Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Baptist Briders.


Recommended Posts

  • Members

I am not a Baptist Brider, nor have I added anything to baptism, beyond it being for believers and must be by immersion. I also believe it must be done by a pastor or preacher (of right doctrine, I will add), through the authority of a local church - not some Christian winging it. But I do not believe it must be done by a Baptist to be legitimate, nor by a certain church - that is what others have taught, not me.

First that you sling the word "foolish" around pretty lightly. You may want to do a little Bible study on that.
Second, that when you are not sure what someone say you interject a rather strange accusation/guess instead of asking for simple clarification.


I do not see anything wrong with stating to do something wrong or unbiblical is foolish. If I am using this term incorrectly, please show me. Thank you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 216
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

I notice several thing here Jerry:
First that you sling the word "foolish" around pretty lightly. You may want to do a little Bible study on that.
Second, that when you are not sure what someone say you interject a rather strange accusation/guess instead of asking for simple clarification.

Ever read Jonathon Swifts "A Modest Proposal"? Satire, God uses it in the Bible.

The statement was made on another thread (I think) that "If a SBC member came to our church and wanted to join he would have to be re-baptized we would not accept his SBC baptism."

There is serious error in this line of thinking, or in any "successional" line of thinking.

The requirements of baptism are that someone is a believer, and that it's by immersion... that's it. I mean you can add a whole bunch to it, but it's not biblical.



God include the above bolded... If you believe... and then WHAT you believe. It didn't say anything about ordinances, church polity or whatever.

If someone is a believer in Christ even if someone who is a total sham of a pastor, a false prophet if you will, baptizes someone by immersion, the baptism is still legitimate.

God is judging the heart of the one being baptized not the baptizer. There is no pedigree for baptismal rights and God is the only judge of the heart.


Why was it Jesus sought out John the Baptist to baptize Him. Because just any body did not have the authority, but God had given John the Baptist the authority to baptize, and so it is, only Jesus true church has authority to baptize.

How can you tell Jesus true Church, for they teach the whole Bible and leave nothing out of it and do not add to it.

False teaching church have no authority.

Yes, many will accept any baptizing, but many will accept almost any teachings.

Why did Jesus go to the trouble of going to John the Baptist? By your view He could have gotten anyone to baptize Him. There is a way that seems right to man, and that is the path many take when they use human reasoning. But Jesus did that which was pleasing in the sight of His Father, we should too.

I do not think the other Jerry said anything improper.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Why was it Jesus sought out John the Baptist to baptize Him. Because just any body did not have the authority, but God had given John the Baptist the authority to baptize, and so it is, only Jesus true church has authority to baptize.

How can you tell Jesus true Church, for they teach the whole Bible and leave nothing out of it and do not add to it.

False teaching church have no authority.

Yes, many will accept any baptizing, but many will accept almost any teachings.

Why did Jesus go to the trouble of going to John the Baptist? By your view He could have gotten anyone to baptize Him. There is a way that seems right to man, and that is the path many take when they use human reasoning. But Jesus did that which was pleasing in the sight of His Father, we should too.

I do not think the other Jerry said anything improper.


Now we are getting to why you guys think that some sort of succession is so important.

What are the requirements of baptism (please provide biblical support).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


Now we are getting to why you guys think that some sort of succession is so important.

What are the requirements of baptism (please provide biblical support).


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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :loco John was ONE person sent to prepare the way of the Lord.

"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:"

"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."


Johns baptism was preparation for Christ and the NT. The NT believer is baptized after repentance as identification with Christ. Not the same thing. :Green
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


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.




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.



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.




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?






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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? :loco

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.

Apollos was baptized under the same understanding as them. But no where do we see him being rebaptized.


Just because it is not mentioned in scripture doesn't mean that it didn't happen. He may indeed have been re-baptized, there is no biblical proof one way or the other. :Green

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


Of course not, either way, Christ would not have need to be baptized. :lol Example only.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


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.

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was no one else, according to the scriptures, that had been at Ephesus except Apollos, Priscilla, and Aquila.


There is no reason not to suppose that these disciples had not been under John and simply had gone to Ephesus prior to Johns death and thus were not familiar with Jesus. Actually, that would seem to make more sense since it says that the number of them was about 12. If they had been baptized under Apollos one would think that there would be more than that since we know from scripture that Apollos was a eloquent speaker and "mightily convinced the Jews". :thumb

The scriptures are infallible. This means that they are also consistent with each other. If the Holy Ghost had Luke specify that they were rebaptized here, then he would have also been consistent to state whether Apollos, who was of the same belief as them, had been rebaptized.


