this, in our culture today the term Baptist means very little for we as a whole have lost our peculiar distinctives of which salvation by grace through faith, local New Testament church only, closed communion and baptism by emersion were defended with great passion. When you tell me that the authority of baptism has no bearing on the candidate you are essentially telling me that you hold to an ecumenical belief system. That all churches are equal and that doctrine is of no consequence to join the local assembly the only qualifier is was the person baptized.

Well, I disagree with some of those, like local church only and closed communion. Local church only isn't historical Baptist doctrine, anyway, but that's another argument. Yes, I'll admit it, I'm ecumenical within the Body of Christ. I'll fellowship with and work beside of Christians who have a heart for God of many stripes. But that doesn't have any bearing on my beliefs on baptism and you can't tie them together, especially considering the fact that many IFB'ers here disagree with you, too. That being said, I don't care what historical Baptists believed or didn't believe about baptism because the Bible is the only thing that matters and is our sole source(or should be) for faith and practice.

The scriptures also tell us that unless two agree they cannot walk together, the scriptures also tell us to mark those that walk contrary to sound doctrine and avoid them. (Ro 16:17)

That was clearly talking about the saved and unsaved. But either way, this has nothing at all to do with baptism. Not a thing.

So in essence I should allow anyone membership into my church as long as they are baptized for that is all the scriptures require (apart from salvation) but once they are in my membership I should mark them and avoid them and not walk with them if they are doctrinally not in alignment with what we teach.

Yes to your first statement, no to your second. Yes, salvation is all that is required to be in a church fellowship. I would go farther and say that baptism is not required to be in the church. That's generally what happened but there is no Scripture to back up that you have to be baptized to fellowship with other believers. Scriptural baptism, done by anyone, is sufficient. As I said before, baptism is baptism is baptism. It's just an act and is not tied to who carried it out. And the Bible does not teach the extreme separation you advocate in your second statement. You mark people who are in sin or walking in opposition to Scripture and avoid them, not those who understand the Scriptures differently than you do. Every person in your church is going to interpret at least one Scriptural principle differently from you. I guarantee it(unless they are all yes-men and don't study for themselves). With your interpretation of separation, you must separate from everyone of your churchmembers. You can have church with yourself and that would be about the only way you could be true to your view of separation.

[JerryNumbers]

Kevin
I suppose that there is not a verse per say to spell my beliefs out in black and white. But since the local New Testament church is the representative authority for New Testament times then it would be reasonable to conclude that the authority of each local assembly is given by Christ to the pastor and deacons. There are ample verses that tell us to obey those who have been given the authority over us.

Why is baptism more than what was referenced? First of all those who are saved are commanded to be baptized as an evidence of their profession of faith. The pastor of the local church has no way of knowing if a person is saved as he was not present at their profession of faith nor was he present at their baptism. He must therefore depend on a statement of faith or a letter from a church that believes the same basic doctrines that he teaches to his people.

Would you accept the baptism of a Mormon, Seventh Day Adventist or perhaps Church of Christ how about Presbyterian or Pentecostal? Would you allow just anyone to join your membership? If not how would you distinguish between those whose baptism you accept and those whose baptism you would not accept?

Understand this, in our culture today the term Baptist means very little for we as a whole have lost our peculiar distinctives of which salvation by grace through faith, local New Testament church only, closed communion and baptism by emersion were defended with great passion. When you tell me that the authority of baptism has no bearing on the candidate you are essentially telling me that you hold to an ecumenical belief system. That all churches are equal and that doctrine is of no consequence to join the local assembly the only qualifier is was the person baptized.

The scriptures also tell us that unless two agree they cannot walk together, the scriptures also tell us to mark those that walk contrary to sound doctrine and avoid them. (Ro 16:17)

So in essence I should allow anyone membership into my church as long as they are baptized for that is all the scriptures require (apart from salvation) but once they are in my membership I should mark them and avoid them and not walk with them if they are doctrinally not in alignment with what we teach.

If you took 50,000 SBC churches you might find 500 (?) that were doctrinally sound. Last November the SBC hosted the Building Bridges conference designed to span the gap between Calvinism and their brand of fundamentalism within the conference. One of their main speakers this year is Ed Stetzer who is an avowed supporter of the emergent church philosophy.
Tell me brother how do I protect the sheep in my flock from false doctrine if as you suggest I just accept anyone into membership as long as they tell me say they have been saved and baptized?