Well, you are certainly entitled to an opinion but I think that that is messed up theology. It is quite true that the scriptures are infallible and consistent with each other but it is equally true that they don't always give us all the details about a particular event. Else why would we have the harmony of the Gospels? They often refer to the same event but they do not always give the exact same details.

It is immature to say that just because the scriptures doesn't say it doesn't mean it didn't happen in a situation where the scriptures did specify for someone else afterwards


Ok, let me give you a case of that. The bible says Paul was baptized but it does not say that any of the other apostles were. Are we somehow to take that to mean that Paul was the only apostle who was baptized? :wink I don't think so, the bible simply didn't mention the baptism of the other apostles and it did mention the baptism of Paul. BTW if I somehow missed where it specifies the other apostles were baptized please point it out. :Green
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


The scriptures does say they were starting with:

Acts 1:21,22
Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.


John 1:35-
Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples; And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God! And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou? He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour. One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messiah which is being interpreted, the Christ.

Two which were disciples of John before being apostles.

Also you said that these 12 at Ephesus might have simply been disciples of John. However, they said they were baptized UNTO John's baptism. Not BY John. Also, Paul makes some very clear statements when writing to them in the book of Ephesians which clearly indicates that these men were Gentiles:
Eph. 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called Circumcision in the flesh made by hands.

The scriptures makes clear that John came for Israel, not for the Gentiles. No Gentiles were baptized until Cornelius and his household. Therefore, these certainly were not baptized by John.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Amen JJ, but many just cannot get a grip on it, they try to explain it away, even thought its right there in the Holy Scriptures.

They seem to love the theology of the protestants who came out of the Catholic Church.

I learned something just a while back about our local SBC Church, they will not let members of any other Baptist Church partake of the Lord Table, only members of their local church.

I learned this from a person who was attending it with full intentions of moving their letter to this church, they accepted their letter and the next time they served the Lord Supper they offered it to them.

They them asked the pastor about this, he told them, only members of a local church can partake of the Lords Supper, we invite no one outside of our local church to the Lord's Table. They also will not accept a none Baptist baptizing, all others will have to be baptized if they want membership with them, and even some Baptist baptizing they will not accept. that is quite good for a SBC Church. And to think, some Baptist around here will accept almost anyones baptizing. Its a shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
They them asked the pastor about this' date=' he told them, only members of a local church can partake of the Lords Supper, we invite no one outside of our local church to the Lord's Table. They also will not accept a none Baptist baptizing, all others will have to be baptized if they want membership with them, and even some Baptist baptizing they will not accept. that is quite good for a SBC Church. And to think, some Baptist around here will accept almost anyones baptizing. Its a shame.[/quote']


I haven't seen anyone say that, of course it's a really good statement to say and try to get a few "amens", but the irony is you just PROVED the opposite of what has been mentioned. Your agreeing with people who don't agree with you.

Go back and ask those who posted that there is ONE baptism if they will accept the baptism of the SBC... then you can wag your finger "shaming" people.

And just where do you get off proclaiming people "love the theology of the protestants" stuff. Everyone I've seen here said that baptism is of the believer and not the baby. Just because your local SBC church believes that someone from a community church, or an assembly of God church or a "Bible church" that got baptized isn't legitimate, doesn't mean it's so. I've seen Bible churches that put almost every SBC church to shame.

Which "protestant" church believes that? Lutherns? nope... Methodists? Nope... Anglicans?... Nope.

You just basically made a false accusation, and then on top of it have some strange belief that the SBC church would be ok to accept a believers baptism out of but not, say a community church because they aren't "baptist". Unless I am misunderstanding you here. If so I apologize.

You can't have it both ways... if you would accept a SBC churches baptism, and not a church that believes and practices believers baptism then your being double minded.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Church exclusion is more characteristic of the Catholic church than accepting other churches' baptisms. A baptism is valid if done biblically, end of story. The Bible makes that very clear. "Baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost." NOT, "baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Baptist Church." :loco

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


I think you misunderstood him. He is saying that regardless of the church's label, what the church believes (and if they Spirit of God dwells amongst them: my insertion) is what makes the difference of whether their baptism will be accepted as scriptural or not. Not if they claim the title "Baptist". There are many churches that call themselves "Baptist" but are not worshiping scripturally. Therefore their authority from God is removed from them. Authority is given, not taken. Christ gave that authority to the NT church and if a NT church leaves behind his doctrines then they also leave behind Christ's authority. Therefore their baptism is unscriptural and has no recognition in the sight of God. His recognition is what matters.

John 4:23-24
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

We only recognize baptisms from churches that worship in Spirit and in truth.

@kevinmiller

The Catholic church is not based on exclusion but inclusion. Why do you thing there are so many conglomerated pagan religions combined in what they believe? Christ, however, was an exclusionist:

Luke 14
25
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...