Orvals

Amen and well said!

[Bro Ed]

Back to the original post for a sec if we may. One statement was made that I agree with on a qualitative level. The friend stated that she understood the IFB position on SBC members was that they were hell bound. While I don't agree with that, I do agree that there will not be any SBC in Heaven (Hold on before you get riled up). There also won't be any IFB, FWB AB, RCC, COC, or any other denomination we can initialize. According to my KJB, the only folks that are going to be in Heaven are those who are born again, washed in the blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. When we lose sight of that, we risk our on slide into idolatry and heresy.
Just something to think about!

[Guest Guest]

Back to the original post for a sec if we may. One statement was made that I agree with on a qualitative level. The friend stated that she understood the IFB position on SBC members was that they were hell bound. While I don't agree with that, I do agree that there will not be any SBC in Heaven (Hold on before you get riled up). There also won't be any IFB, FWB AB, RCC, COC, or any other denomination we can initialize. According to my KJB, the only folks that are going to be in Heaven are those who are born again, washed in the blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. When we lose sight of that, we risk our on slide into idolatry and heresy.
Just something to think about!

Bro Ed...I think that is definetly "something to thing about"! The thought of the idolatry and heresy of the RCC is NOT something that I want to even consider thinking about. Oh...how my heart breaks for the souls that have been "fooled" by the vicious lie of the RCC. This is my "birth" family, KWIM? Also, NOT to mention the other cults that are rapidly growing.


We should be proud to be "Washed in the blood of the Lamb". As we know, Satan started this HORRIBLE lie in Genesis 3:4-5... 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods (God), knowing good and evil. KJV 1611 AV.

[JerryNumbers]

Back to the original post for a sec if we may. One statement was made that I agree with on a qualitative level. The friend stated that she understood the IFB position on SBC members was that they were hell bound. While I don't agree with that, I do agree that there will not be any SBC in Heaven (Hold on before you get riled up). There also won't be any IFB, FWB AB, RCC, COC, or any other denomination we can initialize. According to my KJB, the only folks that are going to be in Heaven are those who are born again, washed in the blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. When we lose sight of that, we risk our on slide into idolatry and heresy.
Just something to think about!

The thing is, a church membership will not get a person into heaven. Yes I know, I know that some churches teach that if you not a member of our church you cannot enter heaven, coC and RCC being 2 of them.

I've never heard it taught in a Baptist Church that being a member of a certain church will gain one admission to heaven.

Jesus and Jesus only can gain a person admission to heaven.

6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 14:6 (KJV)

But that said, there are Christians who are in false teaching churches, these Christians are not truly following God, God cannot use them as He would like to, for they refuse to come out from among them. The closer we get to the coming of our Lord for His own, the more of that type of Christians there shall be. Many of them will have only their bare salvation, for all the wood, stubble, and hay will be burnt up. Sad to say, this will also be true for many who are members of true teaching churches.

11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;

13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.

15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

1 Cor 3:11-15 (KJV)

Of course to, in those false teaching churches there shall be many who have been led to a false hope of having everlasting life. Sad, for they who have chosen to believe a lie, they will hear these words.

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Matt 7:21-23 (KJV)

As I've always said, its not how much you know, it how you use what you do know even if its just a little, they're many who are ever learning, gaining knowledge with each week that goes by, but sad to say many of those fail to grasp God's truths, many of those who do fail completely to use that knowledge the proper way.

I recall asking a person who was attending the 40 day thing of Rick Warrens, she told me, that night she had learned, take a look around you, if there is not a lot of action taking place, go to where the action is, for your in a dead church and you need to move to a live church. All I could think about at that moment was, all the actions is taking place around that wide gate, many there be that be gathering up around it, but sad to say they are standing at the gate that leads to destruction. Hey, at that narrow gate, there is not much actions taking place, there are few who are gathered around it, the gate that lead to eternal life. I told this to the woman attending the 40 days class, she looked at me as if I was the devil himself. Rick Warren has some amazing followers, they will deny plain Bible truths to follow him.

13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Matt 7:13-14 (KJV